(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 1997
Afternoon
Volume 6, Number 24
Part 1
[ Page 5809 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Prayers.
I. Waddell: I've two introductions to make. First, I am very proud, as someone who was born in the United Kingdom -- we Scots call it the United Kingdom -- to introduce a friend of mine and a friend of British Columbia, a distinguished diplomat, Mr. Brian Austin, the consul general of the United Kingdom to British Columbia. I hope that the House will make him welcome.
While I am up, may I also introduce two distinguished people from Vancouver: Maureen Palfreyman, who is the president of Dubrulle French Culinary School, and an old friend of mine, Bob Sung, who is the registrar of that school. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Today in the members' gallery we have very special visitors from the People's Republic of China. Li Lan-feng is a vice-governor of Guangdong province, British Columbia's sister province in China, and she is accompanied by a delegation studying maternity and child health issues. Please join me in welcoming Vice-Governor Li and the members of her delegation to this House.
M. Coell: In the gallery today I have some friends visiting: Murray and Bernice Duncan from Shawnigan Lake, and Terry and Joan Hopkins from Chesterville, Ontario. Would the House please make them welcome.
G. Brewin: In the gallery today are 20 students from the Cumberland University law school in Birmingham, Alabama. They are here with Professor Nelson to consider comparative government and local history. Would the House please make them welcome.
G. Wilson: Today in the gallery we have with us someone who I am pleased to call a friend,
W. Hartley: Accompanying my spouse Alice and our daughter Wallis, we have visitors from Scotland: Duncan and Iris Rait and their son Matthew. Thanks to the generosity of the government Whip, I helped Duncan and Iris celebrate their twenty-fifth wedding anniversary last night. So let's congratulate and welcome them.
R. Neufeld: I rise on another one of those rare occasions to introduce to the House two people very near and dear to me. The other day members talked about extended family. I have some extended family here with me. Many of you will know that I am an adopted person, and I have in the House today my biological mother Frances Saynor and her husband Frank. Along with that family came two sisters and a niece and a nephew. When we talk about extended family, they work in marvellous ways, and I am pleased to welcome them to British Columbia -- they are from Calgary -- and to our Legislature. Would you please make them welcome.
G. Plant: I am delighted and somewhat surprised to see two good friends in the gallery. Lynette Heslop and her daughter Erica are the kind of people who make a community work. They are active in their schools, they are active in their church, they are active in all sorts of community activities -- and yes, even in politics. I hope the House will make them very welcome.
J. Dalton: On behalf of one of our hard-working Pages, Shannon Holt, sitting next to me, and all her colleagues, I am pleased to introduce Shannon's mother Holly Holt, her uncle Dal Haldorson and her grandfather Fred Haldorson. So would we please make all of them welcome.
I. Chong: Visiting today I have two very special guests, Emelia and Andrew Gazsity, who are currently living in the riding represented by the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill. Mr. Gazsity started a recycling business back in the 1970s, when recycling wasn't such a nouveau kind of industry. The Gazsitys also happen to be the parents of the constituency assistant for the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.
CONSULTATION ON LABOUR CODE CHANGES
AND STATUS OF BILL 44
Hon. D. Miller: I'm pleased to take the question on notice.
G. Campbell: The Premier has told us in the past that any member of his executive council can answer questions in the House, and I can only hope that the Deputy Premier will be able to answer this question. The big union bosses obviously wrote Bill 44. It has been the subject of a significant amount
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. Order! I must hear the question to find out if it is in order.
G. Campbell: It has been the subject of a significant amount of concern from young people who are looking for work, from homebuilders who are looking to build homes and from people who are concerned about the economy of the province and the job-producing capacity of the province. The NDP has clearly dealt with this law with the big union bosses. The Labour minister, in fact, told us all that this was something that unions were entitled to. Will the Deputy Premier inform this House today whether or not any promises have been made to the big union bosses with regard to the future of Bill 44, and whether or not he agrees with the Kelleher-Ready report, which suggests that sectoral bargaining will not work and should be put on hold for good?
[ Page 5810 ]
[2:15]
Hon. D. Miller: As I indicated on a previous question, I will take this question on notice, as well. I think it is probably more germane to the Minister of Labour, but I'll take it on noticeThe Speaker: I'm sorry, minister. If it's taken on notice, one can't speak.
G. Campbell: I would have thought the Minister of Employment and Investment would have been concerned about the employment and investment climate in the province.
Bill 44 was clearly written in a union hall, and reports today are that it died in a union hall last night. It's very significant for the future economic prosperity of the province whether or not that happened. Unfortunately, we only seem to get news from the big union bosses whom the Premier met with. It would be nice if the Deputy Premier could inform us, because it is also reported
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members! Excuse me, member, you are pushing the envelope a little. We have two questions taken on notice. I hope this is a different question. Please proceed.
G. Campbell: This is a totally different question, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: Show me, please.
G. Campbell: It is completely different, and I intend to show you.
The first questions were with regard to the withdrawal of Bill 44. At the meeting, evidently the Premier said that he was going to withdraw Bill 44, but he promised to help his major financial backers in other ways.
My question to the Deputy Premier -- and I'm sure he'll take this on notice, as well -- is: could the Deputy Premier please tell the House and the people of British Columbia what other special deals the Premier intends to make with his major financial backers?
Hon. D. Miller: There was a question there relative to the economic performance in British Columbia. I think it's worth pointing out that once again British Columbia is leading the nation in new job creation -- 34,000 new jobs in June of this year. The private sector projections for capital investment in British Columbia are for a 5.1 percent increase -- again leading the nation. Trade statistics indicate that we're well ahead of 1995, which was a record year for trade in British Columbia.
But Mr. Speaker, I'm intrigued. The Leader of the Opposition seems to be suggesting reconsideration, and I wonder if reconsideration is going on in the opposition caucus about paying for the million-dollar mailer. We'll be interested to see that.
C. Hansen: What we have seen in this province over the last year is that British Columbia is now tenth when it comes to GNP growth per capita. We have seen jobs leaving this province. We have seen employment decline by 10,000. We see a government bring in Bill 44, which is going to drive more jobs and more investment out of this province.
My question to the minister responsible for employment and investment in British Columbia is: does the fact that Bill 44 has apparently been hoisted have anything to do with the fact that this bill was driving more jobs out of this province and driving investment from this province?
Hon. D. Miller: I think what's disappointing in British Columbia is that despite the statistics -- which come not from our government but from Statistics Canada -- which point to record job creation in British Columbia and to being on our way to record exports again and to leading the nation with respect to increases in private sector investment
C. Hansen: Certainly when you look at the economic performance of British Columbia in the last year, under this government and under this minister's employment and investment, we have every reason to bring to light the fact that the news is not good.
In 1992 this government promised to consult with all parties concerning changes to the Labour Code. This year they reneged on that promise. They reneged on a promise to consult with the very people that create jobs. They reneged on a promise to consult with the very people that bring investment into this province that will create jobs in the future. As a result, Bill 44 was going to drive jobs and investment out of British Columbia. My question is to the Deputy Premier: now that Bill 44 has been hoisted, will he promise us that consultation will take place with all concerned before any future major changes are made to the Labour Code of British Columbia?
Hon. D. Miller: Again, hon. Speaker, when I look at the statistics
M. de Jong:. While investment and jobs continue to flee this province, we know that the Premier's deputy was travelling around the province browbeating and intimidating small business to get in line behind this draconian labour legislation they've introduced. But it didn't work, Mr. Speaker. Business wouldn't be intimidated. Small business wouldn't kowtow to this government's intimidation tactics, and that's why we've learned today that the government is abandoning this bill.
Here's the concern: are they really abandoning it, or is this another six-month period in which Mr. McArthur, the Premier and his henchmen can travel around the province and try to intimate small business? My question to the Deputy Premier is: will he commit to this Legislature that Bill 44 is dead, buried and gone forever?
Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I've previously taken specific questions relative to legislation on notice on behalf of the minister responsible, the Minister of Labour.
[ Page 5811 ]
Again, with respect to private sector investment, it's of interest to note that over the last five years the average level of actual private capital expenditures per person of working age has been 25.8 percent higher in B.C. than in the rest of Canada.
I know the opposition feels that they have to be critics. I can understand that; I've been in that role. But surely they have an obligation to get the facts right, and surely they have an obligation not to be so negative about our wonderful province. All we ever hear are these nattering nabobs of negativism. It's disheartening.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. Members, let us all take a breath before we proceed.
M. de Jong: When the Premier writes labour legislation, he's got to take a trip to the union hall. When he decides to abandon labour legislation, he's got to take a trip down to the union hall. I don't know where he finds the time to come to this Legislature. Where does he find the time?
I can think of a lot of reasons to kill this legislation, but I want to know what the Deputy Premier's reason would be for killing it. Was it because he realized that thousands of jobs in the construction industry would be lost? Was it because he knew that housing prices would increase by 10 to 20 percent? Or was it because he knew the dream of home-ownership would be lost to thousands of young British Columbians? Which was it, when they decided to kill this bill?
Hon. D. Miller: It's a bit perplexing but perhaps understandable, given the source of the revenue for the official opposition, that they always tend to want to point to working people in trade unions as the fundamental problem. Yesterday I had the opportunity to go into a lunch room in a fish plant. Sixty percent are women workers, and many of them are the mainstays of their families.
They've worked with their employer and with this government to save about 600 jobs in the fish-processing industry. There's an action where the trade union movement worked with the private sector and with government. I don't know why the gang over there always assumes that somehow the problem is the trade union movement. It is not.
We are proud of our association with organized labour in this province. They are members of our society, and they're productive members of this economy. They play an important role and will continue to play an important role in the future of this province.
G. Abbott: On the day the NDP is apparently dumping their disastrous Bill 44, another association has come out with guns blazing. The B.C. Road Builders Association has condemned the NDP for Bill 44 and its negative economic effect. In fact, its chairman, Case van Diemen, said: "The likelihood of damage caused by Bill 44 to the B.C. investment climate constitutes a grave risk that we can not afford to accept." With indictments like that coming in from the field, can I ask the Minister of Highways to tell us why she and her cabinet colleagues introduced Bill 44 in the first place?
Hon. L. Boone: It's interesting. I wish the hon. members over there would really learn the rules of this House, because this bill is still before this House, and that question is clearly out of order.
G. Abbott: The roadbuilders have many things to say about Bill 44, such as: "Bill 44 turns the clock back 20 years"; "Bill 44's provisions will rapidly increase labour costs"; and "The provisions of Bill 44 will further damage an already deteriorating investment climate in B.C."
To the Minister of Highways: with feedback like this coming in from people in the know, can the minister tell us why she and her cabinet colleagues didn't consult with small and medium-sized business before introducing Bill 44?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm looking at a list of the various sectors of our economy here in British Columbia. I look down and see that over the past five years, transportation has experienced real growth of 17.3 percent -- the second-highest in 12 years. When I sat and listened to this opposition party in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates, every single one of them stood up and said to the government: "Spend more money on highways." Why they continue this fallacious and fictitious description of the B.C. economy is beyond me.
I would ask them to try to be more supportive of British Columbia, not just buy the line they read in the newspapers. They should try to do their homework and bring some facts to question period. Perhaps if they do that, the next poll will actually show their fortunes rising instead of plummeting, which they've been doing lately.
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.
[2:30]
The Speaker: Please proceed.
F. Gingell: It is a most unusual one, because most of our petitions come from voters. This petition, with 200 signatures or more, comes from people who will yet vote but are still in school.
"We the undersigned people attend public schools in British Columbia. Having had ample time to evaluate the career and personal planning program, we conclude that the program is poorly planned, often redundant and an inefficient use of school time. Therefore we urge the Minister of Education to remove this program from the curriculum, inserting any useful portions into existing courses which are of greater value to the students of British Columbia."
I also wish to present the auditor general's report No. 10 on compliance audits for 1996-97.
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
Hon. J. MacPhail: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.
[ Page 5812 ]
Leave granted.
Bill 11 read a third time and passed.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call report on Bill 22.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
Hon. J. MacPhail: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 22, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, read a third time and passed.
Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training. In this House, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 16.
POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
The House in committee on Bill 16; G. Brewin in the chair.On section 1.
G. Plant: I want to use the occasion of the debate on section 1 to explore with the minister, just a little bit, the aspects of the bill that deal with the, shall I say, reorganization of designated policing units and the designated law enforcement units. Those are umbrella terms that are, as I understand it, intended to apply to a wide variety of different types of police or quasi-police forces -- bylaw enforcement officers and some other varieties of police forces. They also, as I understand it, are intended to create a process by which first nations communities will have the opportunity to arrange for policing within their communities.
I wonder if the Attorney General could explain how he sees this new regime being implemented. What is the process that's going to happen over the next six months or a year or whatever in terms of these provisions coming into force and how they're going to work? In effect, how are they going to work on the ground?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There has been some consultation already. There are some boards in place. For instance, with respect to aboriginal policing there is a board in Lillooet in place. It's sort of an unstructured board.
This gives those designated police, designated units some structure. That structure means that there would be guidelines, there would be consultation, and appropriate boards would be placed. There would be representation from the Ministry of Attorney General on those boards, as there is on all of the police boards to date. There would be, of course, community representation. Similarly, there are no designated boards currently with respect to special constables that are attached to Transit or the Ministry of Environment or others. There would be the installation of those boards, as well, and discussions are underway to make sure that happens. For those individuals who are currently special constables, there are transition provisions in the legislation.
G. Plant: I take it that it's the intention in the case of each designated policing unit to have a board established with the responsibilities set out in the act. Is that correct?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: I wonder if the Attorney General could just outline a little bit more the range or types of policing services that he expects will become designated. I know that he began to do so in the last answer, but perhaps we can have on the record a sense of the kinds of policing services that are likely to become designated under this process -- and maybe I should say both designated policing units and designated law enforcement units. Perhaps in that context I could also ask the Attorney General to explain -- in layman's language, if he could -- the difference between designated law enforcement units and designated policing units.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to designated policing units, that would be police, such as tribal police, where full police powers would be granted. The designated law enforcement units would have restrictive powers for the purposes that are needed for those particular units.
I will take the opportunity at this point, if I can, to move the amendment to section 1 that's in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 1 (d), in the proposed definition of "chief officer" in section 1 of the Police Act, by deleting "section 4.2(c)(iv)(A)" and substituting "section 4.2(2)(c)(iv)(A)".]G. Plant: I don't think I see an amendment to section 1; I think I see an amendment to section 1.1. If I'm wrong
The Chair: Hon. member, at the bottom of the previous page, page 2, of the order paper you'll see "SECTION 1(d)."
G. Plant: Oh, I see. I'm sorry; there it is. Thank you, hon. Chair. I have no questions about it.
Amendment approved.
On section 1 as amended.
G. Plant: I understand the distinction the Attorney General just drew. I wonder if I could impose on him to just flesh out a few more examples of the types of policing services that would fall into the category of policing units where, as I understand it, there will be full police powers; and law enforcement units where, as I understand it, the policing powers will be restricted to the enforcement of one or more statutes. That would just give us a bit of a sense of the kinds of police services that are likely to be caught by these two categories.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, with respect to designated law enforcement, what comes to mind is such things as wildlife enforcement officers, in addition to the examples I've already indicated. For designated policing, tribal policing is the only one that comes to mind. But it does provide us the opportunity to create special provincial constables with full police powers that we can use for a specific purpose.
[2:45]
G. Plant: Would the provisions for designated policing allow a municipality that had a population of less than 5,000 persons to engage the process that might result in the creation of a designated policing unit?[ Page 5813 ]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, it could.
G. Plant: I am interested in knowing whether there are small towns or villages in British Columbia that have expressed an interest in doing this, whether the Attorney General already has some plans in that regard or whether this is just an enabling mechanism that will be left there on the books.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm told that the only one my ministry is aware of ever having expressed an interest in that kind of an organization was Whistler, but they won't need that because they're now over 5,000.
G. Plant: But from the ministry's perspective, I suppose if an application came forward, it would be dealt with the same way as the applications that he expects will come forward from aboriginal communities and dealt with on its merits in accordance with the process set out in the act.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
Section 1 approved.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the amendment that stands in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 1.1., by adding the following section:On the amendment.The following section is added to Part 1:
Police forces in British Columbia
1.1 The following are police forces in British Columbia:
(a) the provincial police force;
(b) a municipal police department;
(c) if prescribed by the minister as a police force, a designated policing unit.]
G. Plant: I wonder if the Attorney General could explain the significance of the amendment. Why are we being asked to make this amendment?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is being added simply to make certain what the police forces in British Columbia are, as recognized under this police act, so that the provincial police force and municipal police department
G. Plant: That last point raises -- in my mind, anyway -- an interesting possibility. Is the minister suggesting that he is looking into the organization of a provincially funded drug enforcement unit?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is to make certain what the police forces are in British Columbia, which then, pursuant to some of the federal legislation -- where the minister needs to designate a part of the police force for purposes of retaining and seizing evidence related to drugs
G. Plant: I thank the Attorney General for that explanation. I want to ask a question now which arises out of something the Attorney General said in the course of an answer a minute ago but that will also be relevant later. What we're doing in this section is taking away the term "municipal police force" and replacing it with "municipal police department." Is there a reason for that?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This has nothing to do, I can assure you, with the regulation of the use of force. I understand that this is simply what the municipal police departments have been calling themselves for some time, and they just want the law to accord with the usage.
Amendment approved.
On section 2.
G. Plant: I have the same sort of question. What this section does is begin a process that I think recurs elsewhere of introducing the phrase "law enforcement" into the bill so that police departments or units will be both policing and engaging in law enforcement. I'd be interested in the Attorney General's explanation of why we are creating that distinction. Now, it occurred to me that it may be because we are creating in this bill the designated law enforcement units that have limited functions, and the functions are not as extensive as "policing" functions. That may be the explanation; if it is, that's a good enough answer.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That is.
Sections 2 and 3 approved.
On section 4.
G. Plant: My question relates to what will become section 4.2, which is on page 4 of the bill. This is the provision that enables the minister to make regulations respecting designated policing units. And designated policing units is a term that is, I guess, primarily intended to encompass the creation and regulation of police forces for first nations communities. In this context, I note that the phrase "local government" is going to be defined to mean a council of a band under the Indian Act of Canada.
I don't want to engage in a long discussion about the fact that there are a variety of different forms of governance within aboriginal communities. At some level in some communities there are obviously still traditional government institutions, and there are band councils which are, generally speaking, the principal form of recognized aboriginal government in Canada. But there's treaty-making going on that may result in the recognition of nations or first nations -- other forms of groups of aboriginal people. So I make that observation.
I then make the further observation that from my own experience as a lawyer in this area, one of the challenges in terms of recognizing potential models for aboriginal government is to define those models on the basis of units of aboriginal government that have some certainty around them. The traditional models of aboriginal government were frequently difficult to draw firm lines around, so I can understand why a draftsperson would be tempted to settle for, if you will, band councils. But I wonder if the Attorney General has a view that he really does intend to limit the availability of this new
[ Page 5814 ]
concept of designated policing units only to band councils under the Indian Act, because it seems to me that that may be the effect of this amendment.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I appreciate the comments of the hon. member. If the drafters could be more flexible to take into account future developments, they would have been
Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved.
On section 8.
G. Plant: Is this "standards of training" a new provision?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: I want to make the observation that the issues of training and standards of training appear in a number of places in this bill, and I know it's a subject of interest and concern for all people who are interested and concerned about policing. I think that later in the act the director of police services, for example, will have powers -- at least recommendation powers -- with respect to standards for training and things like that. So I'm wondering what the government seeks to achieve here. What's the public policy rationale for doing this here?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: As we are more clearly than ever before defining how designated policing unit will differ from designated law enforcement unit -- how one would have the full police powers and the other will not -- we need to be able to have varying standards of training for those different units and different types of peace officers that we're going to have. This simply gives us the powers to then make regulations with respect to these issues.
[3:00]
G. Plant: I note, for example, that virtually the same language exists in what will become section 4.2(f), which allows the minister to make regulations prescribing the standards for training for designated constables of a designated policing unit. Yet you turn the page over, and you've got essentially the same provision again. I just wonder if this is unnecessarily duplicative. I leave that question, if I may.Hon. U. Dosanjh: As the hon. member refers to a previous section, that refers to a particular kind of policing, and this section would allow the minister to provide training standards for all types of police -- special constables or others. So this may be seen to be as a catch-all section. If there is any deficiency in the specific sections, this will make up for that.
G. Plant: One point of clarification that I'm sure we can both agree on is that the types of officers who are within the umbrella of this provision do not include RCMP officers, so we're only dealing with municipal police officers and the various special categories of police officers that are referred to in the definition of officer in the act. From that, does this mean that the minister would then have the power to prescribe standards of training for police officers in West Vancouver, Delta and the city of Vancouver? They would, of course, be caught by the definition of officer.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: Is that overall oversight authority something that has been discussed with municipal police departments and is acceptable to them? I know a lot about the consultation around parts 8 and 9, but I haven't asked about this provision. So is there any issue about this? I realize that I shouldn't be asking the minister this, but I will anyway.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, there has been consultation. There are no issues around this.
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
G. Plant: This is a provision that deals with the liability of the minister on behalf of government for torts committed by certain types of police officers. I wonder if the minister could explain the rationale for excluding designated constables from the ambit of ministerial liability.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to those types of police officers, I understand that the entity that employs them would itself be responsible.
Sections 9 to 14 inclusive approved.
On section 15.
G. Plant: I have a note that I wrote at a time when I was obviously trying to understand this section, which will become section 17.1. The note reads: "Why no suspension power?" I think that the point is
What happens if the problem is not corrected? What are the consequences for ultimate non-compliance with a notice sent by the director under this section?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that if you look at section 17.1(2)(a), that essentially gives the director the power to appoint an officer or officers to take over the policing responsibilities. That, in effect, means that those who were policing prior to that would be redundant, and obviously some action would be taken.
Sections 16 and 17 approved.
[ Page 5815 ]
On section 18.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the amendment to section 18 standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 18, in the proposed section 18.1(13) of the Police Act, by deleting "is authorized to exercise the powers and perform the duties of a constable or peace officer" and substituting "is authorized to exercise the powers and perform the duties, and has the immunities, of a constable or peace officer".]On the amendment.
G. Plant: I take it that the amendment corrects what was really just an oversight in the drafting. Is that correct?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Essentially.
Amendment approved.
Section 18 as amended approved.
On section 19.
G. Plant: I take it the change that's being made in respect of the granting of pecuniary aid to spouses or children is to expand the ambit of categories of officers that these provisions will apply to, to include designated officers. Is that right?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.
Section 19 approved.
On section 20.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 20, in the proposed section 20(3) of the Police Act, by deleting "special provincial constable,".]Amendment approved.
Section 20 as amended approved.
Sections 21 to 23 inclusive approved.
On section 24.
G. Plant: This is an important provision in the Police Act, because it is the provision the speaks about how police boards are to be constituted. The police boards are constituted by appointments of the mayor, appointment by a council and five persons appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. There are some changes to this provision that are really just textual -- that is, to harmonize the language. But there is, I think, one change of substance. The five persons who are the subject of subsection (1)(c) were formerly persons who were appointed by cabinet after consultation with the police commissioner. They will now be appointed by cabinet after consultation with the director. In this context, just to get clarity, we are speaking of the director of police services -- who, as it happens, is sitting beside the Attorney General in the chamber. Perhaps we can just begin by confirming that point.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.
G. Plant: I'm grateful for the confirmation. Let me put on the record a concern which I can say ahead of time is not a sufficiently large problem that I'm going to oppose the amendment, but it's an issue that I raised in second reading debate.
There is no doubt that there were public concerns about some of the things that the Police Commission used to do -- whether or not they were effective; whether or not they were, in some contexts, completely ineffective. I have heard it said by some that one of the problems with the Police Commission -- and it's a problem that would arise in this and in other contexts -- was the fact that they were a body outside government and did occasionally insist on being independent, and gave the sort of independent advice that can sometimes be more of a challenge for government to respond to than receiving advice from within government.
So there may be good reasons why we are, in this bill, being asked to essentially abolish the Police Commission, and there may be some reasons that are not as good as others. By way of advance notice, I want to record a potential concern with respect to whether this amendment and the change in the process or appointment has about it the risk of the politicization of the appointments to police boards. Cabinet always had the appointing power, but until now that appointing power was exercised after consultation with a body outside government. As I understand it, it will now be exercised after consultation with someone who is within government.
I'm sure that the Attorney General will want to stand and give me all the assurances that he is accustomed to giving in these contexts about the fact that he intends to respect the impartiality of this process, and so on. But I don't want the moment to pass without recording the concern, because I think it's a legitimate one. As I say, I'm not going to stand in the way of the provision, but I am going to urge the Attorney General to do everything he can to ensure that the very important function the municipal police boards do -- of providing local accountability and providing an independent source of government's authority for police forces -- is not compromised by this amendment. I look forward to the Attorney General's comments on that point.
[3:15]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The current process is essentially the same. That is, the mayor of the municipal council is appointed, one councillor is appointed, and the balance are appointed by cabinet -- which are three, I believe, generally speaking. For those three, the municipal councils do send in recommendations, but they're not always followed. The Attorney General can appoint outside of those recommendations if the Attorney General sees fit. That happens in all of the municipal councils except that out of the three appointments, at least one or two are appointments that are not necessarily recommended by them. They know that. That's the current practice, and it may continue. I don't believe there would be any diminution of the independence as it currently exists. It is simply that now the recommendations would come to the director from the municipal council of a particular area, and the director would pass them on to the Attorney General. The Attorney General may decide to take those three to cabinet, or one or two others.G. Plant: I wonder, then, if I could just go this extra step in terms of simplifying the issue. Is the Attorney General saying that the substance of the practice of appointment will remain unchanged from his perspective?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
[ Page 5816 ]
G. Plant: That will be reassuring to those who have had this concern, some of whom have raised it with me. I think that is the point I wanted to make in this context. I have no other questions about this section.
Sections 24 to 31 inclusive approved.
On section 32.
G. Plant: I need to pause here to ask the Attorney General if this is essentially a new provision or if it is really just a restatement of something that is already in the act in section 33, I think.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is simply a restatement which now includes designated policing or law enforcement units.
Sections 32 to 34 inclusive approved.
On section 35.
G. Plant: Hon. Chair, I'm going to observe for your benefit that we're now embarked upon the discussion of a pretty long section. I actually don't have available the point at which we change to section 36. I wonder if in this context, for convenience, we could refer to the new section numbers. Does the hon. Chair understand my point? When we start on page 15 with section 35, what the drafter is doing is repealing two entire sections of the Police Act and then substituting for them
The Chair: My suggestion would be that we proceed through them by what we might call subsection by subsection, so that under section 35, for instance, the first one is numbered 39. My suggestion would be that we do those seriatim, if you like -- one after another.
G. Plant: An excellent idea.
The Chair: All right. The amendments start at section 52.2 of the Police Act. We could either introduce them all now or introduce them as we come to them. What is the Attorney General's wish? There are about 15 of them.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would suggest that we introduce them all now and then pass each section as we go along.
Therefore, hon. Chair, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See Appendix.]
The Chair: I propose, however, not to put them to the House until we get to the individual sections to which they relate. Does that work for everyone?
G. Plant: I don't have a strong point of view on this. I am fairly certain that all of the amendments will probably go through in their present form, unless the Attorney General says something particularly alarming over the next little while. So I don't have a particularly strong view about the order in which they're passed. I am going to spend a bit of time talking about them, but I'm in your hands, hon. Chair, as to the way you wish to proceed through them.
The Chair: I think then, members, we will proceed with them one after another and deal with them as they come.
On section 35, section 39.
G. Plant: We can call it section 39. I think that's good enough for present purposes, because I may end up talking about some of the subsections and the subparagraphs and the sub-subparagraphs.
Section 39 is the beginning of the reconstruction of the office of the director of police services who is an existing official within the Ministry of Attorney General who, as I understand it, will be given additional powers. These additional powers are consequential upon bringing to an end the old Police Commission. So I want to spend a minute or two on some of these additional powers.
Let me begin that discussion by referring to what will become section 39(1), which reads: "On behalf of the minister and subject to the direction of the minister, the director is responsible for superintending policing and law enforcement functions in British Columbia." Is this an expansion of the director's responsibility above and beyond its current scope?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, this is an amalgamation of the powers of the chair of the commission with the existing powers of the director.
G. Plant: As we proceed through these, I expect to see the shoulders of the director start to sag with the additional weight that will be placed on them.
But let me communicate again a concern which I referred to in second reading debate. It's a concern that I suspect probably has some merit; I don't want to overstate it. We do have this tradition of autonomous governments in respect of municipal police boards and the tradition of a police commission. I think that Mr. Justice Oppal had a perspective on the extent to which that was working traditionally, and it's clear that his perspective has had influence on these decisions.
I think there is always this risk that we will take away some of that autonomy in the interests of administrative expedience and that in the long run we in fact won't be better off. I suppose that we're here recreating a model of police governance in British Columbia, and I think that the author of the new model is somewhere in the premises. I think he was probably around for the last model, and Professor Hogarth would probably be the first to agree that every ten or 20 or 30 years, you need to look at the model and deal with the concerns that have arisen and, if there are enough concerns, try and rewrite the model and see if it can make an improvement. Maybe ten or 20 years from now, we'll see that this model has worked a little bit and not worked a little bit, and we'll have to fix it again.
I guess what I want is some statement of recognition on the part of the Attorney General that there is a risk here -- a potential for loss of autonomy, for loss of authority on the part of the municipal police forces if the director of police services steps up to bat, as it were, in a way that starts to make him look a bit too much like a super-police chief for British Columbia. Clearly there are important powers and responsibilities which the director needs to be able to discharge. Equally
[ Page 5817 ]
clearly, it seems to me that there needs to be a judicious assumption of those powers -- that is, not more than necessary. I wonder if that's the perspective that the Attorney General has on this. If he does, could he share it with us?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the perspective and approach that the director should have is the approach that the hon. member has summarized in his remarks -- that is, respecting the independence of policing in British Columbia, a judicious approach to administration, standards of training, audit and those other kinds of functions that the director would have. I understand that there might be a concern. I have listened to the chiefs or the representatives of the municipal chiefs, and they are in fact not unhappy that this power is moving -- particularly the audit and investigations -- into the director's jurisdiction.
G. Plant: From an organizational point of view, how will this affect the organization chart of the Ministry of Attorney General? Will the director of police services be someone that reports directly to the Attorney General or through the assistant deputy minister of police and regulatory services? I can't remember the exact title.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The director would continue to report through the assistant deputy minister responsible for police services.
Section 35, section 39 approved.
On section 35, section 40.
G. Plant: One of the issues dealt with in section 40, which includes a long list of functions, is the power or the function that the director has to make reports, following inspections, on the quality and standard of policing and law enforcement services delivery and so on. In subsection (2), there is a protocol around what happens to a report that is completed. The director is required to submit a copy of such a report to the minister and may distribute a copy of the report to those persons the director considers appropriate.
Now, I can well imagine that in many cases the kinds of reports, the kinds of inspections that the director will do are reports about issues which are at the heart of the integrity of law enforcement and therefore perhaps not matters that ought to be made public. But I can also imagine reports from time to time being done that ought to be made public, and there is, of course, no obligation here on the part of the director to make his reports public. I accept that such an obligation should not exist in all cases, but I would be grateful for the Attorney General's assurance that he is at least prepared on an ongoing basis -- as part of the process of maintaining the public's confidence and the integrity of our police system -- to consider the question of whether particular reports of the director could become public.
[3:30]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that whenever the Police Commission currently does those reports, they are public, and that practice would continue with respect to those functions.[J. Doyle in the chair.]
Section 35, sections 40 and 41 approved.
On section 35, section 42.
G. Plant: I suppose there is a technical answer to this if I read it closely. But it seems to me that there is just an awful lot of power stored here, or studies and inspections and reports. Is there something that's particularly special about section 42 that is different from the inspection reporting and studying powers in section 40?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The basic difference is that this section is much broader, including the reports on crime prevention and the like, whereas previously it was somewhat restrictive.
Section 35, section 42 approved.
On section 35, section 43.
G. Plant: What will become section 43 will give the director the obligation to conduct inquiries in some circumstances. Are these inquiries within the meaning of the Inquiry Act or just something that is a little bit different than a study, report, inspection, recommendation, consultation or any of the other things that we've already talked about?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, I don't believe this would be an inquiry under the Inquiry Act. If there is an inquiry that needs to be done under the Inquiry Act, we will appoint someone else. This would be if the Attorney General came across a particular problem and wanted the director to look into the problem and report back.
G. Plant: I don't propose to spend an hour on the subject, but if the minister had exactly that wish, why would he not exercise the authority under section 42, leaving aside all of the things in section 40?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe that what's contemplated in section 42 of part 8 is sort of a study or an analysis of a particular problem. With respect to section 43, there would be a much sharper and more focused actual investigation of a particular problem that might exist with respect to crime, its investigation and its control.
For instance, let me give the hon. member an example. If the Attorney General felt that in a particular area -- let's say Hell's Angels -- the Attorney General needed a report back as to why things were not moving, the director could, in consultation and in conjunction with the police forces that might be functioning, gather that information and bring it back to me in a confidential fashion. That would be much different than what's contemplated in section 42.
G. Plant: That's helpful. I must admit that I don't envy the job of the administrative assistant who will have to create the filing system that will allow everyone, instantly and immediately, to detect the difference between inspections under section 40, inquiries under section 43, studies under section 42 and special investigations under section 44. I know it's a filing system that wouldn't work for me, but that's probably just a reflection of my own proclivities.
In this context, I wonder if I can impose on the Attorney General -- I mean, we're going to get there in a moment anyway -- to give a sort of a layperson's explanation of what the special and unique purpose is of the power to conduct investigations under section 44.
[ Page 5818 ]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am told that these are powers that are actually being incorporated from the commission's powers into this legislation. All these powers currently exist with the commission.
If the member would look at special investigations in section 44, it is much broader. The police complaint commissioner or a board could request the director to do an investigation as well, in addition to the minister. That has to do with an act or an omission of an act committed by any person appointed under this act, so that may be with respect to police officers or others that are appointed pursuant to this act. That special investigation could be undertaken at the request of the police, at the request of the minister or at the request of the complaints commissioner.
Section 35, sections 43 to 45 inclusive approved.
On section 35, section 46.
G. Plant: We are now embarking on an examination of part 9 -- the new part 9, which is the new complaint procedure. Perhaps at the outset of this discussion I could make a distinction between two types of issues. There are issues of principle that
When we look at the complaint procedure, there are issues of principle: issues around the important question of who should investigate complaints against police officers; how that, in the broadest sense, should be structured; what the powers of authorities, of individuals in the system, ought to be; and what approach should be taken to the discipline of police officers, whether it should be a quasi-judicial approach, some other approach or a blend of the two.
There are issues of that sort that I'm given to understand were much discussed in the consultation process that was undertaken by Professor Hogarth. As I understand it, the outcome of that process was a consensus on most of these issues -- the bigger issues.
The second category is questions of detail, of mechanics, of the rules of procedure governing the bodies and the officials who exercise the powers that are going to be created here. I have heard more concern about some of these aspects of the provisions in part 9 of the act than I have about the issues of principle.
I must admit that from one perspective, there is a temptation -- if I can put it that way, and that may not be a respectful enough term -- to go through this process and this procedure fairly carefully. I'm not sure that it would be all that constructive in the end, but there are going to be some points along the way where I will stop and take note. It would be inappropriate for me even to begin to attempt to rewrite any part of this process, which is obviously the result of an awful lot of work done by somebody who is neither the minister nor me and has a lot of experience in these things.
It's only fair to begin with the observation that some of the people who will have to live with this process
I now want to turn to an issue that is raised in section 46, because it's the definition section. There are going to be different types of complaints. The categorization of these types of complaints -- their identification -- has its origins in Justice Oppal's report.
We're going to have types of complaints called public trust defaults or public trust complaints. We're going to have internal discipline complaints, which are an awful lot like public trust complaints except that they're not public trust complaints. Then we're going to have service and policy complaints. As I see the way this process flows -- and I'm not going to explain here the difference between these three different types of complaints, because I assume the minister knows them better than I do -- there is the prospect that any one given incident could actually yield three different types of complaints. In that event, there are different procedures and processes that will be engaged.
One of the concerns I have is that not only is that inherently fairly complicated, but the way the process works will impose an awfully large burden on the person who happens to be the intake official for the complaints procedure. Someone will come into a police station or make a phone call with a complaint about something that a police officer has done or that a police department has failed to do, and, of course, the complainant won't have the slightest idea what the difference is between public trust defaults and service and policy complaints. Yet we have, at the very beginning of this process, the need to categorize the issue raised in a way that becomes quite significant for the rules of process, for the adjudication method and for the availability of alternate resolution procedures and all of that. I don't know how to turn that into a question. Perhaps I can get the Attorney General's response to the fact that there is here, I think, a potential for something to become almost unwieldy.
[3:45]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: When you're dealing with an issue as sensitive as police complaints, particularly when you're dealing with public trust complaints, it is inevitable that the process becomes complex in order to balance the interests of police officers and the complainants and to safeguard the police rights for due process, as well as the openness and the transparency that's required for the sake of public confidence with respect to individual complainants.Also, I want the hon. member to know that the provincial government is spending at least $200,000 for a case management project that will be put in place to be ready for this. As well, the Justice Institute -- in collaboration with the police and the ministry, of course -- is going to be training the police internal investigators, chiefs of police and others. The provincial government is paying for that training to make sure that this process gets off the ground appropriately and that the public have confidence in it right from the beginning.
G. Plant: Perhaps I could pick up on one aspect of that response by asking the minister what his timetable is for implementation of the process.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The plan is for the training to commence in October and hopefully, if the all-party committee of the Legislature can select the complaints commissioner, to start the process by the end of January next year.
[ Page 5819 ]
G. Plant: I can inform the minister that I've heard some murmurings of concern about that timetable -- that it may be a bit too ambitious. I'm not sure that I want to encourage the minister to slow down; that would be the last thing I would ever want to encourage any member of government to do. But on the other hand, I hope that the cart won't get put before the horse, or whatever it is. And if for some reason it becomes necessary to slow the implementation in order to ensure that all of the systems are up and running and that the people who have jobs are in place and properly trained, then I hope the Attorney General will not arbitrarily adhere to a deadline if it should become unrealistic.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I agree with those comments. I just want the hon. member to know that I understand there has been consultation with the chiefs on the commencement date, and I'm given to understand that they're reasonably happy with the prospect of the end of January being the date.
Section 35, section 46 approved.
On section 35, section 47.
G. Plant: The section now before us provides for the creation of the police complaint commissioner, who is an awfully important individual in the context of ensuring the transparency, the accountability and the efficiency of the new process. I take it that the Attorney General's plan is to do what he can to ensure that the required special committee is constituted as soon as is possible following the enactment of this and perhaps even before the House adjourns.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It has to be done before the House adjourns, otherwise it can't be done, so I'm mindful of that. In fact, I have spoken to the assistant to the House Leader to make sure that it's done.
G. Plant: The Attorney General and I have visited the subject of legislative officers on a number of occasions and in a number of contexts. We've talked about the almost perverse result that sometimes when you create an independent officer of the Legislature in the interest of fostering independence, you end up with a situation where, because of the way the rules of this House work, in some respects there's less accountability. Could the Attorney General explain the rationale for the length of the term of appointment of the police complaint commissioner and the prohibition on reappointment?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are six-year terms with respect to the privacy commissioner and one other officer of the Legislature, I believe. There is a three-year review built into this process. The committee will be able to review the functioning of this officer of the Legislature at the end of three years. But this is a non-renewable appointment if it continues for six years.
G. Plant: Does the minister have a sense now of what he sees as the staff complement of the office of the complaint commissioner and the budget? How much of a burden on the taxpayers of British Columbia is this person going to be?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There will be a total complement of eight, including the complaint commissioner. I understand that Dr. Hogarth has been working in the background, trying to put these recommendations together.
G. Plant: I take it that these are recommendations with respect to how the office would be staffed and all of that. I see the Attorney General nodding. I think those are the questions I have on section 47.
Section 35, sections 47 to 49 inclusive approved.
On section 35, section 50.
G. Plant: I note that this is the enumeration of the powers and duties of the police complaint commissioner, and there is the general power of oversight, which is in subsection (1). Then there is a list of tasks which are expressed in mandatory terms in subsection (2) and a list of tasks that are expressed in permissive or enabling terms in subsection (3). I wonder if the Attorney General could briefly outline the rationale for having this distinction.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Subsection (2) in that section is essentially the statutory requirement. There are things that needed to be done. Subsection (3) is essentially issues that the complaint commissioner should deal with in terms of having better relationships between the police and the public. So there is a distinction, as the hon. member appreciated.
G. Plant: Picking up on that distinction, I observe that there is at least the potential for overlap between the powers that the police complaint commissioner has under subsection (3) in respect of reports, recommendations, guidelines and inquiries and some of the powers of the director of police services. I know that in some cases the language is a little different. In some cases the police services director's reporting powers are very broad, and the commissioner's powers are much more focused. But I want to again sound a cautionary note so that we don't end up creating a whole room full of public servants who are all doing the same thing in slightly different ways at the same time.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member. We need to take a cautious approach on these issues.
Section 35, section 50 approved.
On section 35, section 50.1.
G. Plant: The point that arises here is a point about the compensation that will be paid to the police complaint commissioner, and I raised this issue in second reading debate. It seems to me that it would be a risky strategy for anyone to accept the position of police complaint commissioner, knowing that if he or she performed his job in a way that did not suit the convenience of the political masters of this province who are referred to by the elaborate term the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, his or her compensation could be reduced to nothing.
[4:00]
I strongly urge the Attorney General to change this provision. In fact, I should have come prepared to do it. I am sufficiently strongly of this view that I would amend this provision to ensure that the police complaint commissioner's compensation is tied to something. One way to do that would be to tie it to the salary of the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court. Let me pause to say that I used the Chief Judge of the[ Page 5820 ]
Provincial Court as an example without necessarily intending to know ahead of time whether, in the government's mind, this is an office that would be at that level. Of course, we have the example of the conflict-of-interest commissioner, whose salary is fixed at an amount which is half a certain amount, as I recall. I guess I want to invite the Attorney General to either respond favourably to the suggestion that we fix this or, alternatively, explain why we shouldn't.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I appreciate the comments that the hon. member makes. If I were on that side I'd probably be making the same comments, with as much conviction. I believe that the independence is enshrined in the process of appointment, and I don't know that any government -- certainly not this government -- could ever reduce the salary of an officer of the Legislature just because an officer of the Legislature was not doing its bidding. The government will not survive.
I know that the language with respect to other officers of the Legislature is different. But with respect to this particular instance, I want to remind the hon. members that language in the Members Conflict of Interest Act is the same as this. That's what I am told. Obviously former conflict commissioner Hughes was extremely independent, and I don't think there is any danger of the Legislature or the cabinet doing anything to reduce the salary for the independent actions of a complaint commissioner.
G. Plant: I did not want the moment to pass without examining the Members Conflict of Interest Act to test the inadequacy of my recollection. I thought I was looking at it just the other day. No, the Attorney General is correct, and I don't know where I found the reference to the half-salary before.
I understand the point the Attorney General makes. It's a political point. It's a point that hasn't actually found a heck of a lot of favour with the judges of any of the provincial or superior courts of Canada. It's a point which, reduced to its essence, is one that looks like this. The politician says to the supposedly independent official: "Trust me; I'll always pay you a fair amount." We give them a lot of authority, and we do so in a way that is intended to ensure that they can act independently. I'm sure the Attorney General is more familiar than I am with the jurisprudence that does link the issue of independence to the issue of compensation. I don't know that we've yet had to look at that issue in the context of officers of the Legislature. We clearly have had to look at that issue in the context of judicial officials. But if it is the intention of this Legislature to create an officer who is independent, perhaps at least as independent as a judge, then I think it's unfortunate that we don't have a little bit more certainty around the issue of compensation.
Perhaps just because I'm sure my remarks have been persuasive and forceful, I'll give the Attorney General another opportunity to rethink this and to stand up and say that yes, he has an amendment, we will amend this, and we'll fix this in order to ensure that structurally this problem will never arise.
Section 35, sections 50.1 to 51.1 inclusive approved.
On section 35, section 51.2.
G. Plant: Is it the intention of the government to
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is the same provision as is there for the privacy commissioner. That, I believe, is a single-purpose committee.
G. Plant: I wonder if the Attorney General -- before we leave the issue of the police complaint commissioner and his authority, his autonomy and the review -- could indicate whether I'm alone in my expression of concern about the issue of autonomy, the issue of independence, the issue of compensation, or whether the Attorney General has received any letters, correspondence, submissions, complaints from others on this question. If so, how has he responded?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the auditor general has written to me. I don't remember seeing the letter itself so far, but I'm aware of the letter.
G. Plant: If the auditor general has written a letter on that subject, I guess it's good to know that maybe I'm not alone on this issue, but perhaps a little bit more troubling that we don't seem to have seen a change in the structure of the arrangement. What is the Attorney General's answer to the auditor general in respect of whatever concerns he may be raising?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not aware of the particular issues raised in the auditor general's letter. I am generally aware that the auditor general raises the same kinds of issues that the hon. member has raised. The auditor general has an opinion; it's an independent opinion; I respect it. We have decided to go this route.
G. Plant: I appreciate the Attorney General's response on that. As with all officers of the Legislature, there is that issue about reporting, accountability. I've certainly had discussions with other officers of the Legislature who have concerns about the reporting process. I guess the case is that I think the Attorney General and I, perhaps in an informal way, recognize the problem. I wonder why, in this statute before us, we're not taking an opportunity to fix it.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure for me to introduce a friend of mine in the gallery today, who knows me from before my days in politics, from our days together at Simon Fraser University. I ask the House to welcome Blair Jarvis and his mother, who are over here. House, please make them welcome.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I indicated before, yes, I have a lot of respect for all of the officers of the Legislature. Contrary to the spirit of the auditor general's remarks, the conflict commissioner, Mr. Hughes, worked extremely independently. I'm aware of the concerns. I haven't read the letter. I have been told by Dr. Hogarth that the letter exists. He's indicated to me what the concerns are. I was aware of these concerns earlier.
The issue is that despite those concerns, having taken them into account, the decision has been made to proceed with this language, which is the same as the language con-
[ Page 5821 ]
tained in the Members Conflict of Interest Act with respect to the conflict commissioner. Yes, the auditor general speaks on certain issues. Other officers of the Legislature may speak on other issues. But at the end of the day, we make those decisions in this Legislature.
G. Plant: Well, it is at least partly reassuring, I suppose, to realize that the issues were before the Attorney General. So they've thought about them and made a conscious policy decision. I'm not sure it's one I agree with, but on the other hand, I guess we're stuck with this model for a while.
Let me just ask one other question, though, about structure. Most of the other officers of the Legislature, if not all of them, report directly to this Legislature. Their reports are tabled with the Speaker. They don't find their way under any other ministerial flow chart; they're outside ministerial flow charts. By way of contrast, of course, the children's commissioner is someone who is, hopefully, in function, to become independent but who, from the point of view of structure, reports to or is underneath the umbrella of the Attorney General.
Where will the police complaint commissioner fit? Is the police complaint commissioner somebody who will be, from the point of view of the structure and the organization of the Ministry of Attorney General, within that ministry? Or is the police complaint commissioner someone who is exactly like the other officers of the Legislature -- outside ministerial flow charts?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Like other officers of the Legislature. I understand from Dr. Hogarth, who has been working on some of the structural issues, that the office may be located in a building where there is no other provincial government office near it. Therefore it is physically independent. It will be directly accountable to the Legislature, reporting to the Legislature as do other officers of the Legislature.
G. Plant: For budgeting purposes and all of that stuff under the Financial Administration Act and so on, what will be the process that the officer has to go through in order to get the funds every year to operate the office?
[4:15]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that officers of the Legislature have their own vote. Similarly, this office of the Legislature would be included among those. That's my understanding. If there aren't sufficient funds and the officer of the Legislature feels constrained, obviously the officer can report to the Legislature. I'm sure there are not many governments that might be able to withstand that kind of rebuke.Section 35, section 51.2 approved.
On section 35, section 52.
G. Plant: Here we get a bit further into the teeth of the complaints process. I should say that I don't intend to attempt to restate that process. In a way, that means I'm going to ask a bunch of questions that will allow somebody to understand that whole process. I should also say that I'm grateful for the fact that Dr. Hogarth has met with me on a couple of occasions, met with other members of my caucus and explained this process pretty carefully.
In what will become section 52(3)(a), there is an obligation on the part of someone receiving a complaint to provide the person who submits the complaint with any assistance that that person requires in submitting the complaint. I think there are cost implications here. I'd like the minister to respond to the potential for cost implications and also to consider the problem that has arisen in the context of the Human Rights Tribunal.
The experience there has been that this obligation could become quite onerous and in fact was a contributing factor in the increase in the backlog in human rights complaints. The fact is that the Human Rights Commission itself -- or in those days, the council -- became part of the process of ensuring that the complaint was made in a way that was coherent and so on. I understand there is always the need to try and help to make sure the thing is comprehensible, but I wonder where the balance lies here and if the Attorney General has any views on that.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the police complaint commissioner is going to be preparing brochures to assist people with the process and with the filing of complaints. I believe that the police understand that it's in their best interests to assist a complainant with a complaint in terms of making that complaint because the complainants are generally laypersons. They don't understand or have any particular knowledge of various sections of the code or otherwise.
I'm sure the judiciary would construe this in a reasonable way, if it were ever brought to court, to not place very onerous obligations on the police force. But there should be some minimal obligations, when a complainant comes to your police force doorstep, to assist that individual -- as is done now when complainants go to various police detachments. I'll stop there.
G. Plant: I want to draw the minister's attention in this context to section 52(5), which says: "A person who receives a complaint under subsection (2) must, as required, assist the person submitting the complaint in completing a record of complaint." Now, I sort of reinterpret that as a provision that says that a person who is receiving a complaint has to help the complainant fill out the necessary documents.
So what is the additional assistance that is contemplated in section 52(3)(a)? Let me give you an example that might be facetious or might not be. What happens if somebody phones up and says: "I have a complaint and want to come down to the police station, but my car has broken down and I need a ride. I need a police officer to come and get me." Is that the kind of assistance that is contemplated by (3)(a)? Because it may be that that's the kind of assistance that a person will require in order to submit a complaint.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The answer is no.
G. Plant: Now I want to ask a question about section 52(4), which is, I guess, how a complaint is initially submitted. It says: "A complaint under this Part may initially be submitted orally or in writing but, before the complaint may be processed
One of the virtues of this whole process is the fact that there are time limits in it that will, hopefully, shorten the whole process. But, of course, time limitations are triggered by the commencement of things. When will the complaint be
[ Page 5822 ]
initiated from the perspective of these time periods? Is the time line initiated by the submission orally or in writing, or is it initiated by the commitment to writing in the prescribed form?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Commitment to writing in the prescribed form, and signed.
Section 35, section 52 approved.
On section 35, section 52.1.
G. Plant: Again, the question is: when will time run? Here we're dealing with the characterization stage of the process, and there's an obligation to promptly characterize the complaint. Then later in the provision is a ten-business-day time limit after making a decision on characterization. So I take it that that ten-day time limit doesn't begin to run until the decision on characterization has been made.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.
G. Plant: I suppose, then, that for all those who would have an interest in ensuring that the process does work expeditiously, there is an incentive to characterize complaints as quickly as possible to complete the process of characterization, as it were.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.
G. Plant: Am I right in reading into the various subsections here the proposition that there's a window, I suppose, between the tenth day and the twentieth day within which there can be a bit of a discussion with the police complaint commissioner about characterization? As I understand it, the police complaint commissioner has responsibilities around making sure that complaints are properly characterized.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, the police complaint commissioner has that authority, and we are hoping that that would need to be exercised rarely.
Section 35, section 52.1 approved.
On section 35, section 52.2.
The Chair: On 52.2 there are two amendments that have been moved already.
On the amendments.
G. Plant: I don't intend to make a major statement on an issue that arises here; it arises in other contexts. But I'll make a minor statement. As the Attorney General will appreciate, it's an awfully stressful experience for a police officer to be on the receiving end of a complaint. I think, as I said earlier, that one of the virtues of this process is that there are time limits. The plan and the hope is that these time limits will work in a way that will shorten the complaint disposition process so that people will get some certainty -- police officers will get some certainty -- in their lives and get it a lot sooner than is currently the case. So that's a starting observation.
The second observation is also kind of an observation about human nature -- that closure of an issue has emotional significance for many people. To analogize with the civil litigation context for a moment, there are time limits within which things have to happen in the civil litigation context. Sometimes if they don't happen within that time limit, then people tend to say: "Right. The time has passed and I can breathe easier." Limitation periods would be a good example of that.
A lot of the emotional certainty that flows from this is undermined when essentially you have an opportunity to revisit or reconsider a decision. Here, for example, in this provision, we are dealing with the issue of withdrawals of complaints, and we are dealing with the issue of the reverse withdrawal of complaints, because there is, of course, the opportunity for the police complaint commissioner to decide that a notice of withdrawal was made under duress -- and then, in effect, the issue gets reraised.
I am not for a moment wanting to say that duress might never occur, and I think it is important
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member makes a great deal of sense, and I think that all of the provisions in this, particularly in these two parts, have to be dealt with very cautiously and with a great deal of sensitivity. When we include provisions such as this, we do not cast any judgement on the frequency of these kinds of occurrences. We simply want to make sure that in the eventuality that the police complaint commissioner may determine that a particular matter has been done under duress, there is a provision to deal with it. Obviously, when you look at the word "determines," that means due diligence -- a very thorough look at the issue.
[4:30]
G. Plant: Actually, those are the questions I have with respect to both the amendments to section 52.2 and the section as it is about to be amended.Amendments approved.
Section 35, section 52.2 as amended approved.
On section 35, section 53.
G. Plant: I have heard from time to time the concern about the difficulty of distinguishing between public trust complaints and internal discipline complaints. I think the question in its simplest form goes something like this: why should the presence or absence of a complainant be a terribly significant factor? Why not process all discipline defaults as if they were public trust complaints?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the essential concern is that we allow the police bodies to deal with issues around labour-management and internal discipline issues in a way that leaves them with some management on their own, although you might say that those are issues of public interest. There's
[ Page 5823 ]
no question about that. That's why I believe that the police complaint commissioner has access to information with respect to all of those proceedings. But they have to be dealt with separately so that the public realizes that a public trust complaint is a complaint that's different from an internal discipline complaint and is dealt with very differently. The complainant would have access to all of that information through the complaint commissioner, whereas the information may not be as readily available because of labour-management issues involved in internal procedures.
G. Plant: I think I understand that explanation. We will see how it works over time.
Another issue that has arisen in the context of this part of the bill is how the officer will become aware that there is an alleged disciplinary default under investigation. The process as it is now involves something called a form 2. A question that has been raised to me, and I'm sure that Dr. Hogarth has seen the same question, is: why do we not have here something analogous to a form 2 step in the proceeding?
Let me add to that the second issue, because I know that Dr. Hogarth will have heard this, too. Part of the context here is creating an environment in which officers who are alleged to have committed some misconduct have an opportunity -- a without-prejudice opportunity, as it were -- to essentially deal with the problem, explain themselves and, perhaps in a fairly non-confrontational way, admit that there was an error and simply move on. I think the old process had some steps in the early part of it that allowed for that, and that has something to do with the relationship between form 2 and form 3 and all of that. It looks to me like a little of this is missing from the current process. I guess I wonder if that's not a bad thing.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is the intention to provide those forms generated by the case management system and/or by regulations, and that would be done.
G. Plant: Well, that will be helpful if it happens.
Let me deal with the issue around form 3. At the risk of oversimplification, I'm told that form 3 was a document that was sort of analogous to an information in a criminal proceeding. The Attorney General has some amendments on the order paper which I think address an issue that arises in the act as unamended -- that is, the fact that the process created by the act before you get to these amendments focuses very much on the allegations of a complainant and says that it's the allegations of the complainant that must go forward and be adjudicated on or be the subject of the decision.
It would seem to me to be much better if we had some step in that process that said: "Here is what the complainant says happened, and here are the events and the incidents." Then you add to that a step where you say: "These are the provisions of the code of conduct that are engaged by this. This is the fault that we say
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.
Section 35, sections 53 and 53.1 approved.
The Chair: On section 54, there is one amendment.
Amendment approved.
On section 35, section 54 as amended.
G. Plant: There are two points I want to ask about this. This is a provision that deals with summary dismissal of public trust complaints, and in subsection (1)(b) the language is: "
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand from Dr. Hogarth that there was some serious consideration of this issue and that there should be a subsection available that allows some degree of deliberation and determination on the issue, but that it not give the appearance that the issue has been adjudicated upon. That's why the wording in sub-subsection (b) is as it is. We wanted to make sure that the complainants would at least have the benefit of some consideration, not adjudication, and not have their complaints always having to be dismissed as being frivolous and vexatious. I think that would bring the whole process into disrepute.
G. Plant: Moving on, then, to subsection (8), this is another one of the sections that engages the risk that the process might never end -- never ending might not be the right problem here. It says that the police complaint commissioner may at any time order a discipline authority to investigate a public trust complaint if new information is received that the police complaint commissioner thinks requires an investigation. I think I understand the reason why the police complaint commissioner is given this power. It's part of the overall purpose of ensuring that the process is transparent -- to use Dr. Hogarth's term -- and that the police complaint commissioner does in fact have full oversight responsibility. But again, this is a power that if exercised too often would simply undermine the whole rest of the process.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm sure this power would be used very sparingly and with a great deal of discretion. However, this kind of power has to be in there, if the process is to have some confidence in the minds of the public. At the end of the day, if there is some new evidence that comes to the attention of the police complaint commissioner, the police complaint commissioner has to have some way of relooking at the issue.
G. Plant: I agree with that from the point of view of enhancing responsibility and ownership for police complaint issues within police departments, which is part of the objective here, as I understand it. It may be that when those cases arise, the action that the commissioner may want to take is to try and encourage the local discipline authority to in fact pick the ball back up again. That would be the better way of going in the first instance.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Agreed.
[ Page 5824 ]
Section 35, section 54 as amended approved.
On section 35, section 54.1.
G. Plant: There are a lot of provisions here about informal resolution. I have heard a lot of support for them from all the stakeholders. I have a couple of question, however. The first question arises with respect to section 54.1(a). I think I may have asked this question in the technical briefing. This imposes an obligation on the person who receives a public trust complaint to provide a list of support agencies to the complainant when the complaint is lodged. In the realm of pure logic, of course, the complaint is lodged before it is characterized and therefore before it becomes either of two things in the eyes of the law. I suppose it could be a public trust complaint or a service and policy complaint. But as a practical matter, I suppose what will probably happen is that the commissioner will generate this list and that basically as part of the system of processing complaints, everyone who comes in the door with a complaint will just be given a list of these support groups. Is that the intention?
[4:45]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there would be a package; a list would be just part of that package, and the rest would be how the process works and the like.G. Plant: In the next subsection we see that in the informal resolution process, a complainant can get help from a support person or may ask the police complaint commissioner to appoint such a support person. Who will pay for that support person?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that volunteer agencies have agreed to provide that kind of support, but if there are any budgetary requirements, it would come out of the complaint commissioner's budget.
G. Plant: The phrase "support person" is pretty broad, and it could include a lawyer. Is that a possible outcome here, that we could end up with lawyers for complainants participating in the informal resolution process?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe that subsection (10) contemplates the provision of legal assistance through lawyers, but, as a whole, the act does not deny the right to legal counsel.
G. Plant: I said already that I have heard support for the informal resolution process. One question that has been asked of me is: why not institute, in effect, an adverse inference drawn from the refusal by either party to participate in an informal process? Is that idea considered? Is it an idea that has any merit?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that for this kind of process of informal resolution to work, it has to be entirely voluntary. That's what is envisaged in this section.
Although I'm not aware of all of the discussions that took place, I understand that adverse inference was not considered. However, if somebody asked me, I would say that the issue might be the same as when we talk about mediation for family relations issues where women are victims of violence and there is a power imbalance. The police are generally perceived to be powerful in our community, and we have to look at those issues of power imbalance. If somebody does not voluntarily want to participate, there might be perceived to be some presence of undue influence because of the power imbalance. We wanted to make sure that the process works and works on a voluntary basis.
Section 35, section 54.1 approved.
On the amendment to section 35, section 54.2.
G. Plant: What is the effect of the amendment in this case?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand this actually came from the police. They did not want the entire personnel file locked up forever. They wanted to have some access.
Amendment approved.
On section 35, section 54.2 as amended.
G. Plant: We're looking at 54.2, which deals with reaching resolution and the consequences of this informal resolution process. I have to say that the inclusion in this context of a second-thought clause is an extraordinary abundance of caution, because the whole point of an informal resolution process is that it works because the people participating in it are comfortable with it. Nonetheless, it is certainly going to make doubly, triply and quadruply sure that that result is one that people are happy with.
May I just ask this question, though? You have this informal resolution process. It may result in disciplinary action, but it will only result in disciplinary action when the resolution has become binding through the entire completion of all of the process -- if I can put it that way. Putting it another way, the section doesn't mean to say that there will be no opportunity for disciplinary action. There can in fact be disciplinary action as a result of an informal resolution.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member is correct.
Section 35, section 54.2 as amended approved.
Section 35, sections 55 and 56 approved.
On section 35, section 56.1.
G. Plant: The police commissioner has, I suppose, an opt-in role in investigations into complaints. The role includes the possibility of appointing someone as an observer to an investigation who would then prepare an independent report on the investigation. Am I right in assuming that there is indeed a material difference between observing an investigation and actually conducting an investigation, and that the intention here is not to have two separate investigations but, rather, one investigation which may have someone looking over the shoulder of the investigator or participating in some ancillary way? Is that a fair summary of the intent here?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Precisely.
Section 35, section 56.1 approved.
On section 35, section 56.2.
[ Page 5825 ]
G. Plant: I guess we have here interim discipline provisions that allow some disciplinary action to take place pending an investigation and hearing. I have heard the concern that there is a difference between some aspects of this process and the existing collective agreements in some municipal police departments. I guess the question is whether that inconsistency does exist. And will it compromise the provisions of this section? Or are we in effect creating a process that will exist in the abstract? Whereas in the real world what will happen is that the collective agreement will rule.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There's no question that it may be at odds with the collective agreement in this procedure. If the hon. member looks at section 56.2(5), that may take care of some of the issues, because the board has the discretion to discontinue the pay allowances and the like. So there might be some ability to conform to the collective agreement.
G. Plant: Is section 56.2(5) new or old, at least in substance?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the substance of the subsection is the same. However, this authority is now going directly to the board, whereas previously this was a determination made by the chief, and then an appeal could go to the board.
Section 35, section 56.2 approved.
On section 35, section 57.
The Chair: On section 57, there is an amendment.
Amendment approved.
On section 35, section 57 as amended.
G. Plant: There are a couple of issues raised here that I want to pursue. Here is one place where I think some of the important differences between the old process and the new process become apparent. I am probably going to overstate the point, but that's the way I understand it.
The new process contemplates an investigation which produces a report which is presented to the discipline authority -- which, I suppose, is usually going to be the chief of police or someone like that. Then, of course, if there is some unhappiness or concern or question about the outcome of that process, then there are public hearing stages where opportunities are engaged.
[5:00]
Before we get to the stage of a public hearing where parties will have the kinds of rights that are, I suppose, more quasi-judicial in process -- the right to call witnesses, cross-examine witnesses, to conduct a full sort of quasi-trial into the allegationsI may not have put the point well, but what the issue is here -- as expressed to me by Dr. Hogarth -- is the kind of distinction between the labour relations management model and the old quasi-criminal model for police complaint investigations.
I understand the public policy purposes around making this change, but I want to leave a question with the Attorney General around the prospect that in some cases there may be some unfairness here. Essentially an officer will be the subject of a complaint and then there will be an investigation with a report that he doesn't have a lot of input into, which may say: "Well, you've done something wrong." Then there will be a discipline decision made, and the person making the discipline decision really will only get to hear a very little -- a summary, really -- of what has gone on.
I think this is a significant enough aspect of the process that I want to invite the Attorney General to explain why this has been set up this way.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Of course, there is the investigation. The complainant gets the summary of the investigation. The member gets all of the documents -- everything -- as does the authority. This is a hearing, then, before the chief, where the member or his or her agent -- which could be a lawyer -- is entitled to examine the head of the investigation unit. All of that is taped and sent to the commissioner, so the commissioner has access to all the information. So there is transparency throughout the process.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
Section 35, section 57 as amended approved.
Amendment to section 35, section 57.1 approved.
Section 35, section 57.1 as amended approved.
Amendments to section 35, section 58 approved.
On section 35, section 58 as amended.
G. Plant: This section deals with prehearing conferences. The section provides that prehearing conferences must not be offered if the complaint is of a certain level of seriousness. The point has been made to me that that's the very type of case where in fact you would want a prehearing conference, that in fact prehearing conferences are quite useful and take place now even in serious matters. The argument is that you should have this process or procedure available in all cases. It's not clear to me why that's not so.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The understanding was and is that if the matter is less serious, a prehearing conference would resolve the issues, and there would be no need for a formal hearing. Where the matters are extremely serious, obviously the chief then cannot offer a prehearing conference, because a formal conference is the more appropriate thing.
G. Plant: I'm not sure I understand what the minister means by a formal conference in that context.
[ Page 5826 ]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: A prehearing conference is the informal conference. Of course, the hearing is the formal hearing before the chief. That's where everybody is present and everything is recorded. That's why the hope is that, for less serious offences, informal prehearing conferences would be where those matters end.
G. Plant: I suppose the issue, though, is that even in a more serious case you may have, by that point in this process, reached a point where in effect the officer or the complainant is prepared to make some concessions. I certainly don't want to make an analogy to disclosure court that I'll later regret, because as the Attorney General knows, I have some pretty serious concerns with disclosure court.
Nonetheless, we are not here in the criminal law. We are here in a different arena, where if there's an opportunity to simplify the case, to narrow the issues -- those kinds of things -- we ought to do that. I guess I pursue the point with the Attorney General. Why is this process not available even in serious cases?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The issue at the heart of this distinction, as far as I can gather, is the issue of public confidence. If this process was seen to be making deals on very serious matters in informal discussions, I think the process would lose credibility -- would have no credibility. That's why, even if the officer is prepared to make some admissions on very serious issues, those must be made in formal hearings where there may be cameras and lawyers present, so the public have the confidence. As the public has a distaste for so-called plea bargaining in general justice issues, I think the public would have a great deal of distaste for us making "deals" in informal discussions that are not public.
That's why I think, although it appears on the face of it that we are against resolution of these issues in an informal way, what we want to do is strike a balance. Where the issues aren't of a very serious nature, they can be resolved informally. If the issues are extremely serious, where the issue of public confidence hinges on the resolution of those in private or in public, the approach that's been taken is that serious issues are dealt with in public in a formal hearing.
G. Plant: I think I understand the distinction. I'll be sure to use it against the Attorney General the next time we have a discussion about plea bargaining in disclosure court.
Section 35, section 58 as amended approved.
Amendments to section 35, section 58.1 approved.
Section 35, section 58.1 as amended approved.
Amendments to section 35, section 59 approved.
Section 35, section 59 as amended approved.
Amendments to section 35, section 59.1 approved.
Section 35, section 59.1 as amended approved.
Section 35, section 60 approved.
Amendment to section 35, section 60.1 approved.
Section 35, section 60.1 as amended approved.
Amendments to section 35, section 61 approved.
Section 35, section 61 as amended approved.
On section 35, section 61.1.
G. Plant: The issue of compellability is one that I think has created a concern in other jurisdictions in Canada. Clearly the process of investigating police complaints has to enjoy the confidence of both the larger public and also police officers themselves. This provision, I think, essentially says that someone who is subject to a public complaint -- that is, presumably, a police officer -- is not compellable to testify as a witness in respect of that complaint; but their failure to testify may give rise to an adverse inference. I have heard, on behalf of police chiefs, a concern that if the respondent to a complaint is not to be compellable at law, the use of the adverse inference -- the presumption to pressure someone to testify -- places an unfair burden on the respondent.
[5:15]
I suppose from another perspective the question is: why not just simply make the respondent compellable? Why not get through the front door essentially what this provision really will achieve through the back door?Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe that in other provinces, such as Quebec, police are questioning the compellability enshrined in those statutes. I don't believe that it creates any confidence in a process when one takes away the fundamental rights of people, particularly rights such as being able not to testify on these kinds of issues where this is essentially a civil procedure.
It is not a criminal procedure, and they should have the right to not testify because it gives them comfort. At the same time, they know that they would have an adverse inference drawn if they do not testify, and that, I think, strikes the right balance between those rights of the police. They are very conscious of those issues.
As you know, we looked at various jurisdictions across the country. Places such as Ontario are having a great deal of difficulty around how they investigate these issues. Although this is not a criminal procedure, one could argue that it is a quasi-criminal procedure because it can have serious consequences. It is therefore appropriate that we respect the rights of police officers to not testify yet give them a caution that at the end of the day, there would be an inference drawn.
Section 35, sections 61.1 and 62 approved.
On section 35, section 63.
G. Plant: There are obviously important issues raised here. This is now the second of the three major streams. We're now dealing with service or policy complaints, and these are important issues. Any time you construct processes that may have the result of essentially compelling authorities to change their procedures or the way they operate, there's potential for significant consequences. What we're essentially doing here is accepting the recommendations of Mr. Justice Oppal on these issues. I think I understand the way the process works, so I'll pass on questions here.
Section 35, sections 63 and 63.1 approved.
On section 35, section 64.
[ Page 5827 ]
G. Plant: I want to see if I can discover the issue I had wanted to raise here. We're now moving into the area of internal discipline complaints, and the problem I discussed briefly earlier was that in many respects, an internal discipline complaint is just like a public trust complaint -- but there's no complainant.
I think I saw somewhere a concern, and I guess it was either here or perhaps also in the service
Where we don't have a complainant, how will this be documented? How will we initiate the process in mechanical terms? There won't be a complainant filing a complaint, but there will need to be some kind of documentary triggering of these things. I wonder if I could just get the Attorney General's assistance on how that is going to happen in the course of establishing the procedures that are contemplated under this provision.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Those issues are not governed by this part. If there are complaints that are generated from within, they would be dealt with
G. Plant: At the risk of oversimplification, then, the complainant in these kinds of cases is
Well, I don't know if we were proceeding down a path that was lacking in clarity. If the minister has received information that might make clear the path which currently is less clear to me than it should be
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I was obviously in error in saying what I did say.
What is lacking in this part are some procedures as to how the internal discipline procedures are to take place. Dr. Hogarth is assisting the chiefs of police and, of course, the boards in coming to a conclusion on those procedures. There are some in section 64, of course. It says right here: "
G. Plant: So to return to my original question, it may be that in the course of developing those procedures, there will be documents analogous to complaints -- or some form or something else -- that will then be, in the course of this procedure, the triggering, the first or the initial step, in the processing of what will become an internal discipline complaint. Is that correct?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, and those procedures would become law as soon as the particular board approved them.
G. Plant: That's helpful. So the concern that was conveyed to me is an issue that is going to be resolved in the course of moving through the establishment of those procedures.
Those are all the questions that I have on section 64.
Section 35, section 64 approved.
On section 35, section 64.1.
G. Plant: This talks about multiple complaints or compound complaints. This comes back to a point I made earlier about the fact that the three streams of complaint types can overlap with each other. I guess I want to have a visual sense, if I can, about what a compound complaint looks like, given that we have initial complaints that will be filed in some cases and processes in respect of internal discipline complaint procedures that don't yet have complaint documents attached to them. We have a record of complaint. We also have this new thing that is being created as a result of the amendments that have been put forward today, which is the
Is it possible to explain how this will all work, in a way that alleviates the apprehension that this is just going to create a paper nightmare?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm told by Dr. Hogarth -- of course, he looked at the issues very thoroughly -- that there would most likely be only two types of compound complaints, and that would be public trust and service complaints, and internal discipline and service policy complaints. For instance, he advises me that if you have somebody that's been beaten up in the course of investigation or arrest and the like, that may be a service or policy complaint as well as a public trust complaint. If the members say, in a particular instance, that they were following policy, it would be a policy and public trust complaint.
G. Plant: I think I understand the explanation in terms of the attempt to keep the substance of it all coherent. But I am also concerned about the documentation aspect. I guess the furthest we are going to go here is for me to hear that in the continuing development of the systems design and the procedures every effort will be made to ensure that the process is as simple as possible.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That attempt is being made. Dr. Hogarth, as I indicated earlier, is working on that issue. These are obviously complex issues, but it's quite clear from section 64.1 that each component of a compound complaint has to be then processed as a separate complaint. At the end of the day I'm sure there would be some information-sharing back and forth so that efforts aren't duplicated.
[5:30]
Section 35, sections 64.1 and 65 approved.On section 35, section 65.1.
G. Plant: I guess the question here is one around why we need this process. I suppose I could express that question in more argumentative terms. It is an interesting process that allows a municipal constable to sidestep, in a way, all the rest
[ Page 5828 ]
of it by going directly and in confidence to the police complaint commissioner in the hope, I suppose, that the police complaint commissioner would then initiate an investigation or something like that.
Why is this fair? How is this fair to the respondent officers in the particular cases that will be caught by this, recognizing that the processes that are in place involve form 2 and form 3, that the officer knows about the complaint against him, that the officer has an opportunity early in the process to attempt to resolve it informally, and that, I think, we are some distance down the road from the core principles?
I think we are some distance from the core principles at issue here that fundamentally began with the recognition that municipal police boards were in a conflict of interest in dealing with police complaints and so on. I think we have a provision here that if used more often than it should be -- and perhaps this is the real issue -- could really become a bit of a way of undermining the integrity of all the rest of the process. Maybe I've got it wrong, and I'd like the Attorney General to correct me if I do.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: In simple language, this is obviously protection for whistle-blowers. The complainants would make the complaint, the complaint would not be acted upon, no disciplinary action would be taken unless the complainant is prepared to make a report, put his or her name to the report in the first place. At the end of the day, if any criminal charges are to ensue from that, at that point the complainant would have to testify in open court. So there are protections built in, and I don't think this process really
I think there's a distinction, I might add. It may not be upheld by the courts, but there is a distinction in knowing the allegations rather than knowing the accuser.
G. Plant: Irrespective of the legal consequences of that distinction as a practical matter, I think it's a good one. There may well be cases where there needs to be an investigation of an incident and we need to know what the facts of the incident are, but we don't necessarily all need to know who the complainant is. So to that extent I think I understand what the Attorney General is saying. But I should at least acknowledge that the view which the Attorney General has expressed and which I have provisionally agreed with is probably not shared by absolutely everybody. It probably is important to have at least paused here and recognized the risk to what is otherwise a process that is awfully transparent and full of face-to-face accountability for all sorts of good reasons. There's a risk here that some of those things may be undermined if this section is not used in the right way. I certainly hope it will be used in the way that it's intended.
Those are the questions that I have on section 65.1. For that matter, they are the questions I have with respect to all of the provisions up to but not including section 66.
Section 35, sections 65.1 to 65.3 inclusive approved.
On section 35, section 66.
G. Plant: This section allows the police complaint commissioner to appoint a representative for a complainant in some circumstances. That representative may be a parent or a legal guardian; it may also be someone referred to as a "responsible adult." I wonder if there is a cost implication here. Are we talking about somebody who may say: "I'll do this if you pay me"? If that's right, what are those cost implications?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This language is borrowed from the human rights legislation. I don't believe it's meant for a legal representative; it's just meant to provide representation for a complainant who is under age 19.
G. Plant: I understand that. We're not here seeking to enlarge the already troublesome umbrella of the adult guardianship legislation and all the representatives that are contemplated by that legislation, which presents all sorts of problems for Dr. Hogarth, wearing another hat -- and I'm sure he'll resolve them all. It's just a simple question. We could have a person who is chosen to act as a representative, and I understand that the function is a fairly specific one. Again the question is: is this someone who is presumably going to act as a volunteer, or is this someone who is going to do this for pay? And if so, who pays?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm sure that in certain circumstances there would be a remuneration available. The complaint commissioner would negotiate that remuneration with the appropriate individuals, as this section deals with people under age 18 or suffering from disabilities and the like. It is expected, though, that much of the work will be done by volunteers as representatives.
G. Plant: We're not, in this section, creating a category of complainant advocates, are we?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I hope not.
Section 35, sections 66 and 66.1 approved.
The Chair: The foregoing sections were all contained within section 35 of the bill. For clarity, I'll now call section 35 as amended.
Section 35 as amended approved.
The Chair: A question has been raised as to whether section 15 passed, so to be clear, I'll now call section 15.
Interjection.
The Chair: You spoke to it, but there's some question as to whether it was passed.
Section 15 approved.
Sections 36 to 41 inclusive approved.
On section 42.
G. Plant: Are the regulatory powers respecting the use of force, which are referred to in sub-subsection 74(2)(t)(i), new?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, that is new, and it provides explicit authority for regulating use of force.
G. Plant: The regulation power that we're speaking of here, if I recall, is the regulation-making power of cabinet
[ Page 5829 ]
rather than of the minister. Do we see here a recognition that perhaps with respect to issues around the use of force, it's appropriate that powers to make regulations around those issues are more properly elevated to cabinet as opposed to being regulation-making powers of the minister?
Frankly, I think that that argument could be made, should be made and is a good one. We're dealing with some serious issues here, and it's quite appropriate that they be issues resolved by cabinet as opposed to simply by the minister.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: These are by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, cabinet. The hon. member is suggesting that perhaps it should be the minister?
Interjection.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: No. Oh. It is the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I was wondering if you were going to make the other argument. I was going to say that we appoint judges through cabinet.
G. Plant: All kinds of astonishing things happen, and astonishing powers are given to cabinet. I was just making a relatively small point -- that I actually think it's a good thing that if we're going to have regulations around the use of force, they be regulations made at a higher level within the system of government and at the cabinet level rather than at the ministerial level.
In giving this power to cabinet, what is it that the minister expects is going to happen here? Are there going to be new regulations about the use of force, about training and retraining in respect of firearms and the wide range of issues that are dealt with here? Is that a process that's about to get underway? How will it take place?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: We don't have uniform regulations around the use of force. We are about to establish a committee of ministry representatives and police chiefs so that we can begin to work on this. The regulations would be developed from that process and then be taken to cabinet.
G. Plant: Will the regulations here apply only to the officers who are underneath the umbrella of the definition of officer in this act? That is, will they be regulations that will not apply to the RCMP?
[5:45]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.G. Plant: As part of the Attorney General's ongoing consultations with the Solicitor General of Canada, does he have in mind discussing issues like this with the Solicitor General to ensure that, to the extent possible, there's some consistency around these issues within British Columbia?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't know whether any previous Attorneys General have discussed this issue. I haven't so far; I have been busy trying to get the federal government to change its mind on the issue around a complaints process. Once we have this new enhanced and improved complaints process in British Columbia, the RCMP would be subject to the same process. That's one thing I'm pushing currently.
Regulation of the use of force
Sections 42 and 43 approved.
On section 44.
G. Plant: This is actually an issue that wasn't raised by me in second reading debate. It was raised by another member, but I can tell the Attorney General that it has been raised by members of the public who have written to me on the subject. And I suspect that they may have written to the Attorney General. I want to give that voice, if you will, a voice here in this chamber and ask why is it, as a matter of public policy, that section 5 of the Offence Act will not apply to the Police Act or to the regulations?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously this is simply an issue of whether or not we want to create literally dozens of offences under the Police Act, and we don't want to. That's not the intent of this piece of legislation. There are criminal consequences that flow from the actions of the police officers. That can be dealt with by the criminal justice system -- and are dealt with by the criminal justice system on a regular basis. We wanted to make sure that this is seen as a civilian process; that is, a complaints process that may have criminal consequences, because officers may face charges pursuant to the Criminal Code at the end of the day. But we wanted to make sure that we don't turn this whole exercise in creating public confidence into simply a charging exercise or an investigation exercise for criminal purposes. There is a place for that, and that can happen. I'm sure that it's bound to happen in some cases, but there is a place for that that's not within this legislation.
G. Plant: So if a police officer in the course of his or her duties should perform or commit an act or an omission which would, independently of this act, constitute a criminal offence -- like the offence of assault or kidnapping or any other offence under any other statute of British Columbia or Canada -- nothing in this act takes away from the potential liability of that police officer for his or her criminal conduct. Is that correct?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That is correct.
G. Plant: So, really, at the risk of incorrectly restating what the Attorney General said earlier, the concern is to avoid
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. In fact that concern is highlighted, if one looks at the statutory obligations of the police complaint commissioner. For instance, if the police complaint commissioner missed a deadline on a particular issue, through
[ Page 5830 ]
inadvertence, that could be an offence if this section wasn't here. I don't know whether we want to be launching a criminal investigation for missing a deadline.
G. Plant: I actually would agree with the Attorney General on that point. Of course, the critical question here is to restore or enhance public confidence in the integrity of the process, and I have to say that I don't see how that would happen by applying section 5 of the Offence Act to the act. I appreciate the fact that the Attorney General has given some consideration to that issue, and I now have some questions about the transition provisions in section 46.
Section 44 approved.
G. Plant: There's the issue of numbering. I'm not sure whether we're dealing with section 45 or 46. If we're dealing with section 45, which repeals the supplement
Section 45 approved.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Perhaps we could move the next amendment after dinner. Looking at the time, I ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the House now rise and at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m., and thereafter sit until adjournment.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 5:55 p.m.
The committee met at 2:38 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
(continued)
C. Clark: I'd like to resume today continuing on the topic of parks, if we could. Could the minister give us a firm number of how many parks will be created this year and how many
Hon. C. McGregor: In large part it depends on the recommendations that come out of the land use planning tables. We're anticipating that there could be a hundred new parks with those land use planning tables that are nearing completion in Fort Nelson, Fort St. John and the Robson Valley.
C. Clark: That would be a total for just this year -- 97 or thereabouts, plus three that are anticipated. Could the minister also give us a number for how many parks have been created in the past which aren't up to full operational standard yet? I suspect that there were some that might have been created a year, two years or three years ago for which there's still a substantial capital investment that needs to be made to get them up and running to the standard which was promised, whether they be a class A park or whatever class they are in.
Hon. C. McGregor: I'm afraid we don't have that number available, but we'll endeavour to find out the information and give it to the member.
C. Clark: The question, I guess, would be better put if I just ask: what parks that have been recently created continue to be under development? I appreciate the minister getting back to us on that number.
I'm interested in how the minister is going to be able to accommodate the new parks and ensure that they get up to standard, given that the budget appears to have fallen by about 1-1/2 percent for parks. I wonder if she could comment on that for us.
Hon. C. McGregor: The member brings up a very interesting point: that is, that within our government we've created a large number of parks -- in fact, doubled our parks -- and we've by and large kept the same amount of staff to manage those parks. It has presented and continues to present some very unique challenges for us.
Not all parks have to have contracted operators or rangers or anything like that. Some of the parks are meant as ecological reserves and don't require that kind of day-to-day maintenance. Nonetheless, there are some significant challenges.
We're engaged currently in a process
C. Clark: When the minister says that she is going to be seeking out some new partnerships, does that include any public-private partnering in the parks system?
Hon. C. McGregor: We haven't made any decisions. What I'm trying to suggest to the member is we're going to engage in a lengthy consultation on some possibilities. Obviously that's a possibility.
C. Clark: When the minister says that Parks has kept the same amount of staff, although the number of parks has grown, I wonder if she could just give us a comparison of the average number of staff that are at a park, that are assigned to a single park now, versus the average number in past years, before this really explosive growth in the number of parks in British Columbia occurred.
Hon. C. McGregor: There are currently 645 protected areas in total -- although, as I pointed out to the member
[ Page 5831 ]
earlier, not all of those would have facilities or would necessarily have staff attached to them, for that reason -- and 373 staff, but those are only Parks staff. In addition to that, there are all the contracted operators that would operate all of the major class A parks that have camp facilities, trails and so on.
[2:45]
C. Clark: Has the average number of staff people per park dropped over the last year or so?Hon. C. McGregor: Well, we don't have the exact percentage, but yes.
C. Clark: Could the minister tell us if there will be a drop in the total number of FTEs in the Parks ministry this year?
Hon. C. McGregor: There is no drop.
C. Clark: I'm not sure if we fully canvassed this before, but I want to get the breakdown of the staff numbers between the region and headquarters -- just a quick yes or no on whether that's a higher percentage in the regions now than it was last year.
Hon. C. McGregor: This year we have 78 staff working in headquarters and 295 working in districts. We don't call them regions; we call them districts in the Parks branch. That is up over last year. So the headquarters numbers are down, and the district numbers are up.
C. Clark: Does the minister have a number for what they were last year, rather than just up and down?
Hon. C. McGregor: In '96-97 headquarters was 81; districts were 293.
C. Clark: I'm not sure, but I think this would be the appropriate place to talk about how many of those staff are funded by FRBC. I wonder if the minister could tell us that, if it's appropriate here. I know we're intending to get into specific FRBC questions later -- if she'd like to do that.
Hon. C. McGregor: These are all part of our vote. There's no FRBC funding.
C. Clark: How many Parks staff, outside of the vote, are paid for through FRBC?
Hon. C. McGregor: We've just recently had five FTEs approved to support FRBC funding for the forest recreation program that we deliver.
C. Clark: I suspect, then
Hon. C. McGregor: Could the member repeat the question?
C. Clark: How many environment youth team staff people are employed through the Parks budget? I'd like to get an idea of where in the Parks budget they're employed. For example, are they employed in the regional offices, or are they employed at headquarters? I guess the third area would be: how many are employed who are paid through the Parks budget but aren't employed directly by the ministry at all?
Hon. C. McGregor: There are five employed in the headquarters branch. They're actually in the MELP budget, not in the Parks budget.
C. Clark: Based on our discussions in the past, I was of the understanding that all of the funding for the environment youth teams goes through the Ministry of Parks. Is that correct?
Hon. C. McGregor: E-teams are managed by the Parks branch, and the money comes through a section 22 account under the Financial Administration Act.
C. Clark: If they're managed by the Parks section, I suspect the ministry must have some idea of where they're employed. We know there are five in headquarters. Are there any environment youth teams employed in the regions for the ministry?
Hon. C. McGregor: Well, the five that we talked about earlier are administering the E-team program; they're not actually members of the E-team. Let's be clear and make sure we get those separate. There are 14 in total who are employed in either MELP or Parks. I understand that the member has been given a list of all of the names and where they're from, so she can see for herself which ones are Parks and which ones are MELP.
C. Clark: And of the 14
Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.
C. Clark: I appreciate that.
I want to understand a little better how the funding for the E-teams works. I know that half of the money flows from FRBC and half comes from the ministry's base budget. I wonder if the minister could illustrate for the committee how that funding process works. I'm perhaps not as familiar as I should be with the nature of section 22 accounts. I just wonder if the minister could illustrate for us the decision-making process involved in the way that funding flows through. I guess the simple way to put it would be: who is it that signs the paycheques at the end of the day, given the fact that not all the money is Parks money, but the actual employees are supervised by the Parks ministry?
Hon. C. McGregor: I'm going to try this. The environment youth teams budget is actually $7 million from FRBC and $3.4 million from our base budget, for a total of $10.4 million overall. In terms of which dollars are used to pay for which positions, proposals come in, and all proposals are screened with the FRBC staff. We sit down with FRBC to ensure that if there is a possibility that it would fit the FRBC funding envelope -- the forest recreation program, for instance
Not in every single case, but by and large, one can draw the line between the interns. Eco-educator green team intern
[ Page 5832 ]
categories would mostly come from ministry base funding, and the express teams and work crews come from FRBC funding. That fits their criteria and, in fact, also employs displaced forest workers as supervisors of those work crews.
C. Clark: Does the ministry live with the same criteria that FRBC does for using its part of the budget to employ the E-teams -- as obviously they do for the FRBC portion of the budget for employing E-teams?
[3:00]
Hon. C. McGregor: Criteria are in place for all projects, not just for the FRBC. Obviously, part of the screening is which ones might fit into what FRBC considers to be an appropriate spending of funding that comes through them. All projects are evaluated against the goals for the program, which are to improve the environment, create environmental and recreational legacies, provide practical employment and training experiences, and promote personal development.C. Clark: I have learned some new things today, so I hope the minister will forgive my questioning if perhaps it seems to be a little pedantic. I'm curious. The section 22 account
Hon. C. McGregor: Section 22 is used to make sure that we keep the money separate from the base. It's a way of tracking dollars so that they don't get lost, so to speak, in the rest of the budget.
C. Clark: I suspect the ministry, then, also has a method of going through the list -- an accounting method, where they would look at the list. If they're interested in tracking and determining how many people were employed by
Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.
C. Clark: When they last looked, did that audit demonstrate that the money was indeed being spent appropriately? Or did the ministry find that some corrections needed to be made?
Hon. C. McGregor: Before any expenditures are made, it's signed off by FRBC. So there aren't any errors made.
C. Clark: Does FRBC sign off on all the employees of the environment youth teams or just the 60-odd percent that are identified as funded by FRBC?
Hon. C. McGregor: They sign off on all the ones that they would approve.
C. Clark: So the entire budget for the E-teams goes back to FRBC so that they can ensure that it's being spent properly. I appreciate the minister telling us that. I hope she'll forgive my confusion about these accounting methods.
I have a few more questions about the environment youth teams. I wonder: is this a new process for the ministry? I suspect that FRBC funding for the E-teams
Hon. C. McGregor: There was FRBC funding for E-teams last year.
C. Clark: Can the minister tell us what portion of the environment youth teams budget was made up of FRBC money last year?
Hon. C. McGregor: We may not have these figures exactly correct, because we are talking about last year's money now. But $5.2 million came from FRBC and $5 million from the ministry's base budget.
C. Clark: I am just taking a moment to look at the budget for this year, including the environment youth teams. I see that the budget is $3.35 million for the environment youth teams. I know the minister will be able to explain this to me; all I have to do is ask. When I add up the money that comes from both FRBC and the base budget this year, I come up with $10.4 million for the environment youth teams. I wonder why that's not reflected in the ministry budget.
Hon. C. McGregor: The FAA 22 account is where we receive the money from FRBC. It is not a part of our vote. The $3.35 million, which is the $3.4 million that I spoke of earlier rounded off, is from our ministry vote.
C. Clark: I appreciate the minister clarifying that for us. I may come back to the environment youth teams, because I know we'll be talking about FRBC funding later, as well. I want to take a moment to pass the floor to one of my colleagues, who has some questions about Parks.
S. Hawkins: I have a very short question with respect to the Kettle Valley. There is an area there where there is trestle restoration on a railway. The Kettle Valley Railway in the Myra canyon area, I believe, is being looked at for a park, and I wonder if the minister can comment on how far that is in the development.
Hon. C. McGregor: That will be at least partly determined by the Okanagan-Shuswap land use table. It will depend on what that table designates as appropriate protected areas. Obviously it's a very popular recreation corridor. In fact, I met recently with the Trans-Canada Trail people. We're looking at ways to try to facilitate the use of that as part of the Trans-Canada Trail.
S. Hawkins: Has the province bought any land in and around the area? Have they put any money towards buying any land? Or have they bought any land in the area towards a park?
Hon. C. McGregor: We have purchased one portion of that corridor.
S. Hawkins: The predictable question: which portion and how much?
Hon. C. McGregor: We'll have to get back to you with the details.
[ Page 5833 ]
S. Hawkins: Just to follow up to the last question, could you also find out if it is in this budget? I appreciate the minister taking the time to answer those questions.
G. Abbott: I want to ask again, very briefly
The general area I want to canvass here is the Mount Assiniboine Lodge and its management. The issue was raised to me by one of my constituents. However, as the minister knows, the issue was also raised in the Globe and Mail by no less a luminary than Jeffrey Simpson. So it's an issue that's been quite public and prominent and one that I want, as I say, to canvass here briefly. Could the minister advise us, first of all, who currently holds the management contract for Mount Assiniboine Lodge?
Hon. C. McGregor: The Mount Assiniboine Lodge contract was retendered. It has recently been awarded to the Mount Assiniboine Lodge Ltd.
G. Abbott: Could the minister advise us on what date the contract was retendered?
Hon. C. McGregor: It was awarded within the last month.
G. Abbott: I'm thinking just as quickly as I can, hon. Chair, and sometimes that's not as quickly as one would like.
Would I be correct, then, in my understanding that in the past roughly 12 months we have seen the management contract for Mount Assiniboine Lodge move from the Renner family, who I believe held the contract for some time, to ABC Wilderness Adventures and more recently then to Mount Assiniboine Lodge? Is that a correct summary of the events here?
Hon. C. McGregor: There actually never was a change in the management of the lodge. It is with the original operator.
G. Abbott: The minister, then, is saying Mount Assiniboine Lodge Ltd. is in fact the Renner family. Is that correct?
Okay, then just to conclude this, in terms of how the management of the lodge is determined this year, or from year to year, or from contract period to contract period, my understanding from my constituents and from Jeffrey Simpson was that there was some kind of process that occurred in, I believe, June of 1996, where it appeared that the Renners would be losing their management contract -- that it would be going to ABC Wilderness Adventures. But it appears now that in fact that change did not occur. Was there a policy decision made by the ministry with respect to that which resulted in the original contractors continuing on?
Hon. C. McGregor: There were several legal and procedural flaws in the original tendering. As a result, a decision was taken to cancel that process in September of 1996. To ensure that the lodge would continue to operate effectively, we signed a one-year permit extension with Mount Assiniboine Lodge that would have been effective until November 31, 1997. But subsequent to that, we retendered and went through the appropriate processes outlined under the Park Act, and the tender was re-awarded to Mount Assiniboine Lodge.
G. Abbott: Could the minister advise us how long the contract which has just been signed will be in place for?
Hon. C. McGregor: It's a ten-year contract.
G. Abbott: Finally -- at least, I think it will be final, as it's subject to the content of the answer to the questions -- what factors entered into the ministry's decision to award the contract to Mount Assiniboine? I'm not necessarily directing this question to just the Mount Assiniboine Lodge. But is there a process or a set of parameters in place which allows the ministry to judge contracts for facilities like these? Is there a set of factors which the ministry considers in awarding these contracts? What are they?
[3:15]
Hon. C. McGregor: If the member would like, we can send him a copy of the tendering documents.G. Abbott: That would be fine. I was really just looking for a very short list of them, in simple terms. This was not something I wanted to debate at length. But if the minister doesn't have those handy and has produced them in brief, I would be pleased to receive the report she's mentioned.
Hon. C. McGregor: We don't have the detail on the criteria. So if the member doesn't mind, we'll provide him with a copy of the tender document that would have information in it.
C. Clark: I want to finish up some questions about parks, if I could, with the minister. The first one, I guess, would be
Hon. C. McGregor: By and large, they will be class A parks. That provides the highest level of protection to a protected area. But some of them will be protected areas designated under the Environment and Land Use Act. That permits a wider range of activities on lands that might have traditionally been used for activities that normally, under the Park Act, would not be permitted.
C. Clark: Could the minister tell us what the breakdown is between the two classifications in terms of the hectares that have been set aside? I assume the ministry must have that information handy.
Hon. C. McGregor: Any new parks will be subject to negotiations and final designation by the Environment and Land Use Committee recommending to government. So we can't predict what percentage will go to class A parks and what percentage will be designated under the Environment and Land Use Act.
C. Clark: Then maybe a total in terms of the total land mass that is predicted to be set aside for these 100 new parks that the minister has mentioned in the course of debate
Hon. C. McGregor: Again, I can't give that information until the final decisions are made about which areas are protected as a result of the land use planning process and what the tables recommend in terms of their designation --
[ Page 5834 ]
whether they should be designated as class A parks or whether they should be designated under the Environment and Land Use Act.
C. Clark: I misunderstood what the minister was trying to tell me in the first answer. I thought she was trying to tell me that they couldn't predict how much land would be set aside for the protected areas, because that was going to be affected by the land use act. I made the assumption, as well, that the ministry would know how much land would be set aside for the class A parks.
I know that in the legislation the minister has on the table already, there are a number of parks proposed. It is somewhere in the area of 70, and I suspect that makes up the bulk of the 100 new parks that the minister is talking about. Is that correct?
Hon. C. McGregor: It may be that we've been talking at cross-purposes. I understood we were talking about future park designations, not what has already been designated. What has already been designated and approved is in this year's Park Act. So they've already been designated as class A parks, because that's the only thing the Park Act covers. So those are parks that have been created in the past.
In the previous questions, I understood the member to be asking about future parks, over the next year, and that's where we came up with the number of potentially 100.
C. Clark: I see. I think we have been talking at cross-purposes a bit. Just so I'm clear, then, on the 100 new future parks, could the minister tell us how many new parks there were in the last year and what the breakdown is between those parks in terms of their classification and how much land mass that represents?
Hon. C. McGregor: We don't have that information here.
C. Clark: Does the minister not even know how many new parks were created last year?
Hon. C. McGregor: We'll have to get the ADM for the land use coordination office back here to be able to provide those kinds of statistics.
C. Clark: Okay. I might suggest to the minister that she might not need to bring him back. Maybe somebody could just call him on his phone or something, rather than putting him to the trouble of travelling all the way over here. I didn't realize that that level of detail was something that would be difficult to get. I don't want to put anybody to too much trouble.
To be clear again about what we're talking about, in this year's versus last year's budget, when the minister talks about the 100 new parks, are the 70-odd new parks proposed in the legislation that is now under consideration by the Legislature a subset of that 100?
Hon. C. McGregor: No, they were previously designated, so they're not counted in the 100 that are coming in the next year.
C. Clark: I will be looking forward to getting that information about how the most recent park designations are classified, between protected areas and class A parks.
Could the minister tell us
Hon. C. McGregor: There is a variety of stages, and there are portions of the budget for park development. First we start with planning activities, developing park use plans and master plans. On an annual basis that's 11 percent of our budget. In this year's budget that's approximately $3.8 million. In addition to that, there would be capital development for those parks where park use plans were in place and decisions had been made about the use of the park. That's $2.998 million or 8.6 percent of our annual budget.
C. Clark: Could the minister tell us whether those two numbers -- the 11 percent and the 8.6 percent -- represent an increase or a decrease over last year?
Hon. C. McGregor: Last year's numbers would have been very similar.
C. Clark: I'm surprised to note that the budget for planning and implementation doesn't appear to be greater this year than last, given the fact that so many new parks are being created. I know that, obviously, the biggest investment in a park happens at the beginning when we undertake the infrastructure and make all those capital investments. From there it's operations and maintenance, and I imagine that that budget would shrink over the long term.
I wonder if the minister could tell us why her ministry hasn't budgeted more this year for those capital investments, for the startup costs, when in fact there are so many new parks on the books to be created.
Hon. C. McGregor: As I pointed out to the member earlier, one of the things that has to go on first, before one makes major investments in infrastructure or facility development, is the planning process. That involves communities in determining what they think is the appropriate use of the park.
I can give the member an example. In Kamloops there's the newly designated Lac du Bois Grasslands area. It's an example of one of the parks that is being added to the Park Act this year. Development has not yet begun, because there's a very extensive process in which we engage with the public before we make any of those decisions.
So it's a matter of planning over time to develop those. In fact, the member is well aware that we have taken some reductions in this ministry, but we did protect the park budget, by and large. If we went back to Hansard and looked at the numbers we talked about earlier on, the member knows it's very similar in terms of our commitment. That is because we are interested in continuing to develop those parks and continuing the process of planning and involving communities in decisions around how they should be used.
C. Clark: I understand that the Parks budget hasn't changed significantly -- it's dropped 1-1/2 percent or so over last year. Parks and parks budgets are like education and education budgets: you can keep your education budget exactly the same, but if the number of kids in the school system has grown dramatically, that's actually a real cut in
[ Page 5835 ]
funding. It's like health care: as your population grows and ages, as you have more people using the health care system, if your health care budget remains static, that also represents a cut.
What I'd suggest to the minister is that the same thing's happening in the Parks budget. The budget has dropped just a smidgen, but the number of parks that are planned has grown dramatically. It appears to me that that represents, in exactly the same way as health care and education funding, a cut -- and a dramatic cut -- in the budget.
The minister did mention, though, that the new parks are in the planning process. I noted, though, when she told me about the budget for planning for this year that that doesn't appear to have changed over last year, either. Both the development and the planning budgets, she said, were the same as last year. If all those new parks are at least in the planning process, why hasn't the planning budget increased over the last year?
Hon. C. McGregor: I believe I've answered these questions.
C. Clark: Actually, no, the minister hasn't answered these questions. I take it she doesn't want to answer these questions.
What I'm trying to find out is if maybe the minister is referring to a different
Hon. C. McGregor: No.
C. Clark: Now I am clear. The development budget hasn't increased, the planning budget hasn't increased, but the number of parks proposed has increased. We're in the planning process, but there's no more planning money for it. So I do understand, then, that we are talking about a real cut to parks funding. I just wanted to be clear about that. I thought that perhaps, in my disbelief, I had misinterpreted what the minister has told me about planning for parks.
It's hard to believe that the ministry would undertake planning for all these new parks when there's no money to staff them, when there's no money to develop infrastructure for them and when there's no money even budgeted for the planning process. I don't know
[3:30]
Hon. C. McGregor: I believe I've explained to the member the planning process that is in place. But I would remind her again of the remarks I made earlier around the consultations we're going to engage in with communities around park stewardship. That might be an opportunity to discuss park planning processes and how we might alter those.C. Clark: Is this planning process that the ministry's proposing dramatically different from previous planning processes that the ministry has undertaken in order to implement its parks plans?
Hon. C. McGregor: That will be subject to the consultation. I can't presuppose what that might include.
C. Clark: I guess the point is that the ministry hasn't planned it to be dramatically different, so it hasn't planned it to be dramatically cheaper. I don't know how the ministry could possibly undertake this planning process if there isn't any money to do it. That's the story the numbers tell. There's no money to do planning; there are 100 new parks on the books; there's a whole untold number -- hopefully, we'll find out -- that were created last year which are still probably in the planning process, and there's no money for that, either. So all I can assume, then, is that the planning won't go on.
Could the minister tell us
Does the minister have a handle on how many of the new parks that have been created in the last year were really just formalization of an existing use?
Hon. C. McGregor: Could you repeat the question again?
C. Clark: I'm asking: of the new parks that have been created in the last year, how many are just a formalization of an existing use? For example, if there is an area in a community that has always been used as a park and there are picnic tables in it or something like that -- or there are restrooms in it; I don't know -- there's some infrastructure in it. People have always used it as a park. I can think of examples where local people have always assumed that it was a park, but the ministry has decided to give it a formal designation, which gives it an added protection, I suspect. I wonder if the minister could tell us how many of the parks that have been created in the last year would be in that situation.
Hon. C. McGregor: I think the member is asking a question that can't be answered. If you go and look at each land use plan and ask the people at the table whether they believe those were traditionally areas that had been used for recreational park purposes, maybe they'd be able to give you the answer as to whether or not those are traditionally considered to be parks in their area. But in some cases they aren't, and in other cases they probably are. But I think it would depend on the perception of those in the community, whether or not they considered those to be parks.
For instance, I come back again to the example of Lac du Bois in my own area. I would say that most Kamloops residents would feel that Lac du Bois is an important recreational area. I don't know if they would have described it as a park, however.
C. Clark: We have a whole raft of new parks that have been created in the last year. I know I asked the minister about how much it will cost to service the hundred new parks -- which I now understand to be future parks -- but I wonder if she could tell me how much the ministry estimates it will cost to get the parks that have been created in the last year fully operational.
Hon. C. McGregor: We don't actually create timetables through which we say, "This park will be fully operational by
[ Page 5836 ]
two years from today," or what have you. It's viewed to be a long-term planning process. In fact, that's very much supported by the environmental community. If we were to take the approach that might be implied by the member's questions -- that we can only designate those parks that we have dollars to instantly develop -- we would go much slower in terms of designation of protected areas. So the approach we've taken is: let's engage communities in discussions about what areas should be set aside for parks or recreational purposes, what areas should be set aside as intensive development areas and so on, and through the land use tables determine what areas should be protected. Then over a long-term strategy -- sometimes 15 or 20 years before some areas are developed
C. Clark: When the minister talked about the development budget, I suspect it would be fair to assume that the bulk of that development budget will be devoted to the new parks that have been established, for which the planning process has been completed and where infrastructure and other kinds of development need to occur. I wonder if the minister has a list of the parks that are on that list to be developed over the next year out of that 8.6 percent of her budget.
Hon. C. McGregor: We have a list that we'll make available to the member. We don't have it here, but we can get it.
C. Clark: I appreciate that.
What is the practical difference between a park that has been created but hasn't been developed and, say, Crown land that the ministry doesn't have any particular use for and that is just sitting there? Is there any practical difference in terms of use for citizens?
Hon. C. McGregor: There are lots of differences. It depends what part of the province you're in. For instance, Crown land can be used for agricultural leases; it could be used for logging; there might be mining activity, mining tenures, recreational tenures. Crown land is used for many different purposes, and they may not be compatible to a park. So once an area has been designated for park purposes -- and there is discussion prior to them being designated for park purposes as to what an appropriate use is
So that creates some of the issues we have to deal with in terms of making a designation, then, of the park, because under the Park Act only certain uses are considered to be appropriate. So if the use -- in the example I gave earlier of grazing -- doesn't fit the definition under the Park Act, then it has to have a different designation, and that's under the Environment and Land Use Act.
C. Clark: But how does the ministry know what's going on in an area that it has designated as, say, a class A park, if it may or may not be developed
Hon. C. McGregor: We do engage in regular reconnaissance of park areas within a park district, so it would be regularly visited. We do depend, of course, on the public as well to let us know if they think there's a use going on in a designated park area that is prohibited.
I keep going back to Lac du Bois, but it's one that I know about in Kamloops. There's been a restriction on ATV use, for instance, as a part of that park's designation. It has one ATV area that is permitted for recreational vehicles to use and not other areas. Parks engaged in, really, a public relations activity: engaging the media, local police, conservation officers in an information campaign and profiling it in the local newspaper. We did some TV clips.
[3:45]
We also had a weekend when we had a blitz, where we actually were out in the park. They were stopping recreational riders and talking to them about the limitations on the use. In fact, in that case it was very much a success story. Of all the people that were stopped in that park, more than 80 percent had been aware of the limitations on ATV use. So that's an example of how one monitors and continues to ensure that appropriate use is done.C. Clark: With respect to the minister, I think Lac du Bois has two distinct advantages over many other parks in protected areas in the province. One is that it's in a minister's riding -- and in the Minister of Environment's riding, so maybe that's two advantages. And the third is that it's in or near a highly urbanized area, which is a big advantage, I suspect, in terms of the ministry's ability to enforce within the park boundaries.
I wonder if the minister could tell me who it is, in most normal circumstances, that undertakes this enforcement and ensures that prohibited uses aren't taking place within park boundaries. Do different people do that in the urban and semi-urban areas than in, say, some of the rural and remote areas?
Hon. C. McGregor: We have park rangers who engage in that work. In addition to that, we count on the support from organizations like our ministry, the Ministry of Environment -- because we have COs in the field quite frequently, and also the Ministry of Forests, because they frequently have staff in the field, as well.
C. Clark: Well, I am sure that the conservation officers are pleased to know that there are fewer of them and more work for them to do in terms of park enforcement every time a new park gets created. I would suggest respectfully to the minister that if conservation officers are going to be asked to do a great deal more and to look more intensively after certain areas of their jurisdiction, their budget should perhaps be supplemented and maybe their numbers increased.
Could the minister
Interjections.
C. Clark: Hon. Chair, I won't ask you to demand order in this chamber. I will just assume that the members will respect the rules as we go on with this debate -- at least while they're awake.
The Chair: The Chair heard nothing that contravenes the rules of order, member.
[ Page 5837 ]
C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Chair. Perhaps the member will go back to sleep, and we can get on with the question of whether the minister has expanded the number of park rangers that work for her ministry.
Hon. C. McGregor: Anticipating what the member's next question might be, I'll provide both answers. In '96-97 there were 97.35 park rangers; in '97-98 there are 98.05. That includes permanents and auxiliaries.
C. Clark: I'm sorry, I'll have to ask the minister's indulgence, hon. Chair. I didn't hear her answer.
Hon. C. McGregor: In '96-97, there was a total of 97.35 permanent and auxiliary park rangers; in '97-98, there were 98.05.
C. Clark: It doesn't appear that those numbers have increased dramatically, either, in terms of enforcement. So I'll pass on to the minister my concern that although these new parks are being created, not very much is being done to support them or enforce the prohibited uses of those parks. If no one is there checking that the prohibited uses aren't going on in the parks and if there is no infrastructure being developed in those parks and there's no new staff being devoted to those parks, really the announcement of new parks is almost meaningless. The great advantage of a park means that some uses are prohibited and some are encouraged. The ministry hasn't provided any budget to do either for all these new parks that they've created. So I'd point out to the minister that if her government is indeed serious about creating parks in British Columbia, they should devote some money to it, or at least be honest about the fact that those parks really only exist in the form of a press release and not in reality.
Could the minister tell us how much her ad budget is for B.C. parks for this year?
Hon. C. McGregor: Our total budget is about $336,000. That's used for parks publications, maps, printing of master plans and things like the advertising of tenders.
C. Clark: Just a quick question. The minister did mention that the ads budget includes the publication of maps. Have recoveries for the publication of maps increased this year? I know that the ministry charges for some of the maps that it produces.
Hon. C. McGregor: We don't recover for parks maps.
C. Clark: I want to talk a little bit, as well, about the Forest Renewal B.C. money that goes into both the Parks budget and into
Actually, before I do that, I'll get into something else. The issue of acquiring goal 1 and goal 2 parks has been in the public realm recently. The goal 2 decision for Divers Lake has been a particular one that's had some attention paid to it. I know that that decision was part of the Vancouver Island land use plan. I'd ask the minister if it is her view that the fact that the Ministry of Forests doesn't appear willing to do land trades, which are necessary to create that park, obviously
Hon. C. McGregor: The member is incorrect in her statement. The Ministry of Forests is cooperating with us, and we're currently working on the issue.
C. Clark: I read that the Minister of Forests said the other day that the ministry doesn't do land trades any more. Has the minister somehow encouraged him to change his mind about that?
Hon. C. McGregor: As I said, I continue to work with the Minister of Forests on this matter.
C. Clark: Okay, so the Minister of Forests is continuing to consider land trades. Is the minister aware of whether the Minister of Forests is continuing to resist a land trade in the Divers Lake issue in particular?
Hon. C. McGregor: This matter is under discussion between my ministry and the Ministry of Forests. I believe I've answered the question.
C. Clark: That's interesting, because that's not what the owners of the private land say. They say that they can't get any movement from the Ministry of Forests at all about the land trades. Of course, those land trades are essential to ensure that the park there is created, and the minister himself has said in the newspaper that he's not prepared to do any land trades because of the total cost to the government at the end of the day. I wonder if the minister could tell us if she is considering other alternatives to ensure that this park is created, given the minister's statements and given, of course, the skepticism that perhaps the original plan to create a goal 2 park in this area might not actually happen.
Hon. C. McGregor: I would remind the member that it's not a good idea to believe everything you read in the newspaper, and then I suggest to you that we are working on this matter.
C. Clark: Gee, and here I believed it when the Premier was quoted as saying he had a balanced budget -- darn. I should note, though, of course, that sarcasm isn't recorded -- the tone of our comments isn't recorded -- so I should be careful.
The goal 2 decision for the land use at Divers Lake, of course, is going to be essential to ensure that the Vancouver Island land use plan is honoured. I know that the plan to include Divers Lake was included in the 13 percent of protected areas that were predicted for Vancouver Island. Could the minister tell us what portion of the protected areas this area might represent, if indeed her optimism proves to be correct and the Minister of Forests changes his policy, changes his mind, agrees to do some land trades and this park is created?
Hon. C. McGregor: The total size of the Divers Lake goal 2 property is 996 hectares. That would be a very, very small percentage of the total for Vancouver Island -- less than a quarter of 1 percent. We don't know exactly -- we'd have to do the math -- but it's a very small part.
C. Clark: When does the minister predict that negotiations on this will be concluded and that she can indeed move ahead with the planning process for the Divers Lake property?
Hon. C. McGregor: I'm afraid I can't give any kind of an indication.
J. Wilson: We are talking about land trades here. I have a question for the minister. During the past year, I've been
[ Page 5838 ]
working on a potential land trade on a piece of land on the Cottonwood River. It's private land, and the owner wished to trade that piece of land for another piece of land that was under a lease agreement. The piece of property on the north side of the Cottonwood River is in a mule deer winter range. It's fairly important habitat. It has got very important visual-quality properties for that area. The individual that owns it put a package together that would trade the wood stick for stick on this other piece of land, which was adjacent to some agricultural land that they owned and they could trade. The piece of land they wished to trade to the government for this new land would have been an important asset to their agricultural operation. The member had no objections to paying the going rate for stumpage on any additional wood that would have been on it. The land in question that the individual owns is probably going to be logged in the near future, and it's going to create a real scarring on that riverbank and for the viewscape, and it's going to have an impact on the mule deer when it rains.
The ministry that would have been responsible for this land trade was the Ministry of Environment. It was turned down flat. Unfortunately, we can't really blame the Minister of Forests on this one. I would like to know if the minister is willing to take another look at this and maybe reassess the situation.
[4:00]
Hon. C. McGregor: I'm afraid I can't make those kinds of commitments without knowing all the details about the reasons why or why not. I'd certainly invite the member to contact my office to meet with Lands staff and discuss the case in some detail.J. Wilson: The minister should be able to get that information from her deputy. I spent half a day going over it with them here.
Hon. C. McGregor: It may have been the former deputy. This deputy has never met the member. We've gone to get the ADM. We'll have him come downstairs.
C. Clark: In the interests of time, I'll ask a few more questions about the Divers Lake issue. Is the Ministry of Environment party to the negotiations with TimberWest for that property?
Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, the Lands branch.
C. Clark: Has a meeting occurred? How recently did the last meeting between the two occur?
Hon. C. McGregor: We believe there has been virtually ongoing contact during this last week.
C. Clark: Could the minister tell us who on her staff has been designated to deal with this issue and negotiate with TimberWest?
Hon. C. McGregor: Al Delisle.
C. Clark: Has the ministry had any meetings recently that included not just her ministry and the private sector company but also the Ministry of Forests?
Hon. C. McGregor: Various staff officials meet at various times with various members of different ministries as well as the business. But frankly, hon. Chair, I really don't think these questions have anything to do with these estimates. I would ask that we move on.
C. Clark: The goal 2 property for Divers Lake and the Vancouver Island land use plan
Hon. C. McGregor: The site on Vancouver Island that's an important marmot habitat is actually at Hale Lake.
C. Clark: That's not the information that's been provided to me by interested members of the community. What I will do is forward it to the minister. It's my understanding that in fact it's Rossiter Lake that's the area, according to the local people there that know the wildlife and the environment. What I'll do is forward some of the correspondence so that the minister can be clear about actually what land is in question and what wildlife will be affected and where. I would hate the ministry to continue to operate under false assumptions about that.
I know it's an important issue for the ministry. I see that Jon O'Riordan has joined us again, so perhaps the minister would like an opportunity to answer the question that was previously asked her.
Hon. C. McGregor: We'd ask the member opposite to specify who he met with, because the ADM who has just arrived says it was not him.
J. Wilson: I'll have to go back to my office and get the name. I'll be back.
C. Clark: Everybody stood up at the same time, and I thought they all had questions, but I guess they don't. So I have a few more questions that I'd like to ask. Before we leave Parks altogether, I would like to raise a couple of issues about park access that have been raised with me.
The first one is about B.C. Parks policy for disabled access. I understand from constituents that that policy either has changed or is being interpreted differently by B.C. Parks staff. I'm in receipt of a letter from someone who visited a park with some friends and family. She's disabled, and in order to go camping, she needs friends and family to go with her; otherwise, she can't camp. The previous policy, as this constituent understood it, was that as long as a disabled person was present, the camping party would be allowed to camp for free in the parks. She has been told by the ministry that that policy has now been restricted and only applies to her and those people that are present in her car.
I wonder if the minister could tell us if the policy around disabled use has changed.
Hon. C. McGregor: No.
C. Clark: Could she tell me, then, why parks staff are giving out false information?
[ Page 5839 ]
Hon. C. McGregor: There's been no change.
C. Clark: Well, I have a letter here from the Ministry of Parks that is telling her that, in fact, she can only get free park use for herself. So is the ministry telling me that that is the new policy, which hasn't been changed, or that the old policy that is still in place is what hasn't been changed -- the policy where the entire camping party would be allowed free use?
Hon. C. McGregor: I am aware that this policy has not changed. I instructed staff not to change the policy. If the member has a letter that indicates otherwise, I'd ask her to provide it to me.
C. Clark: Will the minister also commit to providing a refund to any disabled people who were adversely affected by this change before she was so bravely able to put the stops to it with her officials?
Hon. C. McGregor: I don't have any problem with that.
C. Clark: I'll pass that information on to this constituent. It's something that she's been dealing with for a period of months, trying to get B.C. Parks staff to assist her and help her out. I'm sure she'll be glad to know that the minister is prepared to help her out, no matter how late in the game that may be. I'll forward the Hansard on to her. She'll be pleased to know that the policy hasn't changed and that she and her entire camping party, whether or not they're in more than one vehicle, will be able to camp for free at B.C. campgrounds.
My second question on access to camping was forwarded to me by another member who can't be here today, from one of his constituents who has a complaint about Discover Camping. This person was charged $131 on her Visa. She cancelled her camping trip and only received $62 back. Discover Camping retained 53 percent in this particular case. Can the minister tell me if that's the general policy of Discover Camping, when it's making refunds?
Hon. C. McGregor: I know there is a cancellation fee, but we can't seem to locate what it is. As soon as we find it, we'll make it available to the member.
C. Clark: I appreciate that. What I'll do, too, is forward this on to the minister. It seems to me that 53 percent being retained by Discover Camping is a pretty excessive amount. I'd suggest that if anybody in the private sector did that, they'd certainly lose their shirts or be subject to a legal challenge.
Could the minister tell us if her ministry has ever looked into the legalities of Discover Camping retaining such an enormous portion of a camping fee once it's been refunded?
Hon. C. McGregor: I'll certainly look into the case that the member is describing. There is a cancellation fee; the reason for that is to pay for the service that is being provided. It is not being provided by our ministry. We have a contract with B.C. Tel. There is a cost to using this service, and that's the agreement we have with B.C. Tel.
C. Clark: In this case, the cost of the service was $69.52 -- 53 percent of the total cost of booking the camping trip. I would suggest that if that's the normal course of operations for Discover Camping, the ministry should certainly look at finding a new contractor. I don't think that that's value for service, particularly given the number of camping trips and the interest in camping in British Columbia. It may also, I suspect, have a negative impact and leave a bad taste in the mouth of anyone who is visiting our province for the first time to camp, if they experience the same situation.
I want to move on a little bit to Forest Renewal B.C., if I can. Could the minister tell us how much money goes from FRBC to pay for services that are administered by Environment, Lands and Parks?
Hon. C. McGregor: My understanding is that there has been an agreement between government and the opposition that FRBC questions will be directed to the standing committee that has been developed and is able to answer questions. If the member has a different understanding, then perhaps she could give that to me.
C. Clark: I'm not aware of that commitment or understanding, and it is unlikely that I would want to let these questions go until next year. I wonder if maybe we can at least find some way to discuss the way the ministry spends that money and perhaps stay out of the realm that is exclusive to FRBC, if that's possible. The minister might find that acceptable.
Could the minister describe for us how the total
[4:15]
Hon. C. McGregor: As we described earlier, it's a section 22 account. It's not a voted appropriation in our ministry, so it flows from the section 22 account. There's a director who works with regional offices and FRBC on projects that are made under an agreement via the business plan with FRBC.I would draw to the attention of the member the July 9 Hansard, in which there is reference to a discussion between the Hon. David Zirnhelt and the member for Parksville-Qualicum about the agreement that exists to discuss the FRBC business plan at the committee stage. Any expenditures that we make in our ministry are a part of the FRBC business plan and could be discussed at that meeting.
C. Clark: I'm interested. I'm not aware of the deal or the comments to which the minister refers. I would suspect that if the minister had been prepared to present the Hansard from a month ago about this issue, she would have presented it.
How many days ago is July 9? Five, six days ago? Since July 9 I have presented and discussed with the minister the fact that we would be discussing FRBC at the end of these estimates a number of times. The minister has, in every case, failed to make mention that she intended to do this. Given that, I have no choice but to question the sincerity of what the minister is telling me with regard to when we're going to discuss FRBC funding.
The fact is that this money is administered by her ministry, and it flows out of a section 22 account into her ministry and is spent by her ministry. We have discussed -- without comment and without argument -- the FRBC portion of the funds for environment youth teams. I would ask the minister how our discussion of that would be different from the ministry FRBC funds being used in the B.C. parks system and being administered by the parks director. Could the minister tell me how those two issues might differ?
[ Page 5840 ]
Hon. C. McGregor: I'm sorry that I didn't indicate this earlier. I understood that the member would be aware of the agreement, as well; I didn't assume otherwise.
I don't know what to suggest. My understanding is that there was an agreement that it would be discussed at the standing committee. The member is telling me otherwise. I'll just have to give what I consider to be an appropriate response to your questions.
C. Clark: I naturally assumed that it would be all right to proceed with FRBC questions, given that the minister has been answering questions about FRBC for the last day or two, particularly with respect to the environment youth teams. I didn't hear any comment about any agreement for that. So unless those two issues are somehow dramatically different in her mind and she can convince me that they are different, then I suggest we proceed, at least a little bit, into some questions about the way her ministry spends the FRBC money that it receives. I will try my very best not to get into issues that are outside the minister's purview. Could she tell us how much of the FRBC money flows from the section 22 account into her ministry?
Hon. C. McGregor: That is in the FRBC business plan, and that will be discussed at the standing committee.
C. Clark: In fact, I've had the opportunity to consult with members of our caucus, particularly the Forests critic, and his comment is that no deal has been made. He is the Forests critic, and I don't know where the minister would get this understanding. Perhaps she could enlighten us about how she came to the conclusion that there was a deal made, if it was a deal that our Forests critic was unaware of and if indeed it was a deal that didn't affect our discussions about Forest Renewal earlier in the day.
Hon. C. McGregor: I request a brief recess.
The committee recessed from 4:22 p.m. to 4:31 p.m.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
C. Clark: Could the minister tell us how much money flows into her ministry from FRBC, in total?
Hon. C. McGregor: This year we have an approval of an FAA account for $110 million.
C. Clark: Thank you very much. How does that compare with last year's amount?
Hon. C. McGregor: Last year was $102 million.
C. Clark: Could the minister give us a broad breakdown of how that
Hon. C. McGregor: It's the number of approved projects we have with FRBC. As well, it includes our E-team amount, which went up this year.
C. Clark: The number of approved projects in forest recreation have gone up. That's my understanding from what the minister just told us. But I wonder if she can tell us why. Are there some new projects that the ministry is undertaking in the forest recreation section of its FRBC budget? Or are they expanding the numbers of the traditional projects that they have undertaken?
Hon. C. McGregor: It's an evolving program, and in some cases it's expenditures that were begun last year and that we're continuing to expend this year.
C. Clark: Which programs is the minister expanding this year?
Hon. C. McGregor: We don't have any project lists here, but we can endeavour to get one for the member.
C. Clark: In the minister's briefing book for '97-98, it says that the forest recreation portion for FRBC funding was initiated in late '95-96 to fund projects related to recreation and tourism in provincial parks and Forest Service recreation sites. Can the minister tell us what portion of the forest recreation budget was spent on parks? I'll be able to deduce from that which portion of it was spent in Forest Service recreation sites, I imagine.
Hon. C. McGregor: We would have to do a calculation to figure out what that was.
C. Clark: Does the Ministry of Parks
Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, those are under the Ministry of Forests.
C. Clark: And the minister still can't tell me which
Hon. C. McGregor: As I indicated earlier, we don't have that information here. But we will provide it to the member.
C. Clark: The minister's briefing book goes on to say that there will be an increased emphasis on -- this is with the forest recreation budget from FRBC -- training and employment of displaced forestry workers on environment youth team projects. Can the minister tell me what percentage of the environment youth team employees are displaced forest workers?
Hon. C. McGregor: There are 28 project supervisors. I don't know what that percentage would be, though.
C. Clark: Maybe one way to
[ Page 5841 ]
Hon. C. McGregor: There are 1,342 to date.
C. Clark: Thank you. How close is the ministry to their target in terms of hiring? Does that represent a complete number?
Hon. C. McGregor: We're fairly close to our target, which is 1,400.
C. Clark: What portion of the 1,342 are employed in the forest recreation portion of the program?
Hon. C. McGregor: We've become somewhat confused about the member's question. Is she asking about the forest recreation program, or is she asking about E-teams again? Maybe she could clarify her question.
C. Clark: I was trying to determine what portion, if any, of the forest recreation budget -- that 12.8 percent of Forest Renewal money that's spent by the ministry -- goes toward the environment youth team budget. I'm trying to determine if those numbers are always kept separate, or if the 12.8 percent represents to some extent a duplication or includes money that could be spent on E-team projects.
Hon. C. McGregor: The forest recreation line includes $7 million for the E-team. So it's about $7 million for the forest recreation program and $7 million for the E-team.
C. Clark: Could the minister tell me if the E-teams are all employed in the parks system, with the exception of the very few that she noted were working in headquarters? She mentioned -- and I don't have the number handy right here -- that there was a portion of them that were employed directly by the ministry, and the vast majority of those people were employed in the parks system. I want to just ensure that I'm on the same line here. That $7 million being spent for E-teams is all under the forest recreation portion of the budget, although not all of those E-teams work in B.C. parks. That's what I'm getting to here. Is that correct?
[4:45]
Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.C. Clark: Could the minister give us a percentage of how many of them work in B.C. parks?
Hon. C. McGregor: It's about a third of the total E-teams. They're represented by what are called the express E-teams, and there are 528 positions.
C. Clark: So part of the forest recreation budget is spent in B.C. parks, part of it in the regions, part of it in headquarters, and part of it is in the form of grants to outside organizations, which we discussed last night. Is that correct? Is that how the forest recreation budget is dispersed?
Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.
C. Clark: I appreciate the minister bearing with me with these questions. I'm just very unclear about how that budgeting process works.
For the portion of them that are
Hon. C. McGregor: The member makes an incorrect statement to suggest that any FRBC dollars are spent on Parks staff. No FRBC funding is spent on Parks staff. It is only spent on special projects, like the recreation management program, forest recreation interpretation, building of trails, campground additions and so on. But that's all through approvals with FRBC that meet the FRBC's forest recreation envelope.
C. Clark: I suspected that the minister might tell me something like that.
Did the minister's list of what they do
Hon. C. McGregor: We've spent about $1.4 million on upgrading and providing interpretive facilities and materials in Goldstream Park, Kokanee Creek Park, Wells Gray Park, Mount Robson Park; $3.3 million approximately on the upgrading of trails -- there's a list of parks here; $2 million approximately on constructing campgrounds; $679,000 on reconstructing access roads and bridges in Bear Creek Park and Trophy Mountain in Wells Gray Park. Those are some examples.
C. Clark: Could the minister tell me if it represents
Hon. C. McGregor: FRBC funding can
C. Clark: Is campground construction normally not an undertaking of the Ministry of Parks? I wonder how the ministry actually constructed campgrounds in the past, when there was no such thing as FRBC. I wonder if the minister could clarify the difference for me.
Hon. C. McGregor: As I pointed out to the member before, incrementality is a principle that we have to achieve if FRBC is to approve the funding. In this case and in the case of the trail-building and the other examples I gave the member, they meet FRBC criteria.
C. Clark: I recognize that, and I know, too, that the ministry now defines campground construction as something that's not germane to what this ministry does, and it's not a normal activity for the ministry. I understand that that's how
[ Page 5842 ]
she currently defines it. I am trying to figure out, though, whether that represents a policy change on the part of the ministry over the last few years. I can't for the life of me figure out who built campgrounds before, if not the Ministry of Parks. In fact, I know the Ministry of Parks used to construct campgrounds; that was part of its base budget, part of its mandate.
I'm wondering when campground construction moved from inside the Parks mandate -- from being a normal part of the operation of this ministry to something that the ministry no longer does and has responsibility for doing.
Hon. C. McGregor: The last year in which B.C. Parks engaged in campground construction was 1987.
C. Clark: When the minister says that B.C. Parks engaged in campground construction in 1987, can she tell us if in the interim there have been any parks that were contracted out from the ministry? What I'm looking for is not whether the ministry actually went out and had its staff build them but whether the ministry paid for them to be constructed.
Hon. C. McGregor: It's been unfunded since 1987.
C. Clark: I appreciate the minister clarifying that for us. The reason I'm looking at the forest recreation portion of the budget in particular is that while the ministry increases the number of parks that exist on paper and doesn't increase the number of staff that exist and doesn't increase -- in fact, decreases -- the budget
The forest recreation account, it seems to me, is being used to supplement the base budget of the Parks section of the ministry. It is difficult to believe that the ministry could undertake and create all these new parks and not increase the budget, not increase the staff and not increase enforcement. We've been over all of that. None of it's been increased -- the planning budget, the development budget, nothing. The only portion of these estimates that appears to have been increased for Parks is the portion for forest recreation.
So the minister can have it one of two ways and not both. One is to say they've created all these new parks, and they've made all these commitments, but they're not going to do anything with them. They are just paper parks; they're just press releases. There's no new enforcement, there's no new budget, there's no new planning money, there's no new development money, and it's just announcements.
On the other hand, if she won't admit that, she's got to be forced to admit that this FRBC money is going to supplement the Parks budget, that this forest recreation portion of the budget, which says it's to fund projects related to recreation and tourism in provincial parks -- and it employs 28 displaced forest workers out of that budget
It's one of the two, and you can't have it both ways. Either way, it's a tough situation for the government, and I recognize that. I know the minister would be unlikely to admit to either, but I think the facts and the numbers speak for themselves. The numbers certainly don't lie. Despite what the minister has told us, I think we can look at the numbers, and we'll certainly find the truth.
We know that 28 displaced forest workers are employed in the forest recreation portion of the FRBC budget. Could the minister tell me how many displaced forest workers are being employed in the rest of the budget for the FRBC portion of the ministry's funding?
Hon. C. McGregor: The member does not accurately summarize the number of displaced forest workers. There were 28 that are crew chiefs for the E-teams. The other half of the forest recreation program employs 200 displaced forest workers.
C. Clark: Could the minister tell me what percentage the 200 displaced forest workers represent of the total FTEs employed through the forest recreation FRBC budget?
Hon. C. McGregor: That's the entire amount for our program. If the member wants to know how other dollars are spent through the FRBC business plan, she'll have to take those questions up at the committee.
[5:00]
C. Clark: Yes, I understand that. I certainly don't want to stray into any areas that would normally be the purview of the committee. I should note, though, that the committee isn't a public committee. So as much as we can explore here, certainly, the better. I know the minister wouldn't want to bar the public's access to these discussions. That's why I'd like to be able to discuss as much of it that's within her ministry here, so that we can ensure that the maximum amount of scrutiny is applied to the way this money is being spent.The minister has said that 200 FTEs are funded through the forest recreation program for displaced forest workers. Does that represent the total number of FTEs that are funded through the forest recreation program for FRBC that is located in her ministry?
Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, the 200 are for the forest recreation program.
C. Clark: The minister has said, I think -- or, at least, I understood her to say -- that each of those 200 is a displaced forest worker. How, then, is the
Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, they're different. The 1,400 are for the youth, which also includes 28 of the crew chiefs, and then above that are the 200 displaced forest workers that will be hired through the forest recreation program.
Just to correct the member's understanding about the public nature of that standing committee, a standing committee of the Legislature has Hansard, and that information is very public.
C. Clark: I appreciate that. I was intending to point out that the committee won't be hearing members of the public. If we can get an opportunity to canvass these issues as many times as possible -- given the fact that the committee has refused to go out and meet with the public and engage with the public on these issues -- the better
[ Page 5843 ]
Can the minister tell me: of the remaining four areas, by area, how many FTEs are paid for out of, for example, the watershed restoration program? How many FTEs are out of the enhanced forestry, how many FTEs out of inventory and how many FTEs out of biodiversity research?
Hon. C. McGregor: We don't have the exact numbers per category. Watershed restoration would probably take 60 or 70 percent of the total number of people employed. But we do estimate that it's over 1,200 person-years of employment throughout all of the programs.
C. Clark: The 1,200 person-years are spread over how many years? Are the 1,200 person-years that the minister refers to just for this budget year?
Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.
C. Clark: The minister did give me the percentage for watershed restoration and the FTE employment represented through that budget. Does she have at least an approximate percentage for enhanced forestry, inventory and biodiversity research?
Hon. C. McGregor: No, we don't.
C. Clark: That's interesting. The ministry pays them. I don't know why the ministry wouldn't know how many of them there are. I'd suggest that maybe the minister wants to do her books in a little more thorough manner. I can't imagine why they wouldn't have those numbers, but I'll just leave it at that.
I'm sure the minister will be able to tell us, though, how many total FTEs the 1,200 person-years represent.
Hon. C. McGregor: The work that we do through these programs is contracted employment relationships, and we don't actually do calculations on FTEs as a result. FTE is a term we use within government to define the number of employees, and we don't use that in discussing the contracts that we have with individual contractors that deliver this program.
C. Clark: But the minister can tell me how many FTEs they have through the E-teams, and those are contractual relationships. They provide money to outside organizations, and the outside organizations produce positions.
I'm just wondering why the accounting is so different. For example, with watershed restoration, where they might give money to an organization outside of government and when they don't know how many FTEs and they do know for forest recreation, where
Hon. C. McGregor: The numbers that I gave to the member earlier -- 200 related to the forest recreation program, 1,400 related to E-teams -- are the number of jobs. We don't designate them as full-time-equivalents. Again, that is a mechanism we use within the ministry, but we don't apply that to the number of jobs.
In the case of the person-year description of the employment in the other programs
C. Clark: I do understand the
For example, if it's the Mennonite Central Committee and it has a grant of $5,000, that might be eight part-time jobs for a two-week period or it might be one full-time job for a six-month period. It seems to me that exactly the same problem exists in both situations, so I wonder if the minister could clarify for me a little better why they don't choose to characterize either forest recreation job numbers in terms of person-years or, on the other hand, watershed restoration job numbers in terms of jobs as opposed to person-years.
Hon. C. McGregor: I've answered the member's question.
C. Clark: Actually, the minister hasn't answered my question at all. I suspect that she doesn't have an answer to the question. I wonder how the ministry is able to take this information that is in such different forms and pass that on to FRBC, which I know has job targets or person-years targets. How is the ministry able to pass this information on and calculate it for FRBC to ensure that it's in a usable form, if the method that they use for figuring it out is so anomalous?
Hon. C. McGregor: If you would like to know how FRBC figures out its job calculations, I would suggest you ask them.
C. Clark: I'll pass that question on to whoever is on the committee. Actually, I'm interested in how the ministry does it, and I don't think the minister knows, either. It's no wonder I can't get the information. I don't know how she's going to possibly pass it on to FRBC, how the FRBC is going to pass it on to the Premier and how he's going to include it in the press release about how many jobs he's created, if indeed they can't figure it out. I mean, the ministry just doesn't know, do they? That's the point here. They classified some things as jobs, some things as person-years, some things as a percentage. The point is that it's haphazard; the ministry just doesn't know how many people it's employing.
This leads me to the conclusion that when FRBC does come out with its numbers about jobs, they're going to be just cooked up, like the budget or something. Who knows what number that's going to be based on? If this information is so shoddy that the minister can't even tell me how she can figure it out, I don't know how she expects to be able to explain it to the Premier when he comes out with his job numbers. It certainly will be a cause for suspicion, when people are looking at the job numbers and questioning the truthfulness of them, like people do with many areas of this government.
What I will do for the moment is hand the floor over to my friend from the Cariboo, who has a few questions about FRBC, as well.
[ Page 5844 ]
J. Wilson: Hon. Chair, actually it wasn't FRBC I had the questions on.
First I'd like to give the name of the gentleman I had the meeting with. It was on November 26, and it was with Don Fast. That should give the minister a reference.
I have a couple of quick questions here. I don't want to take up too much time. I'm wondering if the minister is familiar with the Ministry of Environment Act, RSBC 1996, chapter 299, section 4(2)(c).
[5:15]
Hon. C. McGregor: Could the member read the name of the act again?J. Wilson: It's the Ministry of Environment Act, RSBC 1996, chapter 299. I don't know if that's explanatory enough.
The Chair: Perhaps in the interests of the committee moving forward, the member could ask his next question.
J. Wilson: What I wanted was an explanation as to the meaning of section 4(2)(c). I can read it to the minister if she wishes, or maybe she has it now.
The Chair: The Chair wants to caution members in regard to getting into discussions about legislation.
Hon. C. McGregor: As I understand it, it talks about the purposes and the functions of the ministry. It suggests what those purposes and functions are, and there's a list.
J. Wilson: Section 42(2)(c) says: "
Hon. C. McGregor: I believe it's meant to be a mandate statement that describes the work of the ministry -- that it's important in whatever work we do in managing and conserving the resources of the province that we consider the social and economic impacts of those decisions.
J. Wilson: I believe the minister is saying that if you consider the social and economic impacts of an action on the part of the ministry, that they weigh
Hon. C. McGregor: Broadly, I think it's fair to characterize that those values should be considered before decisions are made.
J. Wilson: Taking that as it reads, is the minister familiar with the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan?
Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, I'm broadly familiar with it.
J. Wilson: Within the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan, it has been designated as a higher-level plan than the Forest Practices Code. Part of the mandate of the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan states that socioeconomic factors, in some cases, will take precedence here. I believe that's the way it's worded. Is the minister familiar with that?
Hon. C. McGregor: I don't have the full text of the land use plan in front of me, but I would say that those are considerations that would be a part of most plans.
J. Wilson: There seems to be a lot of frustration created. In some cases, I believe it may originate within the Ministry of Environment. Is the minister familiar with the report that was suggested by the ministry for interim guidelines for the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan with regard to the SRDZ and the mule deer winter range and the net-down within that SRDZ?
Hon. C. McGregor: Those are certainly issues I'm broadly familiar with. I don't have the implementation strategy here today. If we're going to go into the detail of that, I might suggest to the member that we could have a meeting with the ADM of LUCO to discuss it in some detail, if that would be of some assistance.
J. Wilson: I'll lay it out very quickly and as well as I can for the minister. Within the SRDZ, there is an allowance for a 30 percent net-down. It's my understanding that IAMC presented an interim report to the RRB, the regional resource board. In the mule deer winter range, they were recommending a 250-year rotation for logging in that SRDZ. Considering the fact that the mule deer winter range covers a large portion of the special resource development zone, it would mean that there would be a much greater net-down than 30 percent in that zone. It couldn't happen any other way, if we took their recommendations. If you're going to adhere to the plan and the intent of the plan, you have to factor in no more than a 30 percent net-down over the entire zone.
The people who work on the board and who are working with the land use plan feel that regional personnel, in some cases, have their own agenda. They simply proceed without considering the direction from higher up.
I would like to read a paragraph out of a letter that I have. It's from the Minister of Environment, and it was issued to West Fraser. It's on the Quesnel forest district A-20005. It says:
"Any contract that the company has with the Ministry of Forests does not authorize the company to conduct or participate in activities that are contrary to any statute that protects fish, wildlife or their habitat, or manages waste or water. No contract between the company and the Minister of Forests affects, in any way, the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks' mandate to monitor, investigate and, when necessary, take legal action for violations involving fish, wildlife or their habitat, waste or water. All operations must be conducted in a manner that will not result in the degradation of fish and wildlife habitat and will not contravene the Waste Management Act, Water and Wildlife acts, Forest Practices Code of B.C. Act or the federal Fisheries Act. If problems develop that could adversely affect fish or wildlife resources, the licensee must advise the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Forest Service immediately."We're even looking after federal Fisheries here. We've become so efficient that we're taking care of their mandate, as well.
I believe that in this statement there is absolutely no room left for economic or social impact assessments. I would like a comment from the minister.
Hon. C. McGregor: I think the member just described the terms of a contract between the MOF and a company, and
[ Page 5845 ]
I'm not prepared to comment on that. That's a legal agreement, and if the company has a problem with it, they should take that up with the Ministry of Forests.
If the member is indicating in some way that we shouldn't have those protections in place for fish and wildlife, then I would strongly disagree with him. I expect all residents of British Columbia, whether they're in the forest industry and the logging business or not, to follow the laws of this land.
J. Wilson: What I am suggesting is that the ministry proceeds along on its own agenda with no consideration for the land use plan, which says that socioeconomic impacts must be considered. I see nowhere where they are considered through the reports that have come out.
The example I gave was on the mule deer winter range and the net-down that they would like to see. It's quite indicative that the 30 percent was not considered. I don't see where they make allowance that as part of the land use plan socioeconomic impacts must be considered. When I read this it's fairly obvious that they have an agenda which takes a lot of their act -- which is right
C. Clark: I have just a few more questions that I want to clarify based on the ministry's briefing book for Forest Renewal, and then I'd be very happy to end the debate on the estimates -- of course, with the minister's permission.
The FRBC money that the minister did indicate
I know that 60 percent to 70 percent of the people that are employed through this budget are employed in watershed restoration programs. I also know that there are about 1,600 jobs in total under forest recreation. Could the minister give us an idea in some form of the total number of FTEs that are employed -- however they want to present it -- in enhanced forestry, inventory and biodiversity research through the FRBC budget envelope?
Hon. C. McGregor: We previously indicated to the member the answer to this question, which was that we would provide it to her once we had the numbers.
[5:30]
C. Clark: Sorry, I guess in our long discussion about how we were going to get the numbers and what the numbers would look like, I failed to note that the minister would get me those numbers. I appreciate getting those numbers in the near future, because, of course, the way that the FRBC money is spent is a matter of great importance to us.I just wonder: has the ministry entered into
Hon. C. McGregor: There is a contract between our ministry and FRBC, and we can provide the member with a copy of that.
C. Clark: Thank you. I appreciate that.
I will just make a few more comments
There has been a great deal of correspondence exchanged with the minister about this. The study was released a month ago, so I know the minister will be aware of it. It was authored -- for her information, if she wants to know -- by Gordon Hartman, who I think is a reputable voice on some of these issues. The issue here is that the campground construction at Meziadin Lake is already having a very deleterious impact on fish habitat in the area. The studies that have been undertaken by the ministry have been flawed, have been faulty, and in some cases there weren't any studies done at all before the work was undertaken. I wonder if the minister could just comment for me on the progress that the ministry is making in addressing this issue and on when she expects it to be resolved.
Hon. C. McGregor: There have been a number of reports commissioned through the branch to look into the concerns that have been raised about impacts on the environment in the immediate area, but this is a matter that's being handled at the district staff level. We don't have the information available on this particular situation here today, but we could certainly endeavour to provide the member with the details.
C. Clark: One of the things I'm hoping to do by entering into this discussion at the end of this estimates debate is to raise it from the level that it's at up to the minister's attention, so that, hopefully, we can have some more attention paid to it. The folks in the area are very concerned about it, and they're quite concerned that the reaction of the ministry has really been inadequate. I'm trying to put this on a radar screen so that she can deal with it.
I'll just close this issue by quoting from Mr. Hartman's report, where he says: "The level of planning detail for this work at Meziadin Lake seems to be quite inadequate, and the timing is ill-conceived." He says that he was even unable to obtain the plans of the type referred to -- I suspect implying that they don't even exist. He says that the quality of the planning for the extension which was built in the autumn of 1996 was also very inadequate.
I think that if the minister takes the time to have a look at this report, she will concur that there has been a real problem up here, that regional staff have not been responding to it adequately and that it's certainly something that would warrant her attention if, indeed, fish are on the radar screen of the government at all -- because this is a fish habitat issue.
I will just end with a few observations, if I can, on what I have learned from this debate. It's been an interesting estimates debate. It's been my second go at this process. I'll tell you that at the end of this year, I'm more depressed about where the government is going on environmental issues than I was last year. This debate has convinced me that the Ministry of Environment in British Columbia has abandoned its role as
[ Page 5846 ]
a leader in policy issues. It's convinced me that this ministry, even worse than abandoning its role as a leader and refusing to plow ahead with some new issues
It's even worse than that. This ministry is even unprepared to take up the responsibilities that it already has, particularly on fish and water issues. This ministry is unprepared and unwilling to stand up for itself and say: "This is our role and responsibility, and we will not allow other ministries to take our budget. We won't allow other ministries to force policy changes on us that are going to cost our stakeholders, and we will not allow other ministries to determine our priorities for us" -- particularly on the fish issues that this government claims are important to it.
The third thing that I've learned from this debate is that this government's promises aren't backed up by a shred, practically, of evidence in the estimates. When we actually look at the money that the government is prepared to commit to its promises, it's not there to be found. The promises that this ministry makes are exactly the same as the promises, apparently, that have been made by many of the other ministers appointed to cabinet by this Premier.
The fact is that announcements are just for press releases; they are not actual things to do. There aren't any plans that come out of them, there aren't any actions that come out of them, and in the end, there aren't any physical things, like parks and campgrounds, that the public can look at and say: "Wow, the government kept its promises." These promises are only meant to be press releases; these parks are only meant to be on paper. The government's protection of fish doesn't even include enforcing its ability to make licensees live up to the terms of their water licences.
I'll tell you, hon. Chair, that it's pathetic. This government's commitment to the environment is pathetic. Especially compared to the previous government, where the previous Premier worked so hard to establish his party as a leader on environmental issues, this government is absolutely pathetic. I can't believe how far this government has strayed from its commitment to environmental issues. The government has certainly kept to its commitment to issue a press release a week on environmental issues, but it hasn't kept to its commitment to spend any money on it and do anything about it.
As a result of these estimates, we've learned that the urban salmon habitat program funding has essentially been cut. The minister won't call it that, but it's been cut. We've learned that the E-team money has been cut. Half of it has been sent to the Minister of Employment and Investment -- presumably to do ads so he can put the Premier's face on TV; I don't know -- but the rest of it's coming from FRBC. The ministry has cut its regional offices, and -- worse for a minister who is from outside the lower mainland -- she's cut the ones that are farthest away from Vancouver and Victoria the most. Does she lead by example? No. There hasn't been any cuts to her office, and there's been far fewer cuts to her support staff in the headquarter offices in Victoria.
Then we've learned that although the ministry is creating a whole bunch of new parks, they're not adding any new budget for it. That, to me, is exactly like the cuts in education. It's exactly like the cuts in health care. When you've got a growing population and an aging population for health care and you don't increase your health care budget, it's a cut. When you've got more students in the school system and you don't increase your budget for education, it's a cut. This government cut education -- by what? -- $43 a student. This minister has increased the number of parks, but she hasn't increased the Parks budget; in fact, she has lowered it. I'd say that's a cut -- unless, of course, you want to include the money that this government has raided from the forest communities in British Columbia when they broke their promise, took that money and threw it into things like campground construction, which I think any reasonable British Columbian would tell you should be one of the basic responsibilities of the Ministry of Parks.
I'll leave it at that -- because I note that the time demands that we finish up these estimates -- with my observations about where we are and where we're going and reiterate my disappointment in this government and its failure to live up to the really high expectations that it set and its abandonment of its role as a leader in the field of environment. As I watched through these estimates and saw that the Ministry of Environment has gone from green to brown and that the Premier is driving this process, I'll tell you that I see it with a great deal of disappointment.
Next year, if I'm still the critic and the minister is still responsible for this area, I hope that we'll see a reversal of these trends. I would urge her to spend the next year, if she can, to try to reverse these trends. If they're not reversed quickly, British Columbians and future generations of British Columbians will certainly pay the price.
With that, I will end my questions on the Environment estimates.
Hon. C. McGregor: I, too, am looking forward to the end of the last few days of what I wouldn't call discussion; I would call it, by and large, partisan attack. It's very unfortunate that the member characterizes the efforts that this government has made on environmental initiatives as poorly as she does. In fact, she knows that we are and have been and continue to be a world leader in how we handle environmental matters. In fact, we have a record that is envied by governments around the world, let alone North America.
That doesn't mean that any of us should rest on our laurels. This government's commitment to environmental initiatives has clearly continued in the tenure that we've had under a new leader and a new Premier.
I'm somewhat concerned with the way the member opposite has also characterized the more than 2,000 dedicated staff we have in this ministry. I would like to make sure that it goes on the record, hon. Chair, that I value very highly -- and I know British Columbians do -- the work that they do on behalf of environmental protection in our parks, as a result of our land use planning process, the work that's done in pollution prevention strategies, and so on. I think I would be remiss if I didn't thank those staff who have spent the last few days, in fact, having to listen to some extremely disagreeable questioning from the opposition and from the critic in particular.
But I would like to mention that there are a number of other people from the opposition who came to this table to enter into these debates that I think were very constructive and cooperative, and I'd like to thank them, because they've brought to my attention some matters that we clearly need to continue to work on.
I had hoped I'd be able to leave these estimates with a feeling that we could cooperate together and continue to make progress on a number of matters. That doesn't appear as likely as I'd hoped it would, but I certainly would be pleased to continue a dialogue with the member opposite, if she's interested in truly discussing some of the important issues that we're all faced with and continuing to make progress on on a number of environmental fronts.
[ Page 5847 ]
Vote 29 approved.
Vote 30: ministry operations, $166,210,000 -- approved.
Vote 63: other appropriations, environmental assessment and land use coordination, $16,522,000 -- approved.
Vote 64: other appropriations, environmental boards and forest appeals commission, $2,076,000 -- approved.
Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:45 p.m.
[SECTION 35
(a) in the proposed section 52.2 of the Police Act, by deleting subsection (5) and substituting the following subsection:
(5) If the police complaint commissioner determines that the notice of withdrawal was made under duress, the police complaint commissioner must order the discipline authority to conduct an investigation into one or more of the allegations in the complaint and to proceed with processing the complaint under this Part. ,(b) in the proposed section 52.2(8), by deleting "subsection (5)(a)" and substituting "subsection (5)",
(c) in the proposed section 54(1), by adding "or third party complainant" after "complainant" wherever it appears,
(d) in the proposed section 54.2(7), by deleting "An officer's personnel file" and substituting "A record respecting an informal resolution that is entered in an officer's personnel file",
(e) in the proposed section 57(2), by deleting paragraph (d) and substituting the following paragraph:
(e) all reasons for imposing or not imposing disciplinary or corrective measures in relation to the complaint, ,(f) in the proposed section 57.1, by deleting subsection (2) and substituting the following subsection:
(2) A notice provided under subsection (1)(a) must set out(a) the nature of the complaint in sufficient factual detail to identify the incident,(b) the alleged discipline defaults, identifying those sections of the Code of Professional Conduct alleged to be breached,
(c) whether the complaint was dealt with as a public trust complaint or as an internal discipline complaint,
(d) whether a prehearing conference will be offered, and
(e) a description of the response proposed by the discipline authority to each alleged discipline default. ,
(g) in the proposed section 58, by deleting subsection (3) and substituting the following subsection:
(3) If a respondent accepts an offer for a prehearing conference under subsection (1), the respondent may be accompanied at the prehearing conference by one or both of the following:(a) an agent;(b) the respondent's counsel. ,
(h) in the proposed section 58, by deleting subsection (5) and substituting the following subsection:
(5) If disciplinary or corrective measures are accepted by a respondent and approved by the discipline authority at a prehearing conference in relation to any alleged discipline default respecting the complaint lodged, the discipline authority must,(a) within 10 business days after the prehearing conference, serve on the complainant, or send to the complainant by registered mail, and provide the police complaint commissioner with, a report that sets out(i) for each alleged discipline default,(b) if the resolution is final and conclusive under subsection (7), record on the respondent's service record of discipline the respondent's admission, any disciplinary or corrective measure approved and the fact that the measure was voluntarily accepted by the respondent. ,(A) any disciplinary or corrective measure accepted and approved, and(B) any policy change being considered by the discipline authority in authority in respect of the matter,
(ii) the reasons for the proposed measures or policy changes,
(iii) any noted aggravating and mitigating factors in the case, subject to severing those portions of the disposition record that may be excepted from disclosure under the of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and
(iv) the recourse available to the complainant under this section, and
(i) in the proposed section 58.1(1), by deleting "does not result in a resolution of all of the allegations in the complaint," and substituting "does not result in a resolution of all alleged discipline defaults respecting the complaint,",
(j) in the proposed section 58.1(4), by deleting paragraph (b) and substituting the following paragraph:
(b) the respondent's agent or counsel, or both. ,(k) in the proposed section 59, by deleting subsection (1) and substituting the following subsection:
(1) Each alleged discipline default respecting the complaint, other than those resolved at a prehearing conference held in respect of the matter under section 58, must be read to the respondent at a discipline proceeding, and the respondent must be asked to admit or deny the alleged discipline default. ,(l) in the proposed section 59(3), by deleting "but the respondent and his or her agent," and substituting "but the respondent, or his or her agent or counsel,",
(m) in the proposed section 59, by deleting subsections (5) and (6) and substituting the following subsections:
(5) At the conclusion of a discipline proceeding under this section, the discipline authority must(a) in relation to each alleged discipline default under subsection (1), make a finding as to whether the discipline default has been proved on the civil standard of proof,(b) record those findings in the prescribed form, and
(c) invite and hear submissions from the respondent, or his or her agent or counsel, as to appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures for each discipline default found to be proven under paragraph (a).
[ Page 5848 ]
(6) Within 10 business days after hearing submissions from the respondent, or his or her agent or counsel, at the conclusion of a discipline proceeding under subsection (5), the discipline authority must(a) propose disciplinary or corrective measures for each discipline default found to be proven under subsection (5)(a),(b) record those proposed measures and the date in a disposition record in the prescribed form,
(c) include in the disposition record any aggravating or mitigating factors in the case, and
(d) serve a copy of the disposition record on the respondent. ,
(n) in the proposed section 59.1(1)(a), by deleting subparagraphs (i) and (ii) and substituting the following subparagraphs:
(i) the findings of the discipline authority under section 59(5)(a),(o) in the proposed section 59.1(4), by deleting "a public hearing" and substituting "public hearing",(ii) any disciplinary or corrective measures proposed by the discipline authority under section 59(6)(a) and any policy changes being considered by the discipline authority in respect of the complaint, ,
(p) in the proposed section 60.1(8), by deleting "by double registered mail to the complainant." and substituting "by double registered mail to the complainant's last address known to, or on record with, the police complaint commissioner.",
(q) in the proposed section 61, by deleting subsection (2) and substituting the following subsection:
(2) The police complaint commissioner must appoint counsel to present to an adjudicator the case relative to the alleged discipline defaults respecting a public trust complaint. , and(r) in the proposed section 61, by deleting subsection (6) and substituting the following subsection:
(6) The adjudicator must decide whether each alleged discipline default respecting the complaint has been proved on the civil standard of proof and may do one or more of the following:(a) find that all, part or none of the alleged discipline default has been proved on the civil standard of proof;(b) impose any disciplinary or corrective measures that may be imposed by a discipline authority;
(c) affirm, increase or reduce the disciplinary or corrective measures proposed by the discipline authority.]