2011 Legislative Session: Third Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Morning Sitting

Volume 23, Number 2

[ Page 7439 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2011

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. B. Penner: In this House I call second reading of Bill 12, Police (Independent Investigations Office) Amendment Act, 2011, and in the little House, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Health.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Police (Independent
Investigations Office)
Amendment Act, 2011

Hon. S. Bond: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

This legislation fulfils our commitment to respond to the recommendations made by the Braidwood Inquiry to establish an independent investigation office to investigate serious incidents involving both the municipal police and the RCMP. Our legislation not only builds on the models in other jurisdictions, such as Ontario and Alberta, but it sets a new standard for civilian-led police investigation and for accountability.

This historic change has the support of Justice Thomas Braidwood, whose commission into the death of Robert Dziekanski recommended creating an independent investigation office, as well as the province's most senior municipal police and RCMP leaders. This support is the immediate result our government sought following months of careful drafting and working to get this legislation right.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

But we have a much greater long-term goal. In time we believe that setting a new standard for civilian-led police investigation and accountability will strengthen the public's faith in the dedicated officers working to keep them safe. Our landmark legislation changes the investigative approach to be more transparent, accountable and fair to citizens and to officers under investigation alike.

[1005]

As the lead investigative agency in cases under its mandate, the IIO will conduct criminal investigations, interview witnesses and gather evidence. If, after an investigation is concluded, the chief civilian director considers that an officer may have committed a criminal offence, the director will report the matter to Crown counsel for review and charge assessment.

The new office will be led by a civilian who has never served as a police officer and will be developed as a fully civilian unit. The office will be accountable to the Ministry of Attorney General. The scope of IIO investigations will encompass not only police-related incidents involving death or serious harm but also other offences against individuals, and offences that undermine public confidence in policing. These will be set out in regulation.

In addition, we need to make sure that we strike the right balance between appropriate expertise and civilian oversight when it comes to the investigations themselves. We want to make sure that the civilian perspective is there, but we also must ensure that where an officer is not charged, the reason is not due to a lack of investigative experience or expertise.

Consequently, we have followed Justice Braidwood's recommendation whereby investigators themselves could be civilians or they could be former police officers, provided that they have not served in British Columbia in the preceding five years from the time of their appointment.

We are further committed to ensuring the success and impact that this office will have. Thus, we have built in a review of the administration and general administration of the office by a special committee of the Legislature by January 2015. The special committee will examine the effectiveness of this office and its progression towards an entirely civilian staff.

Ensuring public confidence is the goal of this groundbreaking aspect of our legislation. For example, the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner will oversee the IIO investigators who will be conducting criminal investigations. We want to ensure that these investigators will be subject to the high standard of conduct and investigative standards in the Police Act. The Police Complaint Commissioner has the expertise to deal with such complaints and investigate the investigators, as necessary.

For additional oversight, the chief civilian director can appoint a civilian monitor where needed. The monitor will be free to raise concerns to the office's director about the integrity of an investigation and submit a final report within 30 days. While this is another step beyond Justice Braidwood's recommendations, it reflects the central goal of maximizing the independence of all the facets of the IIO in both perception and practice.

The significance of the change in approach represented by our independent investigation office legislation cannot be overstated. Led and monitored by qualified civilians, and with its investigators' conduct overseen by the independent Police Complaint Commissioner, this office will represent unprecedented steps toward investigations that are fair and yet entirely removed from the police forces under their scope. Ultimately, individual police
[ Page 7440 ]
officers must earn and maintain the confidence of British Columbians, and our government is proud to support them in doing so.

In closing, we believe that this legislation creates one of the most civilian-based police oversight models in the country, and thus will help further public confidence in policing in British Columbia.

K. Corrigan: I am the designated speaker on Bill 12. I am pleased to rise on Bill 12, the Police (Independent Investigations Office) Amendment Act, 2011. I think this is an important bill, and we have many speakers today who want to speak on it, because we all do recognize the importance of the bill. We are supportive of the bill, but we have some concerns about it as well.

[1010]

One of my main concerns is a bit of a peripheral concern, but it certainly impacts my ability to respond and to fully consider the bill. That is the fact that since last June we have sat for four days in February and for just over a month or so through May and a few days in April. I count it to be certainly less than 30 days that we're sitting in the whole of the last year.

We had this bill introduced last week, and we're having second reading today. To me it means that for a bill that is as important as this — and it is truly an important bill to discuss — we don't have the time to discuss it. We don't have the time to fully consider it. Very importantly, as well, we don't have the time to consult with people.

We've had a chance for an examination of it. We have looked closely at it, but I would have liked to have had a chance to consult with legal scholars. I called some legal scholars last week about it, after the bill was introduced, to ask for some comment on some of the choices that were made in this bill with respect to accountability and other matters. I was met with a great deal of surprise by those various legal scholars on this area. They were very surprised, and they said: "Well, when can we get back to you? Can we get back in a couple of weeks or three weeks?"

I said: "No, I don't think so. This will all have to be dealt with by the time we finish, which is on June 2." I'll tell you, there was some real surprise at that and at the inability for people to consider what was in this bill and to make thoughtful comment on it and to respond to it. I would have liked to have had their input and had time to consider their input before this bill was debated in this House, but that was impossible.

We sit for about 25 to 30 days. I apologize to the people of British Columbia for that. I think it's an embarrassment to this Legislature and to this institution. It's an embarrassment to democracy, an affront to open and accountable government that we only sit for 25 or 30 days in 12 months and that we are going to have very little time to discuss, consider and debate important legislation like Bill 12, which the minister has described.

You know, we are faced, in the opposition, with choices about whether we're going to spend a great deal of time — as much time as we would like — to discuss important legislation like Bill 12 or whether we spend a few more hours asking questions on behalf of the taxpayers, the citizens of British Columbia, about how things are being spent.

In the case of the ministry that I am the official opposition critic for, the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General has a budget of around $635 million, not including the money that goes in and out of ICBC, which also comes under that ministry. So we had about an hour for every hundred million dollars of taxpayers' money that is spent to discuss that budget.

Those are the difficult choices that we are having to make — whether we spend more time talking about important bills like Bill 12 or whether we spend more time in estimates. So I will now have some amount of time to talk about Bill 12.

I would have also liked to have had more time to discuss this bill with people like Mark and Rosemarie Surakka. Mark and Rosemarie Surakka are the parents of Lisa Dudley and Guthrie McKay, and they are very impacted by this bill and very concerned about it.

Lisa Dudley and Guthrie McKay, as people will probably remember, were the couple that were found with gunshot wounds in a home in Mission in 2008. They were found four days after they were shot in what police say was a targeted attack. Mr. McKay was pronounced dead at the scene, but Lisa Dudley, who is the daughter of Mark and Rosemarie Surakka, was alive four days after she was shot. She was alive when she was found but died en route to the hospital.

[1015]

That case is important when we're talking about this bill. In that case the RCMP officer who responded to a 911 call four days earlier, four days before Lisa Dudley died, didn't respond to that call. He did not go and investigate. He did not go into that home and so did not find Lisa Dudley, who died four days later. He was later reprimanded for disgraceful conduct because he didn't get out of his car to investigate the 911 call.

I mention that case because that is a prime example of a case where a family has been devastated and is distraught not only for what happened to their daughter but devastated and distraught with the process that they have gone through since she was shot in 2008. They've been devastated by the bureaucracy, devastated and cynical about the process wherein police was investigating itself.

If this process had been in place for the Surakkas in 2008, the process that they would have gone through would have been a far different one and perhaps could have taken away some of the pain, the suffering and the anguish that they have gone through as they have dealt with the bureaucracies and been cynical about police in that case investigating themselves. So this is a positive step, but it is very late in coming.
[ Page 7441 ]

There's been a lot of concern about how long it's taken. And it's not just since Thomas Braidwood made his recommendation that there should be an independent investigations office when there are cases where the police are involved in an incident where there is serious harm or where a criminal action was incurred by the police, or death. It's not just since then that we should be concerned.

This goes back years. I think some of my colleagues will, in addition, talk about the Frank Paul inquiry. There have been recommendations that there should be an independent investigation, that the police should not be investigating themselves in these types of serious cases, with police misconduct. This has gone back for years.

I recall from the time when I practised law in the late 1970s and into the 1980s that certainly some of my colleagues who practiced criminal law, the defence lawyers, were saying that there should be independent investigation in cases where there is alleged police misconduct or death or serious harm to individuals. That was being said back into the 1970s. So this is decades in coming.

I think if this legislation had been brought in earlier, then perhaps the very unfortunate lack of trust that British Columbians have for the RCMP could have been avoided. And that's a serious, serious matter — that the people of British Columbia have a lack of trust for the police and for the RCMP. I'll give you some examples of that. The RCMP: in its most recent poll of people in Canada about leadership, about their communications, accountability and public complaints investigation, the results were very disappointing and concerning.

[1020]

I'll give you some examples comparing B.C. and Canada. With regard to the statement that the RCMP is an accountable organization, in Canada as a whole, 76 percent of the people thought that the RCMP is an accountable organization. In B.C. in June of 2010 that number was just 56 percent. With the statement, "The RCMP has strong, reliable leaders," nationally the agreement with that was 69 percent. In British Columbia it was only 54 percent.

The next one is quite relevant to the bill that we're discussing right now: "The RCMP investigates public complaints appropriately and with transparency." Across Canada the agreement level with that statement was 70 percent and in British Columbia only 57 percent. With the statement, "I have trust and confidence in the RCMP," Canada-wide the agreement level was 84 percent, but it was only 73 percent in British Columbia.

[D. Black in the chair.]

I find that very hurtful. I have a great deal of respect for the RCMP, and certainly in my community the RCMP have done a stellar job in terms of communications with the public, meeting with the public and making contact with the public, and have conducted themselves in a very professional way. Unfortunately, that feeling is not universal, by any means. In fact, the numbers are quite appalling in British Columbia.

Why is that? Well, I do think that a large part of it can certainly go back to the concern that people have because of the very high-level and high-profile cases where the police investigated themselves, and there were real problems with that. Of course, the most obvious are cases like Robert Dziekanski, and there have been others. There has been the Frank Paul inquiry, and there have been several others.

Unfortunately, I think that the lack of trust that we have in the RCMP is certainly clearly linked to cases where the police have investigated themselves and where there have been real problems with that investigation.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I think it's really unfortunate because I think one of the most important things that we can do in a society is that we need to have trust in our police, and there needs to be a sense that things are done fairly by all people. It has to be by the police.

[D. Black in the chair.]

So it's unfortunate that we've reached this situation, and I think particularly of newcomers to our country. I was quite shocked when I had a group of adult ESL students come to my office a couple of weeks ago. I was talking to them, so proud of my country and talking about various services and so on. They reflected back to me that they had some concerns about various services and inabilities they have to acquire services, but one of the things that several of them mentioned was concern about: "Should we trust the police in this country?"

I was absolutely shocked, because I've always been brought up to believe that you can trust the police, that you can go to the police, that you'll be treated fairly and that the police are utmost professionals. And I know they are. The lack of trust, when we have only 69 percent of the people in B.C. saying that the RCMP demonstrates professionalism in its work, is not reflective of the percentage of RCMP officers that are highly professional.

As I said, in my community I have a great deal of faith in the RCMP, in the professionalism, in the integrity of that organization. So it is shocking to me and disturbing that we have so many people in our province — and across Canada, but less so across Canada — who are concerned about the professionalism, the accountability, the leadership and the transparency of the RCMP.

I do again think it's directly related to some of those high-profile cases like the Dziekanski case, where the police were investigating themselves and were found to be sorely lacking.

[1025]
[ Page 7442 ]

In the way they investigated, in the public statements that were made, in the perception that the officers that were involved did not tell the truth, in holding back the video, all of those types of things were associated with the high level of skepticism, cynicism and concern that the people of this province and around the world had. That's a real concern that this perception is not just limited to British Columbia, but it echoed around the world with that very high-profile case.

It is very unfortunate that if we had previously had an independent office like has been now proposed, then the incidents that brought people to be so cynical would have been lessened, if not eliminated. Remember, it's not just the behaviour of the police officers with the tasering of Robert Dziekanski which was of concern. It was the behaviour afterwards wherein the police….

The perception, I think, of the public was that the police closed the circle, circled the wagons and then behaved in a way that was not transparent; made statements which were later clearly shown to be not true; that the interpretation that the officers involved had, the statements that they made, were inconsistent; that some of the statements made by the police spokespeople afterwards were patently wrong, in error. And the whole process was then tainted by the fact that, in fact, the RCMP were investigating themselves, and their process was sorely lacking. So it is a long time coming.

I want to just quote something that Thomas Braidwood said in his report on the Robert Dziekanski inquiry. He said: "If a body at arm's length from the RCMP had conducted the…investigation, that body would have been and would have been perceived by the public to be impartial. The public would have been much more likely to accept without suspicion what such an impartial body said about the incident."

It is unfortunate that there was that level of suspicion and cynicism that we've talked about. Braidwood himself has pointed out that if a body like this had been in place at that time, then the damage to trust of the RCMP would have been far less. And I think we could go into again the case of Mark and Rosemarie Surakka and also the Frank Paul inquiry.

You know, some people might say that, yes, perhaps it would help in terms of the investigation afterwards to have had a body like the independent investigations office in place but that it would not have made any difference to the initial tragedy, wouldn't have made any difference to the behaviour of the officers in some of those situations. But I'm not so sure of that.

I'm not going to second-guess what would have happened if an independent office had been in place at the time. But I wonder, if police officers were aware that their behaviour would be investigated independently, that there would be no opportunity to….

For example what used to drive me crazy when I was practising law was that if there was a serious case, then the officers could go back and be debriefed. That's an important thing for somebody to get counselling and be debriefed. But the result was, potentially, that police officers also would have a chance to talk to each other about what had happened and compare stories and make sure that stories were consistent.

I'm absolutely clear. I know of cases where it appeared to me that that had happened. I think if police officers were aware when they were working that there is an independent investigation office, it would bring another level of oversight of which the police would be aware.

[1030]

Again, I want to reiterate that I have a great deal of respect for law enforcement in this province, for their professionalism. But I think it is important, and the bringing in of this legislation recognizes that it is important, to have oversight. So I do believe that it could have, to some degree, a preventive value and will have a preventive value as well as raising the bar in terms of the investigation that happens afterwards. It may be a side effect of the legislation as well.

C. Trevena: Can I have leave to make an introduction, Madam Speaker?

Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

C. Trevena: I hope the House will make welcome some grade 5 and grade 6 students who are in the House today — and I apologize to them if I mispronounce the name of their school; we did have a practice outside and at the school when I went to visit them there — from the T'lisalagi'lakw School in Alert Bay.

They are Emily, Hilary, Laura, Mary, Gwanti, Roy, Cedarus, Tianna, Janine, Lexi and Kieran. They are joined by Anthony Hunt, Ruby Peterson and their teacher, Lina Nichol. They are doing a tour of the House. I went to meet them at their school, and they were very excited about coming down here. I hope that the House will make them welcome and will show them that we can be very well behaved in this, our big House.

Debate Continued

K. Corrigan: I welcome the students as well. We have a big crowd today. We don't always at ten o'clock in the morning, 10:30 in the morning.

I'll get back to my comments. Despite some of the concerns that I have and will express, this is a good thing. This bill is a good thing, and it's very welcome. I think it's important to note that Justice Thomas Braidwood, who led the inquiry into the 2007 death of Robert Dziekanski, supports the act.

He says: "This reform will go a long way toward strengthening public confidence in our law-enforcement agencies. Public reaction was swift and vocal that the
[ Page 7443 ]
police should not investigate themselves. I encourage the people of British Columbia to support this legislation. It certainly conforms to my recommendations."

There is also support from Jim Chu and other RCMP and municipal police forces. Jim Chu, the Vancouver police chief, said: "It's a historic day for policing in our province. This new legislation will increase the transparency of police actions."

That is very important, I think — to know that we have police support. I think it is important in that it reflects a maturing of the culture of the police.

I think that previously — and I've certainly heard police officers saying this, and I read this — there was some suspicion about the idea of taking investigations away and putting it under the aegis of an independent investigation office. But I think there has been a maturing and a recognition that it's important to all of us in British Columbia — the investigation of serious situations where there is harm or death involved or a criminal act by a police officer.

I think the police recognize that it's for the benefit of everybody that there be independent investigation in order to protect the reputation, the integrity of police departments. I'm really pleased to see the widespread support that there is from police agencies across this province.

So it is good, and it has been supported by many. I certainly am supportive of the independent investigation office establishment as well. But I also have some concerns. I will mention some of them briefly. I have a lot of colleagues who want to speak today, so I think I'm going to shorten my remarks to some degree to give all of my colleagues a chance to speak.

[1035]

My first comment is that the bill provides that the appointment is by cabinet. Therefore, just by the very nature of it, an appointment by cabinet is an appointment that is discussed and made behind closed doors. That's what cabinet is. And it can be seen to…. I'm not saying it would necessarily, but it takes on a more political tone.

I would note by comparison that the Police Complaint Commissioner is appointed by a committee of the Legislature. So I think that's a contrast that I am concerned about. The Police Complaint Commissioner — I believe that office was set up by the NDP. I think the reasoning likely is, and I submit should also be in this case, that when we're looking at the issue of transparency and oversight and integrity the whole process should be one that is unassailable in terms of the perception of integrity and oversight and transparency.

I think it's disappointing that the government has chosen to have the appointment be made by cabinet because, as I said, it then moves it into the potential of being political in nature.

I also want to express a little bit of concern about the type of oversight that has been chosen by this government for the independent investigation office. In other words, who investigates the investigator? Who has oversight for the investigator?

There are various options that the government could have chosen. The one that was recommended by Thomas Braidwood was that the provincial Ombudsman have jurisdiction over the IIO. In addition, there is a possibility and, I think, another model that could have been looked at. And certainly in committee stage I'll be questioning and asking the minister: what about the possibility equivalent to what we have in the municipal police forces, which is a requirement that we have a police board?

On a police board in a community, you have local input. You have the mayor. You have citizen involvement, and you have police involvement as well. I think it's balanced, and it reflects the views of the community. So it's another possibility that could have been put in place.

As I said earlier, if I'd had more time to review this bill and have discussions with people, I would have liked to have had the opportunity to discuss whether that would have been a preferable model for oversight.

My feeling about democracy is that the more people you have involved, the more you bring your community in, you bring civilians in, you bring professionals in to have oversight, to have more eyes on an organization, particularly an organization as important as one that is investigating possible wrongdoing. Certainly, in the case of death and serious harm to somebody or wrongdoing by a police officer, I think it's important that we attain the highest levels of transparency and oversight. So that was another possibility.

I mentioned that Braidwood recommended that the provincial Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the IIO. Well, it's interesting. Here's where the Ombudsman recommendation to me is a possibility that could have made sense.

I read a report called Oversight Unseen, a September 2008 report of the Ombudsman of Ontario, wherein the Ombudsman, as a result of some serious cases and, as well, many, many complaints to the Ombudsman's office, conducted a review of the operations of the SIU, which is the Special Investigations Unit in Ontario. I guess you could call it a most scathing review. I think it was.

[1040]

It uncovered and talked about many, many shortcomings of that unit, which oversees special investigations. As well as real concern about many of the situations and things that had happened, the Oversight Unseen report made about 46 serious recommendations about how things could be improved. It talked about records and the way investigations were being done, concerns about the fact that sometimes the Special Investigations Unit was not called in quickly enough — real, systemic kinds of concerns about how that Special Investigation Unit was operating and recommendations for improvement.

So I'm not clear that the oversight that is in place, the choice of having the oversight by the police complaints
[ Page 7444 ]
commission is necessarily not going…. I'm not sure that it won't be as strong, but again, I would have liked to have more time to consider whether or not the Ombudsman, as a more independent organization not related to the police, might have been the better way to go. So I do have some concerns about that.

There has also been some concern expressed — and I have some concerns, and certainly quite a few commentators have expressed some concerns — about the scope of the types of crimes that are included in this act. So what the act says is that… It covers cases where there is serious harm and "a person may have died or suffered serious harm as a result of the actions of an officer, whether on or off duty" or as well, whether the officer, "whether on or off duty, may have contravened a prescribed provision of the Criminal Code or a prescribed provision of another federal or provincial enactment…."

Certainly, some people have expressed concern about the scope that is included there. I think it's important that where somebody has died or suffered serious harm the independent investigation office be brought in — or when the officer or officers involved may have broken a law, essentially.

But I do have some concerns about that, and one of them is that "serious harm" is defined in the Police Act, and that's the definition that applies in this case, to "injury that (a) may result in death, (b) may cause serious disfigurement, or (c) may cause substantial loss of impairment of mobility of the body as a whole or of the function of any limb or organ." It's a pretty graphic description, but I think it's important to be clear what we're talking about.

But, for example, would the incident where an 11-year-old boy was tasered recently in April…. Would that situation have been covered, and would that be covered by the independent investigations office? I think many people think, believe, that that type of situation is one that should also be included.

In addition, we don't know yet what kind of contravention of the Criminal Code or other federal or provincial enactments will be included, because that's going to be prescribed. In other words, we're going to get some regulations. It would be nice to know, while we're considering the bill, what kinds of situations will be covered. So I do have some concerns about the scope of the crimes that are covered.

[1045]

I mentioned oversight. You know, I forgot to mention that…. One of the concerns — it's a little piece of the bill but one that I am concerned about — is that when we're talking about oversight, section 3 in the bill says that:

"Subject to the restrictions specified in the appointment and the regulations, a provincial constable, an auxiliary constable, a designated constable or a special provincial constable has (a) all the powers, duties, and immunities of a peace officer and constable at common law or under any Act, and (b) jurisdiction throughout British Columbia while carrying out those duties and exercising those powers."

Which sounds pretty harmless when you take a look at it, but I went back to look and see what section 10 had actually said previously, and what it had said essentially is that…. I've lost it, but it doesn't matter….

Deputy Speaker: Member, can you take your seat for a moment.

I call the member for Richmond Centre.

Introductions by Members

R. Howard: I seek leave to make an introduction. There is a school that has joined us today. As a matter of fact, it's a school I attended back when I was a youngster.

Interjections.

R. Howard: It was a while ago. The students from General Currie School in my riding of Richmond are in the precinct today. They are accompanied by Mr. Ron Avery. I wish the House would help me make them welcome.

Debate Continued

K. Corrigan: So I was saying it looks fairly innocuous. The bill note says that it: "clarifies the powers, duties, immunities and jurisdiction of specified officers." But when I took a look at the previous section that it was replacing, what essentially it does is take away any requirement for police officers in this province to notify a municipal or RCMP police department when it's going in.

In the past maybe it wasn't always done, but it was a requirement under the act that when a police department went into another jurisdiction and did some work or investigations, they were required to let the police department know that they were coming in, which seems to me an important thing to do.

I know that there have been concerns expressed, for example, about the transit police and, you know, what is their jurisdiction. Now, the transit police jurisdiction, under this act, is across the whole of the province. Nobody has to give any justification. Nobody has to say that they're coming in. They don't have to give any warning. They don't have to give any notice.

So I think this section is a real concern, and I will be asking more questions when we get to the committee stage. That is an oversight issue. Where is the oversight with regard to that section?

Another concern is that the report, the decision about whether or not there are going to be criminal charges laid, are going to go to the Crown counsel…. Section 38.11 of the bill says that the chief civilian director in charge of the independent investigation office "must report the matter to Crown counsel."

The decision that government has made is who is going to make the decision about charges. Unfortunately, this
[ Page 7445 ]
is not consistent with what Braidwood recommended. The recommendation of the Braidwood report was that the decision should be made by a special prosecutor, and that has not happened. I do have some concerns about that as well.

In addition, this bill — and I do have to give the government credit for it — while it does cover both RCMP and municipal police forces, which is important…. Hugely important, considering that, I believe for the majority of people in British Columbia, policing is provided by the RCMP, which is unusual across Canada. I think we have the largest detachments in Canada, so this is important that it does apply to the RCMP. It doesn't take what I would have thought was a golden opportunity — to unify the police complaints commission and the independent investigation office.

In other words, we are still going to have a police complaints commission. When people go to make complaints about the police, there's going to be a provincial police complaints office, and there is going to still be the RCMP complaints commission.

[1050]

While we are going to have unity in terms of situations where there is serious harm or death or police criminal behaviour or misconduct in some way, we have not taken that golden opportunity to unify the police complaints commission and the independent police complaints commission, so we're going to have a fragmenting of responsibility.

It concerns me that we are apparently in the latter stages of negotiating the new RCMP contract between the province and the federal government — and other provinces as well. I'm not sure whether we will then have the opportunity in the future to unify the police complaints commissions as well so that we can have everything under one roof and not then be facing jurisdictional challenges that I think are inherent in the structure that we have.

The final comment that I want to make — because I have an increasing number of colleagues that apparently want to speak on this, so I think I'll shorten my remarks to some degree — is that we don't know what the budget is. We don't have any idea what the budget is for this office. You know, it's unfortunate. We had our estimates, wherein we have an opportunity to go and question the ministers about their budgets, and I didn't have an opportunity to find out what the budget is going to be for this office. I don't see it. I've looked at the budget of this ministry, and there is no provision for it.

So the ability of this organization, the independent investigation office, to operate effectively, fully, to provide all the services and provide a robust investigative function is clearly related to the budget that the office has, and we don't know what the budget is. I'm hoping that the budget is going to be sufficient in order that that work can be effectively done. That is my final concern with the bill.

Overall, as I said, I'm concerned about the amount of time that it's taken and perhaps some of the heartbreak, the anguish, even some of the incidents that might have been avoided had this bill been brought in years or even decades earlier. So I'm concerned about that, concerned how long a time it is in coming.

I'm concerned about the lack of trust that there is in the RCMP. I hope that this bill, this enactment and bringing this into place, will help to renew the trust that the people have in the RCMP and municipal police forces. I hope that it is comfort to people like Mark and Rosemarie Surakka, with the loss of their daughter Lisa, and I hope it's comforting to Zofia Cisowski, the mother of Robert Dziekanski.

Overall, I certainly am pleased that the government has done this, but I do have a few concerns, some concerns that I have set out.

And with that, I am going to complete.

D. Barnett: Today I have the privilege of speaking to this great bill proposed and put forward by our Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. Two months into a job, and wow — look at the wonderful accomplishment. This, of course, has been asked for by the public for some time.

Believe it or not, I come from a family where my brother was a policeman for 37 years. I can tell you that the officers, the men and women who serve our province, are great people. They are ones that we respect, and we must continue to respect them. They are strong people, and they protect us. They, too, appreciate this bill — those that I have talked to.

[1055]

They, too, wish to continue to have the support of the public and the trust and to continue providing safety for our citizens and to show our youth that they are of the utmost and ones that can be trusted by all.

I think this bill is a historic moment. I am proud to be on this side of the House where we are all a part of this, and I am also thankful that the past speaker from the opposition on the other side of the House supports this bill. Mr. Braidwood, who had a big task to do with a tragic incident, supports this, as do many others.

It is a sad day when we have incidents in this province that must be investigated by someone other than those who are the only investigators we have. So today this is a great step forward in the province of British Columbia and for those who serve us so well. There are many recommendations in the bill. There are many, many things that have to be finalized in budgets which will come. As the speaker across the way has said, we have the bill. The main part of bringing this forward is having the legislative authority for those that care to move it forward.

I can say: today I am proud. I can also say: I am proud of our minister and thank her for this initiative.
[ Page 7446 ]

L. Krog: I am pleased to rise in debate on second reading of Bill 12. I thought the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin used an interesting turn of phrase when she called it an historic moment. Sadly, the reason we're here debating this bill was obviously an historic moment in British Columbia's history, which was the death of Robert Dziekanski at the Vancouver International Airport. It was a stain on this province that gave us notoriety — and I use that term very carefully — around the world. It was an international embarrassment for this country.

There is a temptation sometimes to overreact whenever there is a dramatic case, a fact pattern that arouses great public anger or anguish — or indeed pleasure, for that matter. But the case of Mr. Dziekanski, his death, the death of Mr. Bush — all of these cases have highlighted what has been an ongoing issue with respect to policing, not just in British Columbia but in Canada generally for a number of years. That is a concern, a very obvious concern and an extremely legitimate concern around the concept of police forces investigating police forces and making recommendations about whether or not charges should be laid.

It would be wonderful to live in a perfect world where we wouldn't have to debate a bill of this nature, but we live in very cynical times. The fact patterns of just the two that I have mentioned, Mr. Bush's death and Mr. Dziekanski's death, have made it impossible for legislatures anywhere in this country and, most particularly, here in British Columbia to ignore the increasing lack of trust in the police by the citizenry. That is a sad state of affairs, and I say this as someone who is uncle to a Vancouver city police officer who is married to another police officer.

I don't think there's anything harder in any profession or occupation or any calling in life than to know that you don't have the support of the people you are meant to serve. You can argue about whether it's 50 percent or 60 percent or 70 percent, but the numbers are quite telling, and the polling tells us that. It tells us that we have a significantly increased lack of faith in the police.

What this bill does — and I do have some criticisms; I'm not going to completely give this bill a whitewash; that's not my job in the opposition — is take a step forward in promoting confidence in our police forces and confidence that incidents involving either injury or death to individuals at the hands of police will be thoroughly investigated and that ultimately, that old cliché will apply: "Justice will be done."

[1100]

It is important, as is the other phrase that's often used: "Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done." There was a growing sense — quite legitimate, in my view — that justice was not being done in situations involving police officers accused of offences or suspected of offences.

I would think that most police officers in this province will welcome this legislation because it enables them to say with confidence that if there is an incident that raises suspicion, that looks suspicious, that attracts public attention, that has an impact on morale in any police station in this province, it will be investigated — that there is a process in place that will hopefully be seen to be aboveboard and that will result in appropriate action being taken.

I think of the member from Port Coquitlam and her unhappy experience and the experience of her husband in Mexico recently. To live in a jurisdiction where you cannot necessarily trust the police force is a pretty striking and awful thing. I think most of us, if we've travelled much abroad…. Most of us in this chamber, by virtue of being elected to this House, are solidly in the middle classes. Many of us have had that opportunity. It's a very comforting thing to know that in Canada, the policeman is quite literally your friend.

It's not true in every place on the planet. Indeed, the lists of countries where it is not true and, even more importantly, the significant numbers of the population of the planet where it is not true…. It's a very sobering thought.

So it's really quite wonderful, in some respects, that here in British Columbia it is so important for us to have respect for our police force that we are prepared to take this legislative step to ensure that we think it's a real problem when there's a lack of confidence in the police, that we want to remedy that, that it is important to British Columbians to remedy that. That says something about the nature of our democracy and the privilege it is to live in this province and in this country.

So in that sense, this bill is extremely positive on every level. It will promote confidence in the police. It will promote confidence in the justice system. It will move us forward from what has been — and I opened my remarks talking about Mr. Dziekanski — a very dark period.

Now, in my job as a member of the opposition, I said that I would not give this a whitewash, and I don't intend to. It is a step forward, but it is not everything, and it is certainly not everything that Justice Braidwood recommended. As this Legislature and MLAs who have served in it have learned, when you have a very respected individual making recommendations — and the name Ted Hughes springs to mind, of course, as another example — it's often very unwise, politically, not to follow all of those recommendations.

That is where this bill, although it will receive the support of the opposition because it is a step forward, is, in fact, not meeting the mark. It has not passed the test. I think it's pretty clear that even those families who were affected most by the incidents I've referred to — Linda Bush, Zofia Cisowski and others — have basically said: "Look, this is a good thing. It's a good step forward."
[ Page 7447 ]
Robert Holmes, the president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, called it "an important baby step forward."

But there are some basic criticisms. I've had the privilege of sitting on the various hiring committees of the Legislature, quite often with the member for Nechako Lakes, and participated in the process of hiring some very fine individuals who have represented this province so ably in their positions as independent officers of the Legislature.

I would have thought that this would have been a very good opportunity, rather than have the chief civilian director of the independent investigations office appointed by cabinet, to have had that individual selected by a committee of the Legislature and reported to the Legislature. That was certainly, I think, a very positive thing that could have been done.

Moreover, Justice Braidwood, even if he didn't go that far, suggested and recommended that the Ombudsperson have jurisdiction over this office. Again, I think that would have been a positive step as well.

[1105]

I'm also very concerned that the bill is limited in scope. I would think that wherever there is an allegation against a police officer involving a breach of any statute, the Criminal Code, any provision, regardless whether it's seen as slight or significant, as minor or major, it would be best to have a special prosecutor appointed. I don't want to see people put in the position of having to make that judgment call as to what falls within the purview of the act and what doesn't. It would have been far better to have a blanket provision.

As it is now, section 38.10 would provide that the report would have to be made where, whether on or off duty, an officer "(a) caused the death of a person, (b) caused a person serious harm, or (c) contravened a prescribed provision of the Criminal Code or a prescribed provision of another federal or provincial enactment."

If the police are to have the respect not only that they deserve, as do the vast majority of those who serve, they need to be above reproach. The only way to ensure that is to ensure that the standard of behaviour to which they are held is indeed higher than it is for most of us. We expect a high standard when it comes to police officers.

When we say that some are worthy of investigation by the new office and some aren't, it is, quite candidly, a double standard, and it doesn't elevate this to the position that it should be.

If police are really going to get the respect they deserve, if we are going to step past the awful era of Mr. Dziekanski's death, of Mr. Bush's death, then it has to apply across the board. There can be no respect for the law when the police are believed to be able to get away with something, so to speak, whether it's a traffic ticket or anything minor. Respect for the law must apply to every provision of the Criminal Code, of any statute. They must be held, unfortunately, arguably but most importantly, to a high standard, just as legislators are. Our lives are public and open books in many respects.

That is what comes with the privilege. In serving as police officers, that is a special privilege. It is a dangerous occupation. It is inherently dangerous. But it is inherently important and crucial if we are to maintain a democratic society. Again, I contrast the way we feel about policing as opposed to the way you might feel about policing in nations which I won't care to mention this morning, where the police are not your friends. I think it's important to do that.

I don't want to go on at great length. I know there are a number of members who wish to speak this morning, because this is important. But I would be remiss if I didn't say that this should be seen as nothing more than, and I'm going to be more complimentary than Mr. Holmes, a good first step — not a baby step; a good first step. But it doesn't go far enough.

I am very pleased to see the provisions under section 38.13, where a special committee of the Legislature will be appointed to review this. I think that is a very positive thing. I offer my compliments to the Solicitor General for that. It gives me hope that eventually we will see an independent officer of the Legislature, perhaps even combined with the existing Police Complaint Commissioner, because I think we should always be mindful of the taxpayers' money. That would be the appropriate thing to do.

This is a good first step. I am happy to support this bill. It is the right thing to do, and it helps British Columbians move beyond what has been, as I say, a very tragic time, a time when people have died under difficult and horrible circumstances involving police officers. We have come to that stage where we need to move beyond this and restore some of British Columbia's reputation as a jurisdiction where the police indeed are your friends.

[1110]

R. Howard: I am pleased to stand today and address Bill 12. It's a significant day in this House, I think, a significant day in the province. I'd like to start with just some thank-yous. I'd like to reflect on Robert Dziekanski and his mother, Zofia, for a minute as well. I'd like to also talk about the job of a police officer, then briefly about the process itself and, finally, wrap up with why I see this as a win-win.

Firstly, to the thank-yous. I think first I would like to thank Premier Clark for ensuring this was a priority in her government. I know that Premier Clark has taken this very personally, and I know that she spoke to the mothers of both Robert Dziekanski and Ian Bush and conveyed her feelings, mother to mother, and how tragic these losses were.

I'd also like to thank the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. As has been said, in two short months she has shown great determination and great diligence
[ Page 7448 ]
in getting this done — and not just getting it done but done thoughtfully and getting it right. I'd also like to just express thanks to Justice Braidwood, who produced a thorough and thoughtful report and I think, in fact, a very meaningful report.

You know, we all get involved in public life to make a difference. I hold very firmly that this will make a significant difference, will have positive impacts on our societies, in our communities, on our streets and in our neighbourhoods for generations to come because it cuts to the heart of peace of mind. This is basic confidence in the whole justice system, which starts, of course, with the police officer on the street.

While these changes are good — in fact, laudable — the circumstances which seemed to serve as the tripping point to bring them about are most regrettable — in fact, tragic. That Robert Dziekanski died is something that we will not likely ever forget.

I was a councillor in the city of Richmond at the time this happened. We got periodic updates because there was a real high level of interest and a high level of awareness because it was our city, because it was our airport. We were very familiar with those surroundings and used to those surroundings bringing us comfort, enjoyment and pride, not distress. So it was a very trying time.

Our hearts did and continue to go out to Zofia Cisowski and her entire family, to Linda Bush and her entire family.

I also want to say that the police officers and RCMP officers, the vast majority of which do a remarkable job on a daily basis…. You know, we ask them to put themselves in danger's way, in jeopardy, on a regular basis, in circumstances that I don't think we can always fully appreciate, often with split seconds to make life-and-death decisions in very unpredictable circumstances. It is not an easy job, and I have immense respect for them.

I would like to talk just for a minute about the actual piece of legislation and the process itself, because I think this government is taking a step towards guaranteeing that investigations of police-involved incidents that involve death or serious injuries are both transparent and accountable, and that is very meaningful to me.

Specifically, this new office will conduct criminal investigations, interview witnesses and gather evidence to determine whether an officer may have committed a criminal offence. I think what is paramount in this process is that the investigation will be led by a civilian, not a police officer — not even a retired police officer.

[1115]

I think worthy of note is that the government is going a step beyond the Braidwood recommendations by also creating a civilian monitor to be used on an as-needed basis to raise concerns to the office's director about the integrity of the investigation.

Why is all this important? This is important because it doesn't just establish this government's immediate goal of creating an independent investigation office; this bill begins us toward the government's long-term goal to boost public confidence in our police forces. We as a government look forward to that.

One of the notable aspects of this legislation is that it would create an IIO, an office that is more independent than those in other provinces, such as Alberta and Ontario. This is in part because the office will report to the Attorney General rather than the minister responsible for policing.

We look to the community and look at who is supporting this piece of legislation. It's been noted, and I'll repeat again, that we have the support of the Vancouver police chief constable, Jim Chu, and of Peter Hourihan, the deputy commissioner of the RCMP in B.C.

I think, notably, Justice Braidwood himself had this to say: "This reform will go a long way towards strengthening public confidence in our law enforcement agencies." For the new independent investigation office to do the job required, "it must be civilian through and through."

In the interest of time, I'm just going to close on why I feel that this is such a win-win. That's because I think it's a trust-builder. It's a significant component of the overall trust citizens will feel. People want to trust that other people in groups are held accountable for their actions, that there's no room for suspicions that the process ensuring accountability is tilted towards any one party or one group. An independent office, civilian-led, will help ensure just that.

I think the police want to know that as well. They want to feel that the public has a high level of confidence in them, and if they feel or experience that trust, their job is just that much more rewarding. It will, I believe, help elevate their status in the minds of the public. The police and RCMP officers win and the public wins because the system provides civilian oversight to ensure that objectivity and fairness are both achieved and seen to be achieved.

It is with great pride that I stand today and speak to my support of Bill 12.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to stand and to speak to this bill. It is an important piece of legislation — Bill 12, the Independent Investigations Office Amendment Act. It's a bill that we're happy to see come forward, and it's certainly a bill that I believe will go a ways to improving confidence around police in our province. We do know that this really is a question of building confidence. It's somewhat unfortunate in some ways because we also know….

I think everybody in this House has a great amount of respect for all of the police officers and the forces in this province and the remarkable work they do, the critical work they do to protect our citizens in a whole array of ways. Periodically, you have instances that happen. Some of them are just accidental, and they're terrible accidents, and some of them are cases of bad judgment by individuals.
[ Page 7449 ]

The challenge that we have, of course, here is to make sure — and it's such a critical thing to make sure — that there is the maximum amount of confidence in all of our law enforcement officials in this province and the important work they do.

This bill does go a ways in terms of establishing the move towards the citizen oversight that I think most people in this province and certainly most people in law enforcement would concur is an important step. I think that most people in law enforcement…. We've certainly seen in the comments of senior leaders in that field in response to this bill that they know and understand that the critical piece, the fundamental and core piece, in building that confidence and firming that public confidence up is the matter of citizen oversight.

[1120]

The idea of police investigating police without some kind of oversight just creates a discomfort for many people in the public, whether it's fair or not. We know that in the large majority of cases those reviews have been quite credible reviews, but there has been a question of confidence created. We know that there have been a number — not a large number, but there certainly have been a number — of instances in our province that have compelled the discussions and the actions that have led to the production of this bill.

We know the circumstances around Frank Paul, around Robert Dziekanski, around Ian Bush. These are all tragic cases that everybody would say should never have occurred. They were a combination of errors in judgment and of tragic mistakes that need to be looked at and need to be investigated.

They led — and the Dziekanski case in particular, as we all know, led — to Braidwood and to Justice Braidwood doing the work that he did, very meticulous work over an extended period of time, as he looked at the circumstances behind Dziekanski.

He had some very strong criticisms of the way that those matters were handled by the RCMP and some very firm recommendations about how we move forward. To the government's credit, Bill 12 moves forward on addressing those matters, particularly on this core question and fundamental question around oversight.

My colleagues from Burnaby–Deer Lake and Nanaimo, who are certainly much more expert in this field, have canvassed and articulated some of the key issues that there are around the bill. Again, as I'd say, it's a bill that deserves support, but it is a bill that has some critical issues to it. I just simply want to raise the one, and it's the one particular concern that I have with the bill. It really is around the question of scope and what is and isn't to be investigated.

Just a couple of quotes. We know that Mr. Holmes, the president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, in regard to the question of scope, is quoted as saying: "If you leave the standard where they appear to have left it, what about that 11-year-old who got tasered in Prince George? He wasn't killed. Do we regard that as serious harm? Do we get in jurisdictional squabbles because it's just shy of where somebody decides where the line is between serious harm and not-quite-so-serious harm?"

On a related matter, the chief of Vancouver, Chief Jim Chu, said: "I strongly urge the government to consider expanding the mandate of this proposed agency to handle all complaints against police, not just in-custody deaths or severe injury."

Now the government has said that they will be looking at these questions and addressing these matters in terms of the breadth within regulation, and I respect that. I guess the comment I would make is that I think it would have been preferable to have addressed those matters within legislation instead of regulation. We'll all look forward to seeing what those regulations look like when the government gets to producing them.

I would hope that the minister and the government would look at the advice that they received from Mr. Holmes and, particularly, from Chief Chu around really covering probably the breadth of issues of complaints against police generally. I think that is an important step. I think that many of these, hopefully, are very minor incidences that don't require much attention and time, and there will obviously be the odd case that requires much more attention. But I do believe that that is something that needs to come forward and be addressed.

Hon. Speaker, I know that we have a number of people who want to speak, and I'm not sure what the time in the House is for this bill. I just want to say that I think this is a very important step forward. I think the bill does go, certainly, a long way to dealing with the question of public confidence. The bill does go a way to addressing the issues. There certainly are some places in it where I think questions remain to be asked. I know the minister and the government have said that many of those will be dealt with, as I'd said previously, within the context of regulation.

[1125]

We look forward — and we'll get some advice, hopefully, in committee stage — as to what the timing on those regulations is and what some of the minister's thinking is about some of the advice that has been received in response to the bill. Hopefully, we'll get that in committee stage. That may provide some additional comfort for people who just have some uncertainty on some of those core questions that I'm sure the minister is going to be more than prepared to answer.

With that, I will look forward to supporting this bill when it comes to a vote. It does take us in the right direction, and I think it provides some comfort for people like the families of Mr. Dziekanski and the families of Ian Bush, who have been looking for some closure, I think, in terms of not seeing those kinds of instances happen in the future without having confidence about how the review happens. This begins to take us this way.
[ Page 7450 ]

With that, I'll leave the floor to other speakers.

J. Rustad: I'm very pleased to be able to stand today to talk on this bill. This is a very important piece of legislation. But just before I get into some comments on the legislation, I just want to address a couple of issues.

The member for Burnaby–Deer Lake in her opening comments spent about 15 minutes talking about not having enough time. Well, perhaps that was a little bit excessive, considering that 15 minutes in a rather short debate is a fair bit of time.

Also, it is unfortunate that there was a request from the official opposition to not sit the week before and the week after the leadership race that they had, and that was unfortunate.

Deputy Speaker: Member, could you please take your remarks to the bill that's before the House.

J. Rustad: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I am actually going to be speaking very soon to the bill. I just wanted to make some comments with regard to previous comments that were already made in this Legislature on this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Member, we're debating the bill right now. Would you please make your comments to the bill.

J. Rustad: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your direction on second reading.

One of the other things that I find quite interesting about some of the previous comments that I want to get into is around Justice Braidwood and the comments saying that this bill doesn't go far enough.

One of the things that was very important in the work, which I very much support, of our current Solicitor General and previous Solicitors General is that they sat down with Justice Braidwood and worked through this bill and discussed how this bill works, how it met the recommendations. At the end of this, in introducing the bill…. I want to read into the Legislature a quote from Justice Braidwood from the Vancouver Sun on May 18, 2011, which is: "I encourage the people of British Columbia to support this legislation. It certainly conforms to my recommendations."

I'm very pleased, actually, that in bringing forward this bill, it does address those very important recommendations that were brought forward.

Police in this province face an incredible and difficult task. I've had the pleasure of knowing many police officers and being friends with many and talking to them about some of the issues and the work that they have done. I can tell you: most people have no idea how challenging their job really is.

When I think about…. Despite all of that, they'll step up to the plate. They volunteer. In Prince George we have things like a police academy that trains students, brings students in. They volunteer their time. They take them through and show them what it's all about. They really do give and participate back to our communities, and I just want to publicly thank them for the work that they do, not just in keeping us safe but also in the work that they do within our communities, because it's important. They believe in our communities. They believe in families. They want to be able to help as much as they can.

I know that they also want to see this legislation come forward. That's why I'm so pleased that all of the major police forces across the province, including the RCMP, support this. It's critical.

For me, this is a very emotional issue as well. When I was first elected in 2009 to represent Nechako Lakes, one of the first meetings I had was with Linda Bush, a constituent of mine from Houston. She'd obviously had a very tragic incident that happened with Ian Bush. That was very difficult, walking through what she thought, what she felt about it, her hopes and aspirations as to what may come of this. She worked very hard with both the federal government and the provincial government, meeting with the Solicitors General that we've had, to try to move something forward to make a difference.

[1130]

Originally, when we started talking about this, the challenge was: how do you get this to work with the RCMP, because it's a federal force? I'm so glad that we have been able to work closely with them, and they have agreed. They want to actually see this come forward, because this is important.

Linda's comments around this…. I'd like to read this into the record as well. This is from CKNW on May 17, 2011. She said: "If we'd had it before Ian died, maybe he wouldn't have died. I'm hoping that it makes police be more accountable, and I think that if they know the consequences may be serious for them, officers will want to have better training." I know this is only a small piece of closure for a very serious issue, but I'm so very pleased that we were able to work with Linda and to be able to bring forward something that is independent, that does have the oversight of all of the police forces, including the RCMP.

I just want to close with one other comment about this, and that is around the various scope of complaints that will be dealt with and the investigations that will be looked at. We have very good legislation in this province for the Police Complaint Commissioner, which looks into a wide variety of complaints that come forward. Many of those issues that the members opposite have canvassed, as a matter of fact, go through that.

What's important is that the Police Complaint Commissioner works with this office so that the serious cases are dealt with at a much higher level, at an independent level, with the kind of investigative skills and abilities that are required to make sure that the public has confidence in the police forces and in the process that goes forward.
[ Page 7451 ]

With that, I do know there are a few others that would like to speak to this, but I just want to say, once again, to our Solicitor General and the Solicitors General before: great work in doing this, in bringing this forward in a timely manner, bringing it forward, quite frankly, as quickly as can be through this type of a process. It's something that's needed. Confidence in the police force is certainly important in this province, and I think this goes a long way to addressing many of the concerns.

C. Trevena: I, too, am speaking — like members, I guess, on both sides of the House — in favour of Bill 12, the Police (Independent Investigations Office) Amendment Act. I would, however, like to echo some of the comments made by my colleague for Burnaby–Deer Lake on the amount of time to examine this very important piece of legislation.

We're hearing criticisms about spending time to discuss this when we could be having the debate. We have two very important parts of the way we proceed with legislation. One is the debate, this section, when we can talk on matters of principle, and then we have the committee stage where we can go through line by line and get some analysis. Maybe some of our concerns on this side of the House would be answered in committee stage. So I would hope that even with this truncated session, we are going to be able to have a full committee stage and ensure that, although we have not been able to sit in the Legislature for very long, we can fully debate it.

This bill is very important, because I think a lot of people are losing trust in the police forces. People are concerned about seeing the police sometimes acting in manners that they don't believe are appropriate. There really is a sense that to have an independent body that can oversee investigations is a very essential part of police service and its role in a democratic society. You cannot have a good police service without trust there. This isn't assisted — the sense of trust — if the police are investigating themselves.

Again, like other colleagues — I know a number of people want to speak here — I would like to echo very briefly my concerns about this bill. I think it is very important. It's good that it's been introduced. It's good that we're going to have the independent office. It will strengthen people's confidence in the police and in police investigations, but I think it is the issue of scope.

I know other colleagues on this side of the House have talked about what the B.C. Civil Liberties Association has said about it. I think it's fundamental for all of us to listen to what the Civil Liberties Association says, because they are independently analyzing the issues. They have said clearly, on an issue that is of huge concern, I would hope, for everybody in this House — the tasering of a youth, a child, in Prince George a few months ago….

[1135]

Robert Holmes, the president of the Civil Liberties Association, said: "If you leave the standard where they appear to have left it, what about that 11-year-old who got tasered in Prince George? He wasn't killed. Do we regard that as serious harm? Do we get in jurisdictional squabbles because it's just shy of where somebody decides where the line is between serious harm and not-quite-so-serious harm?"

I think these are the areas we really have to examine very closely — where that scope is, where the jurisdictional lines are, where the investigations can proceed — because they are important. When the police overstretch their authority or overstretch their perceived authority, it undermines everybody's trust in the service, everybody's trust in law enforcement and, therefore, trust in the way that society operates. Because if we don't have trust in our law enforcement, we are in serious shape.

So with that, I will leave it. I will cede the floor to other colleagues, but I hope that the government will analyze the concept of scope when they are going forward, when we're into the committee stage and when they're actually implementing this and using their regulations.

With that, I cede the floor.

D. Hayer: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill 12, the Police (Independent Investigations Office) Amendment Act, also called the IIO office, that will create an independent investigations office to look into police-related incidents.

Before I start, I want to say thank you very much to our Solicitor General and minister responsible for Public Safety and our Premier Christy Clark for introducing this legislation, because this is a very important bill to many people in British Columbia, especially the mother of Ian Bush and the mother of Robert Dziekanski. Many other individuals in British Columbia have talked to me about this bill.

This IIO will investigate serious incidents involving both the RCMP and the municipal police. It will be led by a civilian who has never served as an officer in the police. This bill, which was recommended by highly regarded Justice Thomas Braidwood, is welcome in all quarters — the general public, the past victims of criminal acts, the B.C. Police Association, the RCMP and the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police.

I hope everyone in this House will give unqualified support to this amendment when it comes to the vote. So far, from what I've heard, everybody that's spoken to it supports it, which is good to hear. I know that all the constituents represented by both sides of the House are fully in support of this amendment.

This amendment makes sense. It makes sure that the onus on the police officer investigating himself…. It takes away the onus of the police officer investigating himself when an incident occurs that may have significant impact on others. It also eliminates any charge of unfairness and in fact brings balance and fairness to any investigation that involves a police officer.
[ Page 7452 ]

I know the RCMP supports this bill, especially those in my city of Surrey who have told me so. I talked this morning with the deputy commissioner and the chief superintendent of the Surrey RCMP today. He and his officers and the RCMP police forces in Surrey fully support it.

The commanding officer and deputy commissioner of the RCMP E division Peter Hourihan had this to say about this bill. "I support this legislation fully and embrace it."

This is good for Surrey, because Surrey is going to have the largest RCMP detachment in Canada moving to it soon. It will be the head office of RCMP E division, which will be located on a huge state-of-the-art location in the Surrey–Green Timbers area of Surrey, right next to the new Surrey Jim Pattison outpatient hospital, which will open soon and which is another $239 million investment into health care for Surrey residents.

This bill is a win-win for everyone. It is supported fully right across the province. As Justice Braidwood said: "This reform will go a long way towards strengthening public confidence in the law enforcement agencies."

[1140]

The mother of Robert Dziekanski — who died at the Vancouver International Airport during the altercation with RCMP officer and was the subject of Justice Braidwood's report — said this to the amendment. The creation of an independent investigations office, IIO, is good. "Now I can sleep better. I can think better. I can do something for me better."

While I have all the respect in the world for our police officers and admire them greatly for the incredible work they do to keep our communities and our people safe, I also believe this Bill 12 will ensure investigations will be handled by civilians, which will ensure that our police officers will be more accountable to the people they serve. Most importantly, this amendment and this office it creates will restore the faith people have in our hard-working police officers, and that faith in our police is critical, because it generates respect.

We must be able to respect our police, to rely on and count on our police. We must be able to respect our police and rely on them and count on the police if we want to have a good community, a good country and a good province. For us, police put their lives on the line all the time when they're going out and providing the services to our community.

If a situation arises where it may be thought that a police officer or a police office has stepped over the line in dealing with innocent people or dealing too harshly with someone, this new independent investigations office and this arm's-length-from-police, civilian-led office will ensure that everybody's interests are considered, weighted and determined in a clear, transparent and accountable manner. Justice will not only be seen to be done; it will be done in the eyes of everyone. This is proper, and it is fair, and it is welcome by all.

Madam Speaker, I fully support this legislation and the independent investigations office. It will ensure the confidence we must have in our police force. I'm happy to hear that both sides of the House are supporting it. I look forward to this bill being passed into law.

Deputy Speaker: Before proceeding, I would just like to remind all members that second reading debate provides an opportunity to discuss the principles of the bill. We appear to have broad support across the House for this bill. So I ask members to please ensure that your comments are focused on Bill 12. Thank you very much.

J. Kwan: I rise to speak to Bill 12, the Police (Independent Investigations Office) Amendment Act, 2011. We have waited a long, long time for this piece of legislation — in fact, so long that some of the issues and some of the cases that I think warrant visiting in this Legislature might even have been forgotten in terms of some of the details and the history around these cases.

I have to say that in my riding, Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, we actually have a number of constituents who come in and raise issues with us with respect to police misconduct or alleged police misconduct and issues around police brutality experienced by various constituents.

It is true that the opposition supports this bill. I support this bill. But I also want to say, though, that it is a baby step. It is a very small step in the right direction and a necessary step in the right direction. There is no mistake about that. I will go into some of the details as to why I say that this is simply a first step towards, I think, the issue of police investigation matters. But let me go back in history a little bit here, around the situation that led us to today.

One of the cases that has been spoken about somewhat in this Legislature is the Frank Paul inquiry. People will know that that was the Davies Commission, and that was initiated quite some time ago. In fact, finally, when the report was tabled…. It was in 2009 when it was finally tabled, and even at that, the Davies Commission on the Frank Paul inquiry is not a complete inquiry. There's still another chapter to come related to the tragedy of Frank Paul.

[1145]

The commission's report actually is called Alone and Cold. This is a tragic, tragic situation and a history that I think none of us should be proud of as Canadians. It speaks to a man that basically was abandoned in the streets, in the back alleys in the Downtown Eastside, and he died of exposure. He died of hypothermia. He was left there by the police force.

Let me just put some passages from the report on the public record. I think this is the moment that we should remember from the past, of what happened to the people who died alone — in this instance, Frank Paul. It reads:

"Frank Paul died alone and cold in a back alley in Vancouver sometime on December 5-6, 1998. He had been turned away from the jail without reason, was not given the choice of staying in the sobering unit of the detox centre where he had stayed just
[ Page 7453 ]
the night before, and was left wet and exposed to the elements. He was severely intoxicated, could not care for himself and, in a weakened state, died of hypothermia.

"The VPD acknowledged at the beginning of this commission that the two police officers primarily involved made fundamental mistakes of judgment in rejecting Frank Paul from the jail and leaving him alone and cold in that back alley. My terms of reference require, however, that I also conduct a broad inquiry into the institutions that had responsibility to respond to both the circumstances and the possible responsibility for his death.

"As to these institutional questions, very little was known prior to the work of this commission. The evidence requires me to conclude that despite the service of many fine and diligent professionals, our systems of justice and social service ultimately failed Frank Paul.

"The VPD made an apology in 2004 for its members' role in Frank Paul's death, and in the course of this commission its officers acknowledged the errors that were made on December 5, as well as the shortcomings in the subsequent investigation carried out by its homicide squad. This report deals extensively with the ways in which that investigation was flawed by reason of inadequate policies and conflicts of interest inherent in police officers investigating fellow police officers for possible criminal conduct.

"The disciplinary function within the VPD was hampered because it acted upon and depended upon the flawed criminal investigation."

Then the report goes on to speak about the fact that Frank Paul was an aboriginal man and the history related to him, the struggles for him as a child, and the fact that he was sent to residential school, that he lost family members to alcohol abuse, that he struggled from his early childhood "to make sense of a world in which his family was fragmented and fractured." It also speaks to the fact that the "tragic arc of life" that followed Frank Paul also applies to many aboriginal people.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The report makes it clear that our system of investigation was flawed all the way through. In spite of this finding from this commission, it took other incidents — and significant incidents, at that — for the government to finally bring in this bill. As we all know, since the Frank Paul case there have been a number of high-profile cases, of which perhaps the most high-profile was the Dziekanski case.

We all know about the Braidwood inquiry. We've heard much about it, and I believe that it was the final push, through the Braidwood inquiry, that brought us to where we are today. That's not to say that the Braidwood inquiry is not important, but it is to say that it took so many cases and so much injustice in our system to finally get to this first baby step.

You've got to ask the question: what is wrong with that picture? There is something fundamentally wrong with that picture when our system within this Legislature is so slow, that we move at a snail's pace, at best, to correct wrongs of the past and to set a path to say: "Here's what we've learned from those experiences, and here's what we're going to do to ensure that that kind of history does not repeat itself."

[1150]

The Braidwood inquiry, no doubt, brought us to the place where we now have Bill 12, but the Frank Paul inquiry, in my view, was a significant piece of that history as well. The Davies Commission stated that very clearly:

"Mistakes marked by indifference, callousness and failure to care, evident in the Frank Paul case, often occur within a system that neither requires nor facilitates best performances, nor holds individuals accountable for the effective discharge of their public duties.

"The VPD investigation into the circumstances of Frank Paul's death was methodically flawed. In particular, the unwritten, unpublished and generally unknown policy of preparing so-called 'neutral' reports into police-related shootings provided an unaccountable environment for the conduct of superficial investigations and inadequate reports to Crown counsel and hence had the effect of ensuring that, despite police involvement in the death and assignment of responsibility to the homicide squad, facts were overlooked, suspicions unaddressed and clarifying evidence left untouched."

I think that speaks volumes — that passage in and of itself from the Davies Commission.

I will have more to say about that and about another aspect of the Frank Paul inquiry that is not yet finished. A chapter of that history is not yet finished — still more work to be done — and I wonder: when will the government act on that, and when will we see changes incorporated from that in Bill 12?

Of course, there are other cases that I would want to bring to the attention of the public through this debate, but I am noting the time, and so with that, I reserve my right to take my place again after our break and to come back to continue debate on Bill 12.

J. Kwan moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); N. Letnick in the chair.
[ Page 7454 ]

The committee met at 10:08 a.m.

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $15,566,169,000 (continued).

M. Farnworth: Just for the minister's benefit, we're going to be dealing with public health, and my colleague from Delta North will be handling that. Following that, we'll be following up constituents and various health issues that they've got, and then we'll get back to seniors after that.

G. Gentner: There are a lot of issues to cover now, particularly with the changing of ministries. Healthy Living is moving into the purview of the Ministry of Health, and prevention seems to be the name of the game these days in public health. But before I start, I want to start off talking about Lyme disease, and I'm going to surrender the chair to my good friend from Saanich who is going to kick it off.

L. Popham: The Lyme disease file is a file that I took over when I became the MLA in Saanich South from the former MLA for Saanich South, David Cubberley. It's a file that he was very passionate about. He introduced me to the sufferings of Lyme disease patients, and so it's something now that we work on together.

It's alarming and concerning, the state of the testing and the treatment for Lyme disease in British Columbia. The amount of patients that are escaping from British Columbia because they can't get the proper treatment is alarming. In San Francisco and in Seattle we see villages of Canadians and people from British Columbia living in low-cost housing trying to save their lives or lives of family members and going into complete bankruptcy.

[1010]

This is something that we shouldn't be turning our backs on in British Columbia, and I've got three questions for you regarding the situation.

Recently Lyme disease advocates released a confidential report by Dr. Brian Schmidt, vice-president of the Provincial Health Services Authority, commissioned by the then Deputy Minister of Health, John Dyble, on the topic of diagnosis and treatment of chronic Lyme disease in B.C. The report was obtained under FOI.

Dr. Schmidt concluded that: B.C.'s current diagnostic testing is unreliable for detecting Lyme disease, doctors lack the knowledge and authorization to diagnose from symptoms, the actual incidence of Lyme in B.C. is unknown and is potentially high, chronic Lyme disease is treatable but seen as not a bona fide illness under B.C. guidelines, and Lyme disease sufferers are refused treatment with antibiotic therapies that could resolve symptoms and allow them to lead independent lives.

My first question: has the new deputy minister reviewed the Schmidt report? Has the new minister been briefed on the deplorable exclusion of Lyme disease sufferers from diagnosis and treatment in B.C.? Is the government going to implement the recommendations laid out by Dr. Schmidt?

Hon. M. de Jong: With apologies to the member, yesterday I indicated to one of her colleagues that we would try to get some information on an unrelated matter. If I could, before I forget, just read that information into the record. It was the member's colleague, the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows.

The question related to the Ridge Meadows Hospital. Actually, it's something I think the member for Kootenay West was also interested in — that is, wait times for patients requiring residential care.

The data…. Hopefully, the member will discover this in Hansard. In the last 30 days the average placement waiting time from Ridge Meadows Hospital into residential care was about 13 days; in the previous 180 days the average placement waiting time from Ridge Meadows Hospital into residential care was just over 17 days. I'll endeavour to get that information to the member, but it's now in the record.

I'll move on to the questions and the issue that the hon. member has raised. As a relatively new minister, the member may take some comfort from the fact that the question around Lyme disease is one that was fairly immediately brought to my attention from the perspective that there are these competing views or differing views and approaches. But there does seem to be emerging a body of thought — and it is reflected in the report that the member has referred to, Brian Schmidt's report — that speaks to the issue of diagnosis.

Now, I'm not a physician, and to my knowledge, the member is not either, so we rely on the kinds of reports that are presented to educate us. Lyme disease is a debilitating chronic ailment, and there does seem to be an evolving view about the degree to which it is being diagnosed, how it is being diagnosed, and to what extent physicians need to apply best practices to consider and assess whether or not a patient is suffering.

[1015]

In essence, Mr. Schmidt seems to be recommending, based on my recollection of the, in fairness, summary of the report that I saw, that there needs to be some fairly extensive further research into both chronic Lyme disease and the diagnosis. That is a proposition that I'm happy to tell the government that I as a new minister accept and the government accepts.

I can't and won't pretend to be in a position today to go through recommendation by recommendation. I'll answer if the member has questions around specific recommendations as best I can, but I'm not in a position today to refer one by one to those recommendations.

The important point that I think is emerging from the academic material is that perhaps more people than
[ Page 7455 ]
historically was thought to be the case suffer from this disease. We may need to take some steps, and the profession of medicine may need to take some steps to better diagnose when Lyme disease is actually the cause of ailments, the cause of symptoms that patients are suffering from.

L. Popham: Thank you for that answer, Minister.

One of the things that is most misunderstood about Lyme disease is that it gets into the category of chronic and is described as a chronic illness when, really, it only becomes chronic if it's not diagnosed and treated in the early stages. It doesn't have to become chronic at all.

In a typical year B.C. confirms fewer than ten cases of Lyme disease in a province which is largely endemic for the disease. Yet we know from the doctors survey done by the CDC, partial results of which were obtained under FOI in 2008, that 148 doctors clinically diagnosed 221 cases of Lyme disease.

In any given year 2,500 to 3,000 step 1 tests are done, from which fewer than ten cases are ultimately confirmed with Lyme disease. The tests hardly ever find Lyme, but when doctors who recognize symptom patterns like bull's-eye rashes do — when they see that — they treat that immediately, and most of it is cleared up. The problem is, as Dr. Schmidt noted, doctors who rely on faulty testing won't find it and, therefore, don't treat it immediately.

It means that most people getting Lyme in B.C. go on to develop chronic Lyme disease, which is debilitating, causing intense suffering and leaving people unable to work, and it can kill them.

Dr. Schmidt notes that under the restrictive guidelines in place today, B.C. doctors do not believe that they're allowed to prescribe longer courses of antibiotic therapy for chronic Lyme, which is the only treatment currently known to resolve the symptoms. Clearly, Dr. Schmidt felt doctors have the right in law to prescribe the therapy as they see fit, as long as it meets medical standards, but he recommends that the government assure itself that doctors know they have the right to use these therapies for Lyme disease.

My question: does this government believe that qualified GPs should be allowed to prescribe antibiotics for chronic disease, and if so, what are its plans to advise them? If not, can it explain how withholding antibiotics from people with a bona fide infectious disease, something that simply would not happen with other diseases, can possibly be justified?

[1020]

Hon. M. de Jong: I wanted to take a bit of time because we are obviously dealing with an area where there are some differing views amongst clinicians. Probably my answer will, in part, reflect a little bit of the frustration that derives, I'm sure, for the member and for those who are charged with implementing health policy and practices, when those differences exist.

The good news is that the government, to the member's second point, recognizes that we're probably in a position where we want to get some reliable information and data of our own, which is why the $2 million has been allocated to fund the diagnosis study. I am just now advised that interviews are taking place relating to the appointment of a professionally trained individual to oversee that project, so it will begin in short order.

Again, I hope that the member derives some measure of comfort from this acknowledgment. I and the government and the ministry are satisfied that there are people whose Lyme disease was not diagnosed or treated, and they went on to have real longer-term chronic complications. Having said that, I must also indicate that there are other patients that professionals and clinicians believe are suffering from chronic symptoms that they might wish to assign to Lyme disease but that some physicians believe that is not the case. So that controversy amongst clinicians persists.

The Centre for Disease Control has, over the last few years, stepped up — I think the member asked about this too — the activities around informing physicians about the need to be vigilant in considering the possibility of Lyme disease. So that information goes out, urging them to adopt best practices.

From the time I have had over the last number of weeks to familiarize myself with the details of this part of what is presenting the challenge right now, there seems to be some uncertainty or debate about what those best practices on the diagnostic side actually are. I am hopeful, and we are hopeful, that the steps we are taking here in British Columbia through the investment of the $2 million for the study will add to the body of evidence that will help resolve that.

I hope the member will take from the conversation we're having today that there's no attempt on my part or the ministry's or the government's part to diminish the fact that there is an issue here and that it derives, in part, from a need to acquire a better understanding of, if not the disease, then the best means to diagnose whether or not the disease is present.

L. Popham: Thank you for that answer. I do feel hopeful with this discussion that something may be changed in the future. The idea of chronic symptoms being looked at and then maybe not being attributed to Lyme is something that you see with chronic Lyme. But what we’re advocating for is to not get to that point at all, not to have those chronic symptoms. Early diagnosis and treatment is really what we're after.

[1025]

The study, the $2 million that's being allocated for studying and research, is positive news. But B.C. is creating hundreds of new cases of Lyme every year, and the problem can really be solved in the doctor's office. It may not have to get to the clinic stage or the study stage. Although the study, the money that's being allocated….
[ Page 7456 ]

I think that there's a clinic or a research project that's also going to be involving things like chronic fatigue syndrome. These are other diseases that we are not sure of the cause. With Lyme disease we know exactly what the cause is. I think that's where the difference is with Lyme disease.

The 2008 survey of doctors revealed that two-thirds of physicians in B.C. don't know that a bull's-eye rash is deemed diagnostic of Lyme disease. This is a lack of awareness calling for immediate attention, yet no action that I know of has been taken to inform doctors about the symptoms of Lyme disease that would lead to a clinical diagnosis. This leaves them relying on the faulty test, which doesn't find the result of Lyme disease.

Dr. Schmidt argues that developing a new test should be B.C.'s highest and most urgent priority and that it should lead Canada in doing this. I'm hoping that maybe that's the direction of the $2 million study.

My question is this. B.C. has led in test development in the area of HIV/AIDS. B.C.'s test is now used worldwide. Does the minister recognize that faulty testing means that British Columbians are condemned to getting undiagnosed and untreated Lyme disease week in and week out? Is the minister willing to make a priority of diagnosing and treating, and will he commit to the implementation of Dr. Brian Schmidt's eight recommendations, beginning with the initiative to develop reliable testing?

Hon. M. de Jong: I guess the first point I'd make is that the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, in fairness, has taken some enhanced steps to encourage health care providers to consider the diagnosis of Lyme disease where signs and symptoms appear and amongst people who have a history, for example, of tick bites — again, that being one of the indicia — or people that have travelled to areas where Lyme disease is known to proliferate.

The other point that the member makes, and I'm actually appreciative of it, is that where we have in British Columbia…. Where our clinicians, our medical professionals, have applied themselves in a concerted way to research and the development of science and best practices, we've got a pretty good record.

That is our hope, and it lies at the heart of the investment that the government is making on behalf of British Columbians to ascertain, through the research that will be conducted, whether or not here in B.C. we can resolve some of those differences that exist and can develop a diagnostic approach that serves patients better than is perhaps presently the case.

[1030]

That remains the objective, and over the course of the next few years I'm sure that the member and many others will be tracking to see the progress we make on that front.

L. Popham: I appreciate that. This will be my final question. We will be tracking that progress. I think it's really important, and I'm encouraged by that. But in the meantime, we have a situation where the diagnosis may not be happening. When it does, we are still looking at a misunderstanding on the regimen for treatment. The course of antibiotics that is able to be prescribed for suspected Lyme disease is not long enough. In fact, acne sufferers can have a longer course of antibiotic treatment. So in the meantime….

I guess I'm trying to appeal to the minister's economic sense, because this is actually…. If you nip it in the bud, it's more cost-effective for government to treat it immediately. I'm appealing to his common sense, and I'm also trying to appeal to his empathy — that the treatment option right now is not good enough, and if we could just clarify that to physicians who are diagnosing Lyme disease, it would be a huge step forward while we wait for the proper type of diagnosis to happen.

[M. MacDiarmid in the chair.]

Hon. M. de Jong: An important issue, and I'm glad the member raised it, because it has actually helped to clarify for me the nature of the questions I have to ask going forward.

In fact — and I wanted to verify this with the officials — there are no constraints on the part of a physician in the circumstances that the member has described from prescribing a longer term of antibiotics. That remains within the exclusive domain of the physician. There is, admittedly, a reluctance to do so because the physicians, in general terms, will follow the guidelines that they are presented with by the college in Canada and by international bodies. To this point, as the member has rightly pointed out, they set out a shorter duration.

So from a medical and legal perspective, the practitioner will be reluctant to go beyond what is called…. There's no constraint on them doing that, but from a practical perspective, until studies like the one that is taking place in B.C. establish a differing set of best practices, they will continue to follow what is presented to them as the existing standard, both within North America and internationally, for the treatment regime.

[1035]

That is a long-winded way of saying that what we can add, what we hope we can add, to the vocabulary and the understanding of this disease through the study is that much more important. Because until those best practices change, we're unlikely to see the response from medical practitioners change.

G. Gentner: Just one additional question relative to Lyme disease.

When I was still a yard ape running around, I saw an arbutus tree, and it was an incredible tree to climb. Lo and behold, arbutus trees are full of ticks. I had a grandmother who knew how to light the end of a pin, and the bug sort of backed out of the skin, etc.
[ Page 7457 ]

I'd like to know: what is the ministry doing from a prevention side? What positive steps is it taking to warn the general public about the risk and how to avoid and reduce exposure to ticks? What new interventions is the government undertaking during Lyme Disease Awareness Month?

Hon. M. de Jong: I have to say that the main conduit for the flow of information on this matter would be the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, and it, of course, posts regular bulletins on the website, issues releases. I'm told that some of the health authorities…. The Interior Health Authority has recently issued a release that highlights the importance of covering up and the use of products that repel the kind of pests that would be carriers of diseases like Lyme disease.

The challenge, of course, is to find ways to remind people who may be visiting parts of the world where ticks and Lyme disease may be prevalent to take special precautions. Because of the fact that they've visited and then left the country, they may bring something home with them that they didn't want to.

[1040]

That is, generally speaking, the mechanism by which the state is advising the public — and, I should say, the profession — of our unique interest in the disease.

G. Gentner: Well, the U.S. section of control for diseases is really much involved in the awareness of Lyme disease in the upcoming month. Knowing of the Premier's new position on healthy families and prevention, I would have thought that the ministry would have taken a far greater initiative on the awareness — not that we want to create paranoia in the woods, but there are some issues there that I think all families should be aware of.

Speaking of, you know, prevention, the Premier came up quite recently, a couple of days ago, and allocated $68.7 million for a strategy on exactly that. "The province" — and I'm quoting the press release — "is working with health authorities to reprioritize $45 million of health authority spending to focus on prevention initiatives that align with the strategy." Can the minister explain to me where this reprioritized $45 million came from?

Hon. M. de Jong: Maybe I'll start with the general, and then, I'm sure, we'll delve into this in more detail. I don't want there to be any doubt or to be cute about this. The programming, and the funding that goes with it, represents a redeployment, a reallocation of existing funds from within the various health authority budgets. We could get into the details of that, but I want to be clear about it. The shift in favour of a prevention agenda represents just that: a shift and a redeployment of funds from within the health authority budgets.

G. Gentner: Last estimates, we were told that there was a redirection of $45 million from the previous minister away from this. I'm just wondering: is this the $45 million that we've now seen reallocated? The ministry last year, and the previous minister, had mentioned that there was a cut, a gathering of money from, shall we say, regional health authorities, to put more money into chronic issues.

Is that what this money is all about? Could it have come from last year's cut of $45 million from the population public health funding?

[1045]

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize for the delay to the member. The basis upon which the question is asked is, I am advised, incorrect, and the answer to the actual question is no.

G. Gentner: Since we're looking at a comparative between two budgets, I'm wondering…. I'm going with the discussion in the last estimates between the critic and, of course, the hon. minister at the time. The minister admitted there was a redirection of $45 million, or 12.4 percent of population public health funding, from regional, and that included, perhaps, the erosion of funding towards kindergarten audiology and other similar administration.

I'm just wondering, again, as $45 million was found to be taken away from prevention, and now it seems to have popped up — the same amount of money — into prevention. Can the minister explain exactly what happened to the previous $45 million?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member will appreciate that I am not going to endeavour to interpret or reinterpret conversations or discussions that took place in previous versions of this exercise. What I can tell the member, which may be helpful, is that the shift towards an emphasis on prevention, and all that that implies for the reduction in the onset of chronic disease, is something that actually began last year.

I'll say this. The member may not have had an opportunity to hear this earlier in the estimates. Although I am relatively recent in my exposure to many of these issues from a ministerial point of view, it seems clear to me, as someone who has sat around the cabinet table for a decade now, that if we continue to approach health care purely from the perspective of funding disease treatment, we are going to be very disappointed, because our capacity as a society to do that without dramatically increasing the burden on those who are working and earning an income is very limited.

The shift — which the member has correctly identified and, I hope, is supportive of — to funding initiatives that are designed to prevent the onset of chronic disease, designed to provide better education to families, designed
[ Page 7458 ]
to provide families with better tools to make healthy decisions about their lifestyles, is a very purposeful one and one that actually began a year ago.

[1050]

We are now beginning to see, through things like prescription for health and the healthy families initiative, the actual impact and the actual operational manifestations of that shift.

The member may want to explore this further in the weeks ahead. We will be looking specifically at things like obesity, sodium content in foods and a range of other contributors to a very disturbing demographic trend, and that is the one that says that this generation of young people may well be the first not to enjoy as long a life span as their parents.

I can't think of a more troubling statistic than that after years of increasing our longevity, with all that we know, with all the technology, with all of the advances in science and medicine, we've actually got a generation growing up who, at the moment, it appears won't live as long as their parents.

So the member, to my mind, has correctly identified the shift towards prevention. I'm hopeful that he is supportive of that gradual shift in emphasis and happy to try to answer additional questions about how it might play out in the weeks ahead.

G. Gentner: Yes, let's explore that a little further. Let's get down and find out what this new initiative is. Of the $68 million, can the minister explain to me how much will be spent towards dietitian services at HealthLink B.C.? How many dietitians will be involved, and how many nutritionists will be involved?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm always very concerned that I provide accurate information to the member. The program that was announced a couple days ago, the prescription for health, of course has a variety of components to it, one of which employs and engages the involvement of dietitians.

But I think the member's question, if I understand it correctly, goes beyond the prescription for health. I don't have that cumulative number. I can endeavour to get it for him. I think what he has asked for is a total amount that will be spent on dietitians, and I think the second part of the question was the number of dietitians that will be involved.

Is he asking for that number as it relates to the prescription for health program, healthy families overall program or a larger number relating to the delivery of health care and the health authorities? It would be helpful. I want to get him what he's looking for here.

G. Gentner: The Premier has announced this new initiative, and I just picked one of the many lifestyle change goals. One is the dietitian services at HealthLink. So of that $68 million, you'd assume some more money is going to be spent on this; therefore, how many new dietitians and nutritionists are going to be hired for this so-called expanded program?

[1055]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I understand the member's question. There's obviously an expansion of the hours of service available by the dietitians that will translate into additional dietitians. I'll get the number during the course of the discussion this morning, but I know that time is of the essence. If the member is content, then at some point in the next hour I'll provide that information, and he can continue.

G. Gentner: Well, if I can indulge, therefore…. Can the minister provide me the information for all of the new added services and what the cost implications are, how many extra hirees there'll be for the physical activity line; the QuitNow services; the Patient Voices Network peer coaching program; self-management programs; the Bounce Back: Reclaim Your Health?

The reason is that this is an important initiative by the government. I want to know how serious and what the strategy and planning, which obviously has been in place…. If the minister can indulge himself or his ministry to find out where those new dollars are going, I'd very much appreciate it — relative to, of course, new hiring.

The one other issue we were talking about, healthy eating initiatives — is that also going to deal with anorexia and other eating disorders, or is that something separate?

Hon. M. de Jong: There are certainly programs and initiatives designed to focus on eating disorders of the sort that the member has mentioned, but in fairness, this initiative is designed around the objective of promoting healthy eating, as opposed to treating eating disorders.

G. Gentner: Also relatively new, which has been brought up as an issue, is the supervised injection site, Insite. The minister was questioned in question period, and I'd like to delve into this just a little further, because it is about public health.

The minister stated that he suspected he would wait for the appointment of the federal minister to have any further discussions. Has the ministry at least sent a letter to the federal government relative to the federal government's position and the court challenge?

Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, we have provided a far more definitive position than that, insofar as we have presented an argument to the highest court in the land. That argument is public, and the position is public. I'll be hesitant to say much more about a matter that is squarely before the Supreme Court.
[ Page 7459 ]

G. Gentner: Has the province put in any contingency financing for the possibility that if there is a lack of funding and support from the federal government, the province will pick up the tab?

Hon. M. de Jong: Probably a moot point, insofar as, to my knowledge, the federal government has provided no funding to Insite.

G. Gentner: Well, that's an interesting perspective, because the government, if I have it correct, is in support of Insite, and therefore, the question is on long-term financial commitments, not only in the east side of Vancouver but other projects that may emerge in the future, and we'll certainly be watching this.

[1100]

We on our side believe that Insite is a very successful program, and when it comes down to prevention, it is, in our estimation, the way to go. I may want to canvass the minister shortly on street nursing and the successes of that and the financing of it.

I do want to ask the minister, first of all, about the problem we're having with the addiction towards prescription drugs. We know quite recently there was even a famous hockey player that went down with a cocktail of alcohol and oxycodone, I think it was.

I'd like to know what the ministry is doing relative to the amount of hospital emergency admissions for drug overdoses that really are misused prescription drugs.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm going to take a moment to consider my answer to the second part of the question. The member made a perhaps passing comment, but I take the issue seriously, so I want to ensure that my response is clear.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

The member in his previous question asked whether or not the province had a contingency for losing federal funding to Insite. My answer to that question was that insofar as Insite has received no operational funding from the federal government, it was largely a moot point. I thought I heard the member take that answer and that information and suggest something less than the commitment that was in place. He asked a question about federal funding and the disappearance of federal funding that hasn't been there in the first place, and that is the point that I wanted to make.

I'll now take a moment, Madam Chair, and try to address myself to the question that he has just asked.

I apologize. This will be a fairly general question. I am sure the member will have a fairly a general answer, and then I am sure there will be more specific questions.

What I can alert the member to is the fact that I am advised that there are specific protocols in place within emergency departments, and the ability exists to make specific referrals of patients who are in need of substance abuse treatment. I think the member will probably agree with the proposition that in many instances the challenge lies in obtaining the consent and the understanding of the patient themselves that they may be suffering from a substance abuse issue. Those protocols do exist, and I'm happy to pursue the matter further with the member.

G. Gentner: Well, I just wanted to bring it to…. I'm talking about prevention, and we're going to go towards street nursing — for example, what we are seeing on the street. We know that, of course, the illegal drugs are a problem, but I want to talk about narcotic painkillers that are on the street now. This type of drug abuse is increasing partially because of the availability of drugs, including online pharmacies that make it easier to get drugs without prescriptions even to minors.

What type of prevention does the ministry have towards at least slowing down this sort of over-the-counter prescription, if you will, or other means in which people can trade prescription drugs? It seems to me that it's becoming a large problem. I'm hearing from medical practitioners…. I'm wondering what kind of oversight the ministry is putting towards this sort of new phenomenon.

[1105]

I will clarify. It's not a new phenomenon. It's been around since the days of Valium, but it's something — these stimulants and tranquilizers — that I think we should at least have a handle on for monitoring and what the ministry is going to be doing about it.

Hon. M. de Jong: It would be helpful for me, to provide maybe the best answer I can, if the member could tell me more about the nature of the phenomenon. I'm not disputing that it exists. Is he talking about a situation where patients are physician-shopping and obtaining a number of prescriptions? Is he talking about patients who unlawfully acquire pharmaceuticals at the street level?

Maybe he's talking about all of that, and that's fine. But it would be helpful if he could tell me a little bit more about the specifics of the problem that we're seeking to discuss here.

G. Gentner: Well, it's new territory, I think, for all of us to begin to explore. I'm looking for sort of a generality here relative to where the province is going when it comes to opiates and pain relievers.

I know at St. Michael's Hospital, of course, in Toronto, they have seen with opiates and pain relievers nearly double the amount of deaths. They're suggesting 14 deaths per one million residents to 1991, and now it's up to 30 deaths per million residents in 2004. Therefore, in the Vancouver area, with the same population, are we
[ Page 7460 ]
seeing 50 to 60 deaths due to these types of pain relievers and overdosing?

Hon. M. de Jong: There's no question that in some cases there are examples of abuse. I think the member mentioned oxycodone as a particular example. I can tell the member that because of its potential for abuse, a drug like that is monitored by a few programs. I'll give him an example.

One of the success stories in this area of counteracting drug misuse and abuse is the restricted claimant review program. As of January 2011 the restricted claimant review program has 3,585 patients on its restriction list. That means that these are patients who may only receive prescriptions from a single doctor and may only fill their prescriptions at a single pharmacy of their choice. That is one way that the ministry has endeavoured to take steps to minimize the type of abuse and misuse that I think the member was alluding to.

[1110]

G. Gentner: Does the minister monitor and have a grasp on how many overdosed patients are treated in the province regarding legal and prescribed drugs?

Hon. M. de Jong: A bit of a grim response, but by overdose, does he mean overdoses leading to death?

G. Gentner: I was looking for the general treatment, as people who’ve been treated in clinics and hospitals — not necessarily fatalities, although that'd be an interesting statistic; I certainly would like to know what those numbers are — and those that have been treated with the belief that they have overdosed or have had or are having a problem relative to their prescriptions.

Hon. M. de Jong: I was trying to get as complete an answer as I could for the member. In the case of overdoses leading to deaths, of course, the data centre for that is ultimately the coroner, who assigns a cause of death, so that information, where fatalities result, is available.

There's a second subset, which the member alluded to, which are people who at a street level may be utilizing illegal narcotics or prescription narcotics in a way that they are not either entitled to or should be. If they have no contact with the medical health system, if an ambulance isn't dispatched and if they don't present themselves at an emergency room, there'd be no record of that incident.

In cases where an ambulance is dispatched or a patient presents themselves in some manner and in some way gets to an ER, there are records kept. I have tried to be forthcoming about getting compiled data. I asked the question directly. This one will be tough to get because there does not seem to be a centralized repository of that information. That's really the most direct and honest answer I can give the member.

G. Gentner: I appreciate the minister's candour. I bring it to his attention because I think that it's an issue that the government should be looking at.

[1115]

We know we hear about the problems on the street with illegal drugs, but what are known as legal drugs and how they’re affecting substance abuse in the province is a phenomenon that I think is taking all of North America. We read in the paper quite often…. The hockey player, of course, comes to mind. But this is a drug of choice. It seems to be one of those drugs in vogue these days, and I think that as a province, we should be monitoring that aspect.

Now quickly shifting. I know we have so much limited time, and I'm not going to be able to touch on most of what I want to discuss here today. But perhaps I can get a briefing from the minister — maybe this is a better idea — relative to street nursing: where we're going in the province; what the ministry is involved with on the street with sex workers; HIV; mortality; dealing with family outreach, clients for disease control; what's happening in some of the detox areas.

The street nurses are very much an important entity in today's medicine and today's health care provision. What I'm looking for, of course, is a strategy that will be inclusive and where the province is going. Are we going to see more street nurses, RNs on the street, so to speak? Can the minister provide, perhaps through his staff, a briefing with yours truly, and we can talk about that?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, we can certainly do that for the member, and if any of his colleagues are interested…. The work, of course, performed by these folks is incredibly valuable — one part medical practitioner, one part social worker, two parts parent and guardian angel. It is very, very important work, and I agree that it might represent a more fulsome overview to sit down with the relevant officials and get a more fulsome description of where we're at and where we think we're going.

R. Chouhan: I'm going to talk about one of the long-term-care facilities in Burnaby-Edmonds: New Vista. The New Vista Society has been providing these services to our community over the last 60 years.

The concern that the New Vista Society has raised with me is that since 2005 they have not received adequate funding from Fraser Health to cover the full cost of providing benefits to their bargaining unit staff as they're contractually obligated to provide. Also, along with that is that Fraser Health does not fund for increased long-term disability premium costs as well. These costs have increased from $345,000 in the 2005-2006 year to $800,000 for the 2010-2011 year.
[ Page 7461 ]

My question is: would there be any relief available in the area of these two concerns that I have raised in the near future for New Vista, for them to continue to retain their staff to provide the services that they have?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it was the member for Delta North who asked about the additional dietitians. Six is the information I've been provided with for additional dietitians.

[1120]

To the member for Burnaby-Edmonds: we had, I thought, an interesting — I hope it was somewhat useful — conversation yesterday with the member for Kootenay West that touched on similar areas. She, too, made a fairly passionate plea for additional dollars to offset the cost of the wages and benefits for the hard-working women and men that work in these facilities. I'm not sure she was particularly enraptured with my response, but I feel obliged to provide a similar one to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

The challenge, of course, is that the health authorities negotiate contracts with the service providers and do so on the basis that they will perform to the standards set out in the contract and that they will meet their obligations to their employees, with whom they have a separate contract.

There is undoubtedly pressure because we, the government, place pressure on the health authority to manage their costs. In Health it actually means managing the increase and constraining the increase. They in turn impose pressure on their service providers to acquire the service at the best price available, and that puts pressure on the negotiation that takes place between the service provider and their employees.

The member for Kootenay West, in fairness, made an effective argument around the need for fairness and the long-term benefits of that. But I don't want to stand here in this place and suggest that there is a magical solution that can be presented to suddenly relieve that pressure at all three of those stages. As this population ages, as the health care budget continues to increase, I think that pressure is going to remain a constant feature of the relationship and of the work that takes place going forward.

It is, of course, entirely appropriate for the member to come here and highlight a specific example of how that pressure is manifesting itself at a facility within his riding.

R. Chouhan: As a result of this pressure the minister is talking about, the people who suffer most are the seniors, and they're left out on services which they were used to over the years. Now they are not getting those services, and it's affecting their health, their care that they are supposed to get.

The other thing that I want to share with the minister is…. Fraser Health assumes the benefit costs for New Vista at 26 percent. In fact, the actual benefit costs are at 32.4 percent. That represents a shortfall for this facility of over $566,000. So that in itself is creating a huge pressure on this facility, and they cannot cope with it. They have been asking for this help for the last year or so, but no relief is coming.

The other one of my concerns is that in 2010 Fraser Health Authority arbitrarily introduced a new model of care delivery without consultation with the facility. They probably have done the same thing with others. But New Vista has informed me that absolutely no consultation took place, which has resulted in layoffs and serious changes in the quality of care for seniors at New Vista.

New Vista is funded at the lower third on the scale of grants supplied to affiliate residential care providers in Fraser Health. Fraser Health withheld $71,000 from its grant last year and has threatened to withhold an additional $150,000 this year if they're not complying with this new model that they have imposed on them.

[1125]

My question to the minister is: why is a formula which has proven to be not functioning being imposed on New Vista? It's causing layoffs of staff and causing other problems. Why doesn't the Ministry of Health and Fraser Health sit down with New Vista and talk about what's functioning, what has functioned in the past and work with them rather than arbitrarily imposing something on them which has not worked?

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize to the member, but it's a complex area. It involves a number of people doing very important work at a key residential care facility.

[1130]

I think one of the issues that we have to confront directly, though, is the manner in which government provides funding to a facility like this. We negotiate a contract, and there are many such contracts around the province and around the health authority. The authority settles on, to a certain extent, what it deems to be an appropriate formula. There may be arguments. All of us would like to have more money, and if there was more money, that formula could possibly be adjusted upwards. But that negotiation takes place bilaterally between the health authority and the service provider.

Now, the service provider has a second level of negotiation that takes place between it and its employees. Employers and employee groups may settle on contractual arrangements that vary from one workplace to another, and in some places the benefit package may be higher than it is elsewhere, but I think we have to be — at least I would suggest — cautious about suggesting that the health authority and the state simply underwrite the contract that is negotiated between the employer and the employees.

[D. Horne in the chair.]
[ Page 7462 ]

That will, in my view, represent a fairly serious abdication of the fiscal responsibility we owe to the taxpayers. We negotiate a contract with the service provider, and within the parameters of that agreement, the service provider has the flexibility to negotiate with their employees.

I say all of this not to avoid the specifics of the case that the member is mentioning. I may be wrong and may have misinterpreted what he is saying, but the essence of the submission I heard from him was that if an employer negotiates a benefit package of X percent with their employees, it should automatically follow that the state, via the health authority, should match that. That, I think, would eliminate any notion of cost control, which at this point in time is fundamentally important, in my view, for the health authority to maintain.

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: I confess. I went on at such length that I forgot the second part of the question, so I'm happy to hear a synopsis from the member and do my best.

R. Chouhan: Given the time constraints, Mr. Chair, I'll contact the minister's office later on and provide the details, and then we can work on that.

C. James: Just continuing on, in fact, in very much the same kind of discussion that the minister has been having around contractual arrangements with health authorities and providers. There's a piece that I want to touch on related to Vancouver Island Health Authority that talks about the accountability piece. I think the previous member was also raising the issue of accountability, not simply pouring more money into the system but accountability around the money that's there and accountability for the provincial government who provides the money to the health authority.

The issue that I just want to ask a couple questions around is the contracting of health and food services and cleaning services on Vancouver Island. This is the issue of the Compass contract. As the minister probably is aware, the Vancouver Island Health Authority put out an RFP for a new provider for cleaning services and food services for Vancouver Island, many of them seniors care homes, particularly in my riding and other ridings around the area.

As the minister is aware, that contract was let out. It was given to a new group, Marquise Group. Compass had the previous contract; Marquise won the new contract. The health authority announced that Marquise had won the new contract, and then — low and behold — a few days later it was discovered that Compass had actually bought Marquise out and that it was now, in fact, Compass who had the original contract, who was the one who was turned down for the RFP, and the contract was actually let out.

I'll come back to the issue of accountability, but my first question to the minister would be: what role does the minister see the Health Ministry having in all of this? What kind of accountability is going to be there for seniors, for staff who have grave concerns that all of the health issues that were there with Compass, all of the concerns that happened around infections and everything else — the reason the RFP was put out — are now back on the table again with Compass, in fact, owning the company?

[1135]

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member: I'm glad that she's participating in the discussion today.

I'll start with this proposition, which at least will present the member with a target to fire back at, and it is this. We begin on the basis that the relationship…. The member's specific question was: what is the role of the ministry? Primarily, I see the role of the ministry in its relationship with the health authority as ensuring that service standards are being met. We establish what those expectations are, and we demand of the health authority that they contract or deliver service in a way that meets those requirements.

Stage 2, of course, involves the authority establishing contractual relationships — whether it's physicians or other service providers and, in this case, care facilities. Again, the primary consideration is: is that service provider meeting the standards set out in the contract and as reflected in the monitoring that takes place?

Now, the member has pointed to an example where a contract was let, awarded, and subsequently a different agency took control of the successful service provider. I will say this. It presents a scenario that is worthy of examination by the ministry, and we are examining.

[1140]

I will add this caution. In the course of business we allow for the purchase and sale of businesses. We allow for business to be transacted. What I think the member is querying is: at what point is it justifiable for either the ministry or the health authority — in this case probably the health authority — to step in? And I won't say interfere. That sounds a little more nefarious. But I guess that's what I mean: interfere with that business transaction.

I would say this. In a situation where the contractual standards are not being met, it is clear that they have the right. In fact, they have the responsibility to step in, and the ministry will insist that they do. The greyer area is the one that the member has referred to, in a situation where that change in control — because that's, in effect, what took place here — of the company takes place earlier on before it is clear what, if any, impact it will have on the delivery of service.

That's the most forthright answer I think I can give the member at this point.
[ Page 7463 ]

C. James: Thanks to the minister. If I could have a follow-up on the timing. The minister said that it's worthy of examination, and I would certainly agree, particularly because of the concerns around standards with the previous company. You know, it was a contract that was let in the middle of the term of the previous contract with Compass, so there were concerns that were raised.

So I'd ask the minister just for a follow-up around the timing of that examination to be done by the ministry, as he said, and some kind of follow-up to come back so that people in the community are aware of the kind of follow-up that was done by the ministry.

Just my last question, because I know we're short on time and many people have questions. It's related to the bigger question around what happens when those contracts are let, the impact on care, particularly for seniors, when we see the kinds of turnovers that we've seen in the last ten years around the contracts for cleaning, the contracts for food services.

You lose the continuity that is so necessary for good quality care for seniors. I don't know of any study that doesn't refer to the importance of continuity of care for seniors who are in long-term care homes, who are in residential care, because they don't have options. It's not someone who is in the hospital for a few days. These are seniors who…. This is their only home. I have a great deal of concern about the direction that has been taken on the constant turnover of companies and contracts when it comes to continuity of care for seniors.

So my question to the minister would be: what kind of examination is the ministry itself doing around continuity of care for seniors with this constant turnover of contracts and staff? Then the follow-up question would be to the minister himself: what kind of perspective has he on what impact that is having on care for seniors in our province?

[1145]

Hon. M. de Jong: We actually had, I thought, a fairly useful conversation yesterday with the member's colleague from Kootenay West. I will briefly restate what I believe I said then.

I accept without reservation the proposition that as individuals enter their senior years or in fact come to the end of their lives, the bonds and the friendships that are developed at some of these care facilities really represent the last lasting relationship, and in some cases the most important, as people come to the end of their lives. So that stability — I don't actually need to read a study to know that that is important and is worth emphasizing and preserving.

The other thing we talked about yesterday — and I think I repeated it a while ago this morning — is the tension that exists where the health authorities are negotiating contracts with service providers on the basis of a funding arrangement they have with a health authority and the pressure that develops on the cost side. It seems to me, and it's one of the questions I have asked of the ministry and senior staff, to the member's point, is: what about the term of the contract that is negotiated between the health authority and the service provider?

If you have a one-year or two-year term, you may be building in, you may be amplifying the potential for that uncertainty or that change. A five-year contract, on the other hand, at least establishes the parameters of funding. It would seem to me there would be far less excuse on the part of a service provider to argue that they didn't know what their funding was going to be and, therefore, were making adjustments.

I know we are short of time, and I have to make a motion here. But if the member has thoughts on that proposition around the term of a contract, I'm interested to hear them now or later.

Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2011: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175