2011 Legislative Session: Fourth 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)

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Morning Sitting

Volume 29, Number 8

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2012

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

N. Letnick: It gives me great pleasure to introduce the vice-president and acting president of the B.C. Fruit Growers Association, who is here in the gallery, Mr. Jeet Dukhia; also to introduce Mr. Glen Lucas, the general manager. I congratulate Jeet and also Kirpal Boparai, the president, who received their vote of confidence from the members of the B.C. Fruit Growers Association just recently. I'd have the House make them feel welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: I would like to join with the member from Kelowna opposite, as well, to welcome our friends from the Fruit Growers Association and to say they make some really fabulous Ambrosia apples. I appreciate it. Thank you, and welcome to Victoria.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Lake: I move committee stage of Bill 4, intituled the Offence Amendment Act, 2011.

[1005]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 4 — OFFENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 2011

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 4; D. Black in the chair.

The committee met at 10:06 a.m.

Hon. S. Bond: Maybe before we begin discussions, good morning to my colleagues here in the House. I wanted to begin by introducing the very capable staff that I have with me today. We have Roger Cutler, who is the Crown counsel, criminal justice branch; and Dave Vallance, who is the acting deputy provincial director of the corrections branch. I know that they will be helping me tackle the very pointed questions that I'm sure I'm going to receive from the critic opposite.

Thank you for allowing me to introduce the staff, Madam.

On section 1.

L. Krog: I'm flattered by the Attorney General's remarks that I might be somewhat pointed this morning in a bill that I think by general agreement is one that we're all happy to see in the House. But nevertheless, I will have a few questions for the Attorney General, not wishing to disappoint her entirely, knowing she has been looking forward to this debate for many weeks now.

With respect to section 1, my take on it is simply just the pure definition sections: "optional conditions" referring to the new additions, and the "probation order" means a probation order under section 89. That's only because you are repealing the other section. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

L. Krog: On section 2 — just curious. Using this language "who executed" and substituting "who issued the warrant" — the reason for that?

Hon. S. Bond: It really is simply for clarity. Obviously, when you execute the warrant is the actual delivery, and this is the issuing of the warrant, so the actual creation of it at the beginning. So it is for clarity.

L. Krog: Out of curiosity…. I assume this has been in existence for quite some time. What brought it to the attention of the Attorney General?

Hon. S. Bond: In essence it's an attempt to tidy up, clarify and modernize. There wasn't anything of major significance. It wasn't a result of major issues — simply modernizing the act.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

L. Krog: Section 3 repeals in its entirety section 73, which is the old recognizance provision for a person convicted. I take it that's necessary because we're now substituting all of the provisions that are contained in the balance of the bill.

Hon. S. Bond: That's exactly right.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

L. Krog: A fairly meaty section. It says that if anyone who is convicted of an offence "is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 90 days or less and the justice considers it just and reasonable to do so…." They can, by order, "direct that the defendant (a) serve the sentence intermittently…(b) comply with the conditions in a probation order…" etc.

[1010]

Is this largely in compliance with what exists presently under the Criminal Code?

Hon. S. Bond: Currently the member opposite is correct. The situation can go on indefinitely. So really, I think the issue we're trying to address here is that there is a corrections management issue. Certainly, Dave has confirmed that for me.

Any time there's entry and exit into a facility, there are concerns about contraband and issues like that. So I think the principle behind it was to try to bring a reasonable time frame but also to allow corrections facilities to be able to better manage the moving in and out of the facility. So that's the rationale: ensuring that it doesn't go on indefinitely and that we actually give corrections management less of a concern about the continual entry and exit.

L. Krog: Perhaps the Attorney General could simply explain: how does that look in a very practical sense? The prisoner coming in and serving an intermittent sentence — how does it work? What's the amount of time and contact, if you will, that's needed?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the interesting parts of this process is that the person who's the expert is sitting right there, but you sort of have to conduct the information. So I'll do my best to reflect that.

The challenge, I think, is that what happens is it often involves a probation order. The best way to describe it would be that it allows the person to maintain some semblance of normalcy during the week. So if they're working, for example, they could continue to do that while seeing a probation officer during the week. Then on the weekend they literally would come to the facility to serve a period of time. Often, I'm told, it's the entire weekend. That then accumulates in order to meet the time that has been required for them.

So they are allowed a more normal Monday to Friday, as an example — continuing to work, potentially; still seeing a probation officer during the week; and then serving time in chunks rather than all at once.

L. Krog: Just so I understand the reading of the section. I take it that the defendant has the right to apply "for an order allowing the defendant to serve the sentence on consecutive days" if they wish. And I take it also that it would be appropriate and would it be part…? An application would be permitted under this section, from a procedural point of view, for an accused to say before the judge passes sentence: "If I am sentenced, then I want it to be an intermittent sentence for these reasons."

[1015]

Or once the judge has passed sentence, is the judge still entitled then, having made an order for an imprisonment of 90 days — having done that and not ordered an intermittent sentence — to be able to say: "Well, I've heard the application of the defendant. I'm going to allow him to serve it intermittently"?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm told that the usual practice is for the person to make a submission, and the judge then makes a determination. Once that determination is made, whether to be intermittent or not, that is final. So there isn't a process where they come back to determine that after the decision has been made.

So the typical process is that the request would be made. A submission would be made: "I want to keep my job. I want to do those things." The judge would consider that and then make the decision. That's the normal practice.

L. Krog: Section 87, as it exists now, says, "reasonable to do so," etc. A term of imprisonment and…. They may direct that the defendant serve, "within a period of one year, the term of imprisonment on such days as, in the aggregate, equal the number of days to which the defendant was sentenced."

So right now the existing section says that you've got to do this intermittent sentence within a period of one year.

The way I read this section, I'm not sure it says exactly the same thing. So I assume, in theory, you could have up to two years in order to serve an intermittent sentence. Is that a fair comment?

Hon. S. Bond: The member is correct. It technically could go on for longer than a year, but typically, with serving two days, potentially, a week, it would be shorter than that. There are the unforeseen circumstances, if someone had to have surgery for four months or something, that there might be a chunk of time. So technically, yes, it could go beyond a year, but obviously, the typical pattern is weekends.

L. Krog: I'm just curious. Any reason why we're limiting it to a period of 90 days? The way I read it, you have to be convicted of an offence and "sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 90 days or less."
[ Page 9313 ]
So we're not allowing intermittent sentences for periods beyond 90 days, and if so, what's the policy reason for that?

Hon. S. Bond: Primarily, to keep it consistent with the Criminal Code, so that everyone is working from the same set of expectations. Also, there is that attempt to, again, limit the back-and-forth travel, the number of times that people are in and out of a facility.

L. Krog: Since I haven't done a criminal case in over 20 years, I'm going to rely on the expertise around the Attorney General. I take it, then, that the Criminal Code provision is exactly the same. It has to be a sentence of 90 days or less?

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

[1020]

L. Krog: This provision as it exists now is simply the suspended sentence provision. It allows a judge to do various things, and I take it it's just a necessary repealing in order to allow, again, for what is contained in the balance of the bill?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, what this does is it adds probation as an option. And when Roger and I discussed this earlier, one of the things that we talked about was the ability of the court to tailor probation orders as well. We think it's a more efficient way of allowing for a variety of options in the decision-making.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

L. Krog: This is the most substantive section of the bill and includes the addition of provisions 89.1 all the way through to 89.8. Now, are these provisions exactly the same as one might find in the Criminal Code, or are they somewhat at variance?

Hon. S. Bond: Some are exactly the same, and there is some variance in others, so it's a mixture of both.

L. Krog: I'm sure the Attorney General anticipates my next question. Could she point out the differences and explain why?

Hon. S. Bond: While I anticipated the question, we didn't anticipate the answers. What I'd be happy to do is provide the member opposite with a breakdown of which ones are exact and which ones are varied, and I will have staff do that and bring that back to him.

L. Krog: With respect to the section, given the Bill C-10 before the House of Commons — and I appreciate that the Attorney General may not have anticipated this question — will any of the provisions of that bill have any impact on the provisions of this bill? In other words, what I mean to say by that is: are we going to be working from the same song sheet? Or is Bill C-10 going to make changes so that our probation orders will look different, potentially, from those under the Criminal Code?

Hon. S. Bond: As the member opposite knows, we certainly are looking at C-10 carefully to figure out not only potential fiscal implications but others, in terms of corrections. It's not anticipated that these new sections will be impacted by C-10, but we are in contact with Ottawa about that. We don't anticipate that there will be an impact, but again, we're continuing to do that analysis and are in touch with Ottawa, asking those very questions.

L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General's response to my earlier question. But notwithstanding that she's going to provide the information, I'm curious to push as far as I can in terms of the knowledge that's available today. I take it that 89.1, it's fair to say, comes right out of the Criminal Code. Is that accurate?

Hon. S. Bond: To be candid, we would actually think there is some variation there, so again, it would probably just take up time. We could go through each one of these, but staff doesn't have the specifics about which is exact and which isn't. I don't want to incorrectly advise the House, so we will work very quickly to get that section-by-section detail to the member.

L. Krog: And referring to what is proposed to be 89.2, there are a number of conditions that a probation order can include. It's a fairly extensive list.

Some of them are pretty obvious. You've got to report to a probation officer; you've to be under their supervision; you can't consume alcohol or intoxicating substances or a controlled substance.

[1025]

Given that a number of individuals recycle themselves through the court system, and given that orders prohibiting the consumption of alcohol and other intoxicating or controlled substances are often quite unrealistic; given that we only have one drug court, essentially, operating in Vancouver, I'm wondering what position the Crown may take in future. Given that these provisions are available, and given our existing experience under probation orders where you're almost, essentially, setting someone up to come back through the system once again because they have a chronic addiction issue, I'm just wondering: has the Attorney General turned her mind to what might be the policy of Crown when they're asking a judge in a sentencing hearing whether or not to impose these kinds of conditions?

I mean, back when I did a little bit of this, there was an absolutely standard provision: you didn't consume drugs or alcohol. But I'm a lot older now, and we all read the press reports, and we see the reality of people who are in for their 80th and 90th sentencing hearing. You have to ask yourself: does this make any sense? I'm just wondering: does the Attorney General have any comments on what may or can be the policy of the ministry and the prosecutors when it comes to these kinds of provisions, given you're now giving this authority to Provincial Court judges to do?
[ Page 9314 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, we've been having discussions about this very topic over the last number of months. The member opposite is correct. One of the challenges we face is that if it isn't included in an order, we have to compel someone working with a probation officer to try to look at the kinds of supports they need, but there are no consequences if they don't participate. So in fact the recent Auditor General's report pointed that very thing out: many people are not completing programs. The problem, if there's no order, is there's no breach, so there is no consequence.

I think one of the…. To the member's comments about drug court, I have found drug court, too, at least in the experience that I've had over the period of time, very successful. Other ministers across the country have shared that same view. I think there are six or seven of them across the country. But the member is correct. There's only one in British Columbia, so at our recent federal-provincial meetings we very clearly talked about the value of additional drug courts, because they are successful.

So I think a couple of things. We need to continue to work with the federal government to say: we need some tools that actually work for very complicated individuals like these. But to the member opposite: I think that this does allow judges to tailor probation. You know, defence might well say: "There's no point in actually having that particular item added to the judgment." It is very unfortunate. It tends to be cyclical for many people. I think we do need to look at new alternatives to this kind of sentence, and I think drug court is a great example of it.

[1030]

I don't think there's an easy answer to the member's question. I think it's thoughtful, and in the end of the day we have to continue to try to find ways to help people who have issues far greater than simply ending up being in front of the courts on a regular basis.

L. Krog: I'm thinking particularly in response to what the Attorney General has had to say around, for instance, the Insite facility. In other words, could the Attorney General foresee a prosecutor saying: "Look, George is here for the seventh time. We're going to order that George is not prohibited from using drugs, but he's ordered that he has to attend at Insite in order to consume them, as opposed to doing it in some other method or way that might, in fact, endanger the public even more"?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, it's certainly possible. One of the concerns, of course, would be a charter issue where you're actually forcing someone to take a particular model of treatment. I think, inherently, as we all know, unless it is in many ways voluntary and inherent, the changes aren't going to occur anyway.

I think the whole point of adding optional conditions is that the court would be in a position to far better assess each individual case and look at what types of conditions might be added. Again, it's not out of the realm of possibility, but there would be a concern, obviously, about a person's charter rights.

L. Krog: I'm not trying to be cute here this morning, but I can't resist the opportunity. The Attorney General has given me that opening when she talked about the necessity of judges being able to tailor sentences, which would seem to fly in the face of what the federal government is trying do around mandatory minimum sentences — which, of course, take away from our judiciary, who are the best persons to decide these issues, the ability to tailor sentences that might, in fact, be the most effective for the person in front of the courts.

I'm not going to spend the Attorney General's time this morning, other than to raise the issue and to flag it, because I think it is a very serious and real issue.

On one hand, as I said yesterday, talking about the importance of juries and courthouses and how they physically appear in a community and what that should say about the importance to society of our court system….

I'm going to ask a much more pedestrian question — that is, section 89.2(e) as proposed talks about "the defendant must provide for the support or care of a spouse or other dependants." Can the Attorney General explain the reasoning for including that section? I'm going to assume that it's done on the basis that if I'm pleading before the judge that I've got my aged mother or father that I have to care for, I'm therefore entitled to a lighter sentence because I have to provide care. Is that really what we're driving at with this section?

Hon. S. Bond: I think, again, as we look down the list of things that are included there, it also goes to the point that during the course of probation they're still required to carry on with normal and expected responsibilities. Particularly if you look at the intermittent sentencing, for example, and those kinds of things, we look at this as being one of the expectations — that the person continue with the responsibilities that they currently have.

L. Krog: The use of the term "provide for the support or care" — is the term "support" intended to refer to support in the broadest legal sense? You know, I'm helping at home, I'm cleaning toilets, and I'm doing dishes. Or are you talking quite specifically about financial support pursuant to a court order?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, on the topic of judicial interpretation, it would obviously be up to the judge to determine that, but our view would be that it would consider both.

L. Krog: That raises an interesting question. I wonder if the Attorney General can respond to it. If I am the subject of a support order in Provincial Court's family
[ Page 9315 ]
division that I pay my spouse $1,000 a month, I can be subject to being held in contempt of court. There are all these new provisions in the Family Law Act that the Attorney General and I spent a great deal of time dealing with. I'm wondering if this raises the possibility of a double jeopardy and what the policy would be here.

[1035]

So in Provincial Court I'm behind, in arrears, and the judge is going to take pretty stiff steps to enforce me to pay. Over here in a criminal court, where I've been a bad boy, do I then find myself subject to going to jail, potentially, under the Offence Act at the same time as I'm being dealt with rather rigorously in the Provincial Court, family division?

Hon. S. Bond: A thought-provoking question, and the answer is, technically, yes. They could be found in breach of both a criminal and a civil matter. Obviously, Crown would, in their discussions or thought around the criminal side, contemplate what had happened on the civil side.

As you know in our brief discussion here, it isn't our intent to pile on, so it would be a matter of Crown assessing what happened on the family side. I think from that perspective, yes, it is possible, but one would hope that as Crown considered, from a criminal perspective, the issue of what's practicable here, it would contemplate what happened on the civil side and on the family matter.

L. Krog: The reason I raise it is because, and this has been the subject of discussion in this chamber before, of the difficulty of orders being made in Supreme Court, the individual falling on hard times — not unlikely that they might have ended up in criminal activity, not in a position to go back to Supreme Court and bury the order, cancel arrears, deal with that issue.

I mean, I'm somewhat concerned. I don't suspect it's going to be an enormous problem, but I'm somewhat concerned that this will just add further burdens to individuals who are already suffering enough, if you will.

Now, there will be some who will be deliberate non-payers. I accept and understand that. But there are others who, frankly, give up. They fall into addiction. So they're not paying the Supreme Court order, which is being enforced in Provincial Court. Now they've been charged with an offence that may relate to the addiction issue, so they're looking at piling on, piling on. And there is the question of the cost to the state, as well, of this constant involvement.

I raise that issue with the Attorney General for her, in those quiet three minutes a day when she has a chance to think about something else, and for her ministry to consider.

This is an ongoing problem, and I'm going to keep raising it. I appreciate it's a jurisdictional issue, but it's something that the federal and provincial governments in this country have to work towards solving. It is going to put further burdens on our system and further costs that continue to extrapolate over time.

With respect to 89.2(l), provides that "the defendant must comply with any other reasonable conditions the justice considers appropriate to (i) protect the public, (ii) prevent similar unlawful conduct…or (iii) contribute to the rehabilitation of the defendant." Can the Attorney General tell me: is that the same provision as exists in the Criminal Code?

[1040]

If it isn't and she can answer that question — I appreciate in response to what she'd said earlier — could she give the House some idea of what sort of conditions and an example that might just assist for those people who are interested in this debate?

Hon. S. Bond: When you look at (l) and then the following list, that is not enumerated in the Criminal Code. Having said that, what it's considered, in essence, is the general catch-all.

I think that when you have a list, there is always a concern that something is not captured in it, kind of like your job description — any other duties as required. So this is just the general catch-all to allow for there to be consideration of something unforeseen or something we may not have been able to catch in the list.

L. Krog: Just out of curiosity, does a similar provision exist in equivalent offence acts in other provinces, or is British Columbia creating something interesting and unique here?

Hon. S. Bond: We're not certain whether or not the exact language would have been replicated in other jurisdictions, but we certainly looked at models across the country, and this would have reflected best practice. So I'm not sure about the exact wording, but certainly the concept is being used.

L. Krog: So 89.3 obviously provides…. "A probation order may be kept…for a term not exceeding 2 years," and that's simply to take into account the jurisdictional issue. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: It's just another attempt for us to provide a limit so that this is not an unending process. That was the arbitrary decision that we made in terms of two years.

L. Krog: In 89.5 as proposed it says that the defendant, probation officer or prosecutor may apply under subsection (3) for an order, and that is to do the following: consider changes in optional condition, etc. — fairly broad discretion. I take it the intent is not to limit the discretion
[ Page 9316 ]
of a justice; in other words, it's completely broad jurisdiction. There are no qualifiers here saying you have to consider this or that.

For instance, if you were changing a support order, you'd have to show a material change in circumstances. But here this is just complete discretion of the judge — subject, of course, to what existing case law and decisions may provide. I take it that it's at the complete discretion of the judge to look at the situation and make a change if they think it worthwhile.

[1045]

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, this ties somewhat nicely to some of the discussion we had earlier about assigning a part of an order that we know ultimately the person would breach. What this allows is for any party to be able to come back and say that in the case of where a probation order has been put in place, it may actually set a person up for a breach. They can come back, but the focus is still on change of circumstance.

The party could come back and argue that something has changed significantly or that there are issues. The discretion, though, about the change is completely, entirely, up to the judge. So yes, there is broad discretion, but again, the focus would be on change of circumstance.

L. Krog: The language is, as the Attorney General has pointed out, "a change in circumstances." It's not a significant change or a relevant change — no adjective, no qualifier. Again, did the Attorney General consider a qualifier to the "change in circumstances," or is this language fairly consistent with what exists in other jurisdictions?

Hon. S. Bond: We believe the language is similar to what other jurisdictions would use in terms of change of circumstance and didn't contemplate a qualifier. The judge, in his or her discretion, would have to determine whether or not it was a significant enough change. We believe that it's consistent with other jurisdictions.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

L. Krog: With respect to the provisions — the additional punishment for breach of probation order, etc. — any significant changes from what exists now, in terms of those provisions?

Hon. S. Bond: It is a significant change. Currently there is no breach of probation, because this isn't an option. This really makes the rest of the changes that follow a consequence of adding probation as an option.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, it essentially opens up to the judge involved — the justice, to use the language of the bill — the opportunity to vary probation orders, to make it more difficult, to add further conditions, remove other conditions that may be seen as a benefit. For instance, I'm thinking particularly of: does this section relate back to the intermittent sentence provision as well, and would it be possible to change that as a result of section 90?

[1050]

Hon. S. Bond: This section is beyond the actual initial assignment to probation. The person has either committed a breach of that probation or an offence. They come back before the justice, and basically, we start again.

The justice would review whether or not there needed to be a change in the probation order. One of the major questions would be: is probation actually appropriate at all at this point in time? In essence, this kicks in after there's been a breach or an additional offence, and it may be that at the end of that process it's determined that probation isn't effective at that point at all.

L. Krog: If the probation order was terminated, as is allowed for in proposed section 90(3)(e), "terminate the probation order, or" and then goes on to say, "(f) if the probation order was made under…" revoke it, etc. I take it that if the probation order was terminated, then there would be an automatic jail sentence in accordance with the original order. How would that work in a practical way?

Hon. S. Bond: Not automatically jail; it could be a fine as well. But yes, there would certainly be a different outcome.

Sections 7 to 13 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I want to thank the staff who provided such able assistance today and also the member opposite. I think there are a couple of things that we can do some work on together as we talk about the effectiveness of a drug court, for example, and also the concern about Supreme Court back-and-forth and how we deal with those things. I appreciate that insight.

With that, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 10:55 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
[ Page 9317 ]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — OFFENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 2011

Bill 4, Offence Amendment Act, 2011, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call committee stage of Bill 8, intituled Community, Sport and Cultural Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2011.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 8 — COMMUNITY, SPORT AND
CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2011

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 8; D. Black in the chair.

The committee met at 10:58 a.m.

Hon. I. Chong: Before we begin, I'd like to introduce the staff who are with me today. To my right I have Rob Fraser; to my left, Meagan Gergley; and next to her, Lois-Leah Goodwin. I'll be pleased to participate in the committee stage.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

H. Lali: I just want to say to the minister, obviously, that this is not a controversial bill, and at the original readings we said we would be supporting the bill. We were just going to wait for some of the sections and ask some questions on some of these sections that are here before us.

On section 3 itself, I know this would apply, for example, for greenhouses and in terms of more intensive farming. I know the government has tried to characterize this amendment as having to support farming.

[1100]

The existing limit is $50,000, and the change actually allows an exemption to the greater number of either $50,000 or 87.5 percent of the assessed value. It was a recommendation by the Farm Assessment Review Panel.

I'm just trying to figure out — and maybe the minister can explain — what the minister envisages in terms of an increase and improving the farming, and what sort of ideas she has in mind on how it's going to specifically support farming and increase production for agriculture in general.

Hon. I. Chong: I thank the member for his comments, and I appreciate his beginning remarks with respect to support for the legislation, which I do believe has been long overdue, and in support of the farming industry. As I understand it, we are on section 3, and he is looking to understand how this increased farm improvement exemption would be of assistance.

I would just say this. With this exemption, it will encourage the development of more intensive farming operations throughout the province by improving and expanding the farm infrastructure. Intensive farming operations such as dairy and greenhouse, as he's already indicated, and mushrooms can require capital investments of several million dollars — as I say, rather intensive. The current maximum of $50,000 applies to all farm improvements regardless of the value of improvements and has not been changed for many years.

So the exemption will now apply to 87.5 percent of the total assessed value of all farm improvements on a farm, and there is no maximum. This is a good change. It is consistent with policies regarding exemptions for farm improvements, similar to Ontario.

L. Popham: I'm quite baffled, actually, by the length of time that the changes from the Farm Assessment Review Panel have taken to come in to help farmers in B.C. — small-scale and medium-scale farmers. I understand that there's some encouragement towards more intensive farming, which is large-scale farming. What exactly is happening with this legislation that encourages small- to medium-scale farming?

Hon. I. Chong: I want to assure the member that all of this legislation does in fact support farming to different degrees depending on, I guess, the different size of a farm. These are recommendations that came out of the task force. I'll also perhaps give some comfort to the member by advising her that we are also conducting regulatory and regular reviews of the PAP list — the primary agricultural production list, for those who aren't sure what that is — to ensure that those regular reviews allow us to take a look at how we can, again, help and encourage and improve farming activities throughout the province.

L. Popham: Thank you for that answer. I'm still not very clear, though, on how this legislation changes support for small- to medium-scale farming in British Columbia. It's clear that it encourages intensive farming. I'm also quite curious on why the regulatory changes are not being addressed at this time and why they were not included in this legislation.

[1105]

[L. Reid in the chair.]
[ Page 9318 ]

Hon. I. Chong: The member will know that in 2010 there had been some changes, some of the recommendations from the task force, and at that time we had made changes to allow for the split classification, which has in fact impacted and affected small farms. I think that is one improvement, certainly, that has taken place. But as I indicated, the package here is designed to be of benefit to all farmers, obviously, of varying sizes.

In addition, the member was curious about the amendments to the regulations. This legislation is required to be passed, and then we were going to bring in the reviews of the regulatory amendments that need to take place from time to time. Two of the Farm Assessment Review Panel — everyone refers to it as FARP — recommendations will be implemented through that regulatory amendment process and policy review change.

So as I've indicated, those will be occurring, will be happening, but because they're not in this legislation, they'll be done through a regulatory process.

L. Popham: I am still quite unclear on how this would help small- to medium-scale farmers. For one thing, the change that was made around split farm assessment was really just a reaction to a completely bungled project in Saanich South which split up small- and medium-scale farms with no warning to farmers. So that was just going back to the way things used to be done, and it's certainly not an improvement for farmers.

The farm review panel toured the province. The farmers in Saanich South, who were definitely hit hard by this project that happened, were never given an update on what was happening next, so the farmers have been left in the lurch over this. This legislation has taken far too long, and as far as regulatory changes, those should have been done last year or the year before. There have been years since that project took place.

I would like to know specifically why those haven't taken place and also when exactly they are going to take place, because if you go out and make a large statement that this legislation is helping farming in B.C., it's absolutely incorrect. It's not helping all farming in B.C. It's specific examples of farming.

Again, to the minister: what exactly is being done for small- to medium-scale farmers in B.C.?

[1110]

Hon. I. Chong: Again, the member will know that the Farm Assessment Review Panel and the work that was undertaken by them did include representation from small farms and from large farms and from the industry as a whole. As I understand it, with this legislation and what has occurred in the past, all the recommendations save two will now have been implemented as a result of that consultation process that took place.

Some of the items, as I've indicated, cannot be implemented until such time as the legislation is passed, such as the changes affecting the leave for retired farmers. We require that legislation to be passed in order for us to move on to that.

If the member is asking specifically about a particular small farm and particularly a product, again, I can tell her that the review that will take place of the PAP list will allow us to take even further measures to ensure that we are able to assist farmers as their sector grows.

This legislation was brought forward, was introduced by myself, last fall. I'm happy to ensure that it passes now so that we can, in fact, implement the recommendations brought forward by the Farm Assessment Review Panel.

L. Popham: Thanks to the minister. So from what I'm hearing — how I'm translating what the minister is saying — as soon as this legislation is passed, the other recommendations will be implemented. What I'm hearing is that that will be done right away. Is that correct?

Hon. I. Chong: The regulations that are associated with this legislation will be put in place once this legislation is passed. If the member is looking for a specific time, I cannot give her a date, whether that will be next week or next month. She can appreciate, I'm sure, that once this legislation is put in place, there will be some further work required to implement those regulations.

Certainly, I know staff are keen to move on it, as I'm sure that the Farm Assessment Review Panel participants want to see those put in place as quickly as possible.

L. Popham: No, I can't actually respect the timeline that the minister is putting out. It's coming up to March, and the farming season is well underway. Seeds have been bought and plans have been made, because that's how farming works. You have to do a lot of planning ahead of time. I need to know whether that farm list will be updated next week or next month or next year, because this has a lot of weight on what farmers are planning for this season.

In fact, a farmer neighbour of mine is wondering if blackberries will be added to that list, if blackberry jam will be added to that list. They can only continue farming if the value-added products that will be changed — that list will be changed — are going to be included. It makes a huge difference whether it's tomorrow, next week or next year. I need more of a timeline, because as far as I'm concerned, the only thing that's holding back those updates is this legislation that is being passed today.

[1115]

Hon. I. Chong: The member will know that there is work being done, and if she doesn't, I'll confirm that there is certainly work being done, looking at adding a full array of products to the PAP list, including some value-added. What is occurring currently is that, in fact, our ministry is working actively with the Ministry of Agriculture.
[ Page 9319 ]

I'm sure she can appreciate that the staff in the Ministry of Agriculture are consulting with the stakeholders, with people in the industry, to ensure that when we make the changes to the PAP list, we can finalize it with all that, that the input is there. Then the objective would be that I would receive that list and recommendations for a change to that to be able to put the regulatory measure in place.

I can assure that the Ministry of Agriculture is working with people — with its stakeholders, with farmers — taking a look to ensure that as many additions that we wish to add to the PAP list will be included so that we are not constantly going back and making changes to it. As soon as that consultation has concluded and, as I say, I receive a recommended list, I will be able to put in that regulation.

L. Popham: As far as I'm concerned, the consultation has already been done. That was what the Farm Assessment Review Panel was all about. So if there is a new group of stakeholders that are to be consulted, I think that people in the agriculture industry should know. We should have a list of who is being consulted.

Can I please have confirmation, then, that the regulatory changes cannot actually be implemented before this legislation is passed? I'd like confirmation that that cannot happen legally before this legislation is passed.

[1120]

Hon. I. Chong: Again, for clarification, I do want to advise the member that the legislative authority does exist for changes to the PAP list, and not directly tied to legislation. However, having said that, we do know that there is active consultation taking place with our ministry and, of course, the Ministry of Agriculture and with people in the farming industry and farming sector to see what additional products could be added to the PAP list.

Now, I understand that a list has been put forward, and this is currently under active discussion and review. It's important to note the reasons why a list, when provided, is not immediately put in place: because there could be other consequences, unintended consequences. There could be tax consequences. So all affected ministries are consulted as well to ensure, prior to making the amendment to the PAP list, that that takes place.

I also, as I say, want to say that there had been several additions that had been brought forward. I think a few additional ones were being considered, which may have caused some of the delay, perhaps, in the first opportunity to introduce changes to the PAP list.

But again, having said that, I understand from staff that this is not an issue that has arisen over the last two or three years. Apparently, there have not been changes to the PAP list for quite some time — more than a dozen years. My understanding is that there perhaps had not been as thorough a review as has been undertaken, and that has occurred as a result of the Farm Assessment Review Panel having been struck, allowing this kind of discussion to take place.

I am looking forward to being able to receive a final list for us to make the change so that we can proceed with exactly the measure that the member would like us to proceed with.

L. Popham: Thanks for that answer. I'm pretty well finished my questions now, but I want to state on the record that, again, the snail's pace that this government deals with agricultural issues is a reflection on the priority they place on agriculture in this province. Daily I hear from farmers that want this moved ahead. I know there are other members on the other side of the House that have talked to me, and they think it's moved too slowly as well. So again, another failure for agriculture by the B.C. Liberals.

Hon. I. Chong: I'm presuming that that will allow us to move on the next section.

But I just want to say again, for the record, that some of the changes that are being asked for are changes that I think had been asked for certainly well before we formed government in 2001. Some of this goes back to the 1990s. So the snail's pace that the member refers to does, in fact, refer to other administrations as well.

We're moving as quickly as possible. The fact that we have the Farm Assessment Review Panel…. It is an initiative that our government put in place, not the previous administration.

M. Sather: The minister mentioned the inclusion of retired farmers with regard to farms being considered as farmland for the purpose of taxation. That sounds like a positive development. I wanted to just make sure, though, and to ask the minister.

[1125]

She may recall that I brought up in the House last week about one of my constituents. The death of his mother resulted in a huge change in his assessment — from $300,000 to $4½ million — and then he was found to be ineligible for the tax exemption for family farms because his mother, who owned the property, wasn't actually on the farm when she died.

So I just wanted to get from the minister an assurance that that kind of problem wouldn't come up for retired farmers under this legislation.

Hon. I. Chong: Just wanting to clarify that what is occurring in this legislative amendment is to provide property tax valuation relief for retired farmers to facilitate them remaining on the farm property. That will relate to their residence as such, but the farm property as a whole will still need to be farmed — not providing an exemption as a whole to the land. Not that the farmers themselves may be required to do the farming, because
[ Page 9320 ]
they're retired, but to be able to have that land available for farming. So the purpose is to provide the relief specifically for the farmers so that they actually can stay on their farms and not be required to move.

I do recall the member raising the issue last week with respect to his particular case. I know the Minister of Finance had committed to undertaking a look at that.

Oftentimes when there are issues of hardship, as the member will know, the opportunity is to take a look at remissions. It's not about the valuation but remission orders. I don't know whether the member has pursued that. But that is something that, I think, we get in our offices frequently, as MLAs, and something that he may want to take a look and see whether there's a possibility there.

But this legislation deals specifically, again, with allowing retired farmers to stay on their land.

Sections 3 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

H. Lali: The amendment authorizes the minister to set deadlines for negotiations around service reviews or withdrawals. There is currently actually no timeline specified — whether it's at the minister's discretion or not.

So I'm just wondering if the minister can answer.... It's a twofold question. One, any examples where it's taken too long for negotiations around these service reviews and withdrawals? Is it months? Has it taken years? If the minister might be able to provide some examples of that. Secondly, and it's tied into this question, what does the minister envisage as an appropriate deadline in terms of duration?

Hon. I. Chong: Specifically, the member asked for examples, and I think perhaps that's a good place to start, because that's exactly the heart of the problem we're trying to get at.

I do have two examples: the regional district of North Okanagan took as long as four years to deal with service reviews, and Kootenay-Boundary regional district — three years. I think the member would agree that, in cases like that, that's a whole term of elected office, which is longer than, I think, many citizens would want a review like this to take place.

In respect to how long things would be — I guess I wouldn't call normal but acceptable — that's going to be very difficult because it will depend on the regional district and it will depend on the service review that's undertaken.

[1130]

Again, these two examples I've just cited, I think the member will agree, are not acceptable. We need to do more; we need to do better. That's what the attempt here will be — to bring those review processes down to more reasonable times.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

H. Lali: Section 8 is an amendment that actually allows the minister to deem certain services separate for the purpose of service reviews or for withdrawals. Currently service review or withdrawal negotiations are not able to separate out services to be retained or withdrawn.

I'm just wondering how this will work. Can the minister maybe give me examples of how this will work in the future as a result of this amendment and how it will actually improve things on the ground?

Hon. I. Chong: I'll provide the member sort of with the technical reasons and what we're attempting to do here. A regional district service establishment bylaw does identify the scope of a service, which in some cases is a comprehensive bylaw that includes a number of different functions — for example, water. Water supply, treatment and distribution can be established as one service — or parks, recreation and cultural facilities.

In some cases a participant in a service may only want to withdraw from a component of a service — such as cultural facilities, where the cultural facilities are located within a municipality — which that municipality wants to manage on its own.

Currently, as I say, we're restricted with what we're able to do. I can tell you that municipal service partners do at times want to administer their own community park service, and currently they're not able to do so. This amendment would allow them to do exactly that.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

H. Lali: This amendment actually adds to certain options at the minister's disposal. I was wondering if the minister could give me some examples of what additional options might be available for the minister at her disposal in the examples.

Hon. I. Chong: The member was, I guess, attempting to find an example of how this will work. Currently, when a municipality requests or engages in a withdrawal-of-service review to take place, it does require that they proceed in that manner to withdraw — to take a look at having the ability to withdraw from that service. What we're now able to do is….

[1135]

If there is an understanding or belief that the formal withdrawal doesn't need to take place but that we actually can come to an agreement, it will allow the minister to direct the parties to go back and consider, negotiate and possibly come to an agreement rather than going through
[ Page 9321 ]
the formal withdrawal process. It is about finding a common ground at times and resolution rather than just receiving a request from a municipality to withdraw from the service bylaw.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

H. Lali: This specifies that regulations under this section 813 may be different between regional districts and different circumstances. I was wondering who has the final oversight. Is there somebody assigned in the ministry to have that final oversight, just to make sure some of these differences are not so far out of whack that we create a whole new set of circumstances and a whole new set of problems?

Hon. I. Chong: It is ministerial authority, so after consultation with the regional district and service partners, it would be appropriate then to determine what time frame would be appropriate. But I would expect, as always, that there is consultation that takes place to try to reach a reasonable length of time to deal with the matter that needs to be resolved.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

H. Lali: Section 11 is this amendment which actually clarifies the application of the Community Charter and the Local Government Act with regard to reserve funds established for services and transfers between reserve funds.

Before I ask the actual question that I want to ask, I just want to ask the minister: what is the process now? I know this amendment will allow local governments to be able to do that in the future in terms of the transfer of funds for another purpose from one reserve fund to another. But what is the process that exists actually now, and how often is it utilized? Is it through the specific signing off of the minister or the deputy minister to allow that to happen? What is the process now? Then I'll ask my question on the future.

Hon. I. Chong: The member will know — I'm presuming, because he has served in local government — how the reserve funds work. The accumulation of money in those is to provide for service for which the reserve fund was created. There is no ability currently where a municipality can come to the minister and ask to be able to use those funds for another purpose — for a larger capital project, for instance.

There may be situations where there are reserve funds there, yet the municipalities are required to go to borrowing through MFA or other means — to borrow to provide a significant project. People, I think, would rightly say that that doesn't seem like a good fiscal plan — if you're borrowing money when you've got a reserve fund, especially if that reserve fund is sufficient to manage the particular service that it was set up to do.

[1140]

This legislation would allow for the ability to use reserve fund moneys, not only make them available for the amounts that they were originally deposited for but also allow for good practice in terms of good cash management to minimize the cost of borrowing. Right now they cannot do that. I believe this is a welcome addition to allow more flexibility for our local governments.

H. Lali: The amendment is not going to be a blanket authority. It would be on an as-needed basis, where the municipal government or the regional district would make an application to the ministry to have funds transferred. Is that how it will work? Or is there a blanket authority that they don't have to actually inform the ministry or go through the ministry?

Hon. I. Chong: I apologize. I should make a correction. Currently the Community Charter does, in fact, authorize municipalities to transfer money from one reserve fund to another to temporarily finance their capital projects for another service. We are dealing…. This is the regional district, which is the change to the Local Government Act.

Regional districts do not have the same ability as local municipal governments currently have. This change will allow regional districts to have that same authority that municipalities currently have under the Community Charter regarding the use of money in reserve funds.

It will, as I say, identically parallel what municipalities can do. Regional districts cannot do that currently. And it is a blanket ability, because that's what they have in the municipal area.

H. Lali: Then I'm just wondering: will there be any conditions attached or a cap put on as to what the limit is for the transfer from one reserve fund to another?

Just an example. I know in school districts that when there's a sale of some capital assets — like schools close, and they're selling off the properties, the land and the buildings — 75 percent of the proceeds from that has to go to capital, but 25 percent of it could be transferred to operations or operating budgets. So will there be any cap as to what the limit is, in terms of transferring, or is it open to the municipal government or the regional district to decide?

Hon. I. Chong: As I indicated, currently regional districts must maintain a separate account for each service they provide. They cannot, in the event of an unantici-
[ Page 9322 ]
pated surplus of revenue of reserve funds for one service, transfer that surplus to another reserve fund.

So again, it is about allowing them to have borrowing between reserve funds. It will make it possible for regional districts to practise good cash management, minimize cost of borrowing, which I think is important for taxpayers at the end of the day. At the same time, the amendment would ensure that the reserve fund moneys would be available for the purpose that they were deposited to the reserve fund.

With respect to the cap, as I say, again, there is no cap. There is currently no cap with the municipalities either.

Having said that, the funds must be returned to the borrowing reserve fund, with interest, on or before the time when the funds are required by the lending funds. So it wouldn't permit the regional district to take the funds out, not replenish that fund and not also pay interest back to that fund. But at least it's within that regional district, as opposed to going to outside borrowing, and also not depleting that fund to the extent that the service for which it was established could not be completed, albeit at a different time.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

H. Lali: Section 12, the amendment, allows the Municipal Finance Authority to actually move their office within the capital regional district rather than only within the city of Victoria limits. I understand they're looking for new space and may find a better deal in Saanich. We support the move, especially if it's going to save the MFA some money.

I'm just sort of wondering and asking the minister: has the MFA outgrown the space they're in, or is this a move about actually saving money? In either case we support the move, but I just want to know: is it both, or either one or the other?

[1145]

Hon. I. Chong: I don't have the specifics of the rationale, other than the fact that the Municipal Finance Authority has indicated they wanted the flexibility. I do believe, though, that it is a combination of the fact that they may have outgrown the space, the cost may have become too prohibitive, and they're looking to pare down those costs as well as to accommodate growth, should they require that.

Quite frankly, providing them with this flexibility by putting this change in the legislation may give them that opportunity to negotiate a better rental agreement if they do want to stay in the current premises. The fact that they can move out of the city of Victoria may provide the Municipal Finance Authority with more leverage going forward, thereby saving dollars for all of us.

Sections 12 to 18 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. I. Chong: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — COMMUNITY, SPORT AND
CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2011

Bill 8, Community, Sport and Cultural Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2011, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:49 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 © 2012: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada