2014 Legislative Session: Third Session, 40th 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, November 20, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 3

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

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2014

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

R. Fleming: This afternoon I want the House to welcome a group of fourth-year nursing students from the University of Victoria, who are in a course called “Communities and Health Systems.” That is the class that is here today. Emily McInnis is a constituent of mine who sort of spearheaded the idea to bring this group of students down to the legislative chambers today.

I look forward to meeting with them in a little while, later this afternoon. This is a student-led initiative to learn more about the legislative process. I would ask all members of the House here this afternoon to make these students welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: I’d like to call continued second reading of Bill M203, intituled the Terry Fox Day Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL M203 — TERRY FOX DAY ACT

(continued)

D. Bing: On behalf of my constituents in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, I’m honoured to rise in the House to speak to Bill M203, the Terry Fox Day Act.

I still recall, 34 years ago, watching television and being totally transfixed as a story unfolded about a young man who was attempting to run across the country on an artificial leg. I remember watching the television news night after night and being fascinated by the story of Terry Fox and the Marathon of Hope.

As we all know, Terry was a young man from Port Coquitlam who had lost his leg to bone cancer. He said he was going to run across the entire country to raise money for cancer research. Terry Fox brought national attention to this terrible disease.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

His legacy was that we now know so much more about different types of cancers and their treatments. According to the Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada, B.C. is a leader in cancer care in Canada.

As part of the healthy families B.C. program, three integrated InspireHealth cancer centres are running in Victoria, Vancouver and Kelowna, as well as an on-line centre.

Terry Fox was an inspirational Canadian who made a lasting impact on people across our province. Terry wanted his legacy to continue on, and so his legacy lives on across the globe.

[1335]

Every year in honour of Terry’s amazing efforts and to help support cancer research, millions of people in close to 25 countries participate in the Terry Fox Run and Terry Fox fundraising events. The Terry Fox Foundation distributes the money to a growing worldwide family dedicated to eradicating a disease that knows no political or geographic boundaries.

Terry has taught us to aspire to be better people. He taught us to strive to be our best and to work towards our goals. This legislation, once passed, will give us the chance to recognize Terry Fox for his strength, passion and dedication in the fight against cancer.

In closing, I would like to add one more story. When I think of Terry Fox, I can’t help but also be reminded of a good friend, another relatively young man, who passed away at the age of 42 last year after a short battle with cancer. His name was Sandy Wakeling.

Sandy grew up across the country in Port Elgin, Ontario. As a ten-year-old boy, Sandy was mesmerized by Terry Fox and his fascinating story. He was amazed that a one-legged young man was going to run one marathon a day across the entire country. Sandy eventually grew to be a man and moved across the country to Pitt Meadows. He became one of our most outstanding citizens.

Sandy was selected as the 2013 Citizen of the Year for the city of Pitt Meadows and will be remembered for many accomplishments. But I will always remember him as one of the organizers of the Terry Fox Run in my community. Sandy considered Terry to be a personal hero. He firmly believed that one person could make a difference.

It is with great pleasure that I speak in support of the Terry Fox Day Act.

N. Simons: I thank all members in this House for their eloquent words on Bill M203. I would just like to add my obvious support and, in doing so, recognize the impact that Terry Fox has had on us.

The legacy that he left for our communities is one that we embraced. I thank those in my community who carry on the important work of raising money for important research. I recognize those who have lost loved ones to cancer.

I respect and honour the work that people continue to do to fulfil the legacy and to meet the goals of him, his family, his community, the rest of British Columbia and, indeed, Canada and the world in fighting a disease and looking for solutions and cures.

When we think of Terry, we think of, obviously, the values that he held dear. We had a personal glimpse into
[ Page 5470 ]
his world and his family’s. We knew that his goals and his efforts were to ensure that the lives of those that came after him were held up high and valued. He was a very humble person and soft-spoken, but the message that he had for the rest of us has been powerful.

I think of people like Ted and Jan Rodonet in my community of Powell River, who themselves had felt the tragic impact of cancer in their lives with the loss of their daughter. I think of the work that they do to ensure that the memory of those who have suffered and who have died is kept in our mindset and in our minds as we look for a cure.

With that, I am very pleased that the member from the opposite side introduced Bill M203. I thank her for doing that and for the opportunity to, when we can, join hands with all of those in the House on both sides and say: “We do agree on some things.” Some things are held dear to our own personal set of values, and we share that.

[1340]

S. Gibson: Some time ago a friend recommended that I watch a TV series called House of Cards. Some of you may have seen it. It was about the political intrigue of life in the U.S. Senate, and many of the acolytes were involved. I watched the series with some interest and anticipation, but I have to tell you I was disappointed. The reason I was disappointed was that there were no heroes in it.

There was nobody likeable in the show. There was nobody that you could say: “You know what? I can emulate that person’s lifestyle. That person can help me, give me ideas for life.” None of that.

Back to my life as a university teacher. I would say to my students: “Who are your heroes? Who do you admire?” We came up pretty short in the classes. No sportspeople? Apparently not. How about business leaders? Politicians? That’s disappointing, because we’re desperately today looking for heroes, aren’t we? We want to find people that we can believe in and trust and that their integrity is a model, a prototype for us.

Hard to find today, but there is one young man who passed away here many years ago: Terry Fox. He is a hero, a genuine Canadian hero. One of the things that he did was inspire. He actually inspired people. When is the last time that you have said: “That person inspires me”? It doesn’t really happen anymore, but Terry Fox did that. He was a Canadian icon.

I enthusiastically support the bill of the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam to honour him with a special day, and it’s a privilege to be here and speak today about that — a lasting celebration of his incredible legacy.

I won’t forget. I was already on city council in Abbotsford when he did his run: with a prosthesis, an amazing 143 days, as we’ve heard, and 5,000 kilometres before he could no longer go on. His Marathon of Hope set the stage for an incredible wave of cancer research that led up to this point and, as we’ve now heard a number of times, raised over $600 million for cancer research.

Every year there’s a Terry Fox Run. Now, I’m a runner, and I can see the value of a run like that. People gather. It’s the largest international, one-day event for cancer research — named after Terry Fox. It’s amazing.

That’s a hero. We need more heroes like Terry Fox. He was the youngest Companion of the Order of Canada, and there was a special ceremony in Coquitlam to honour him — hundreds of people there, and it was televised all over the world.

The interesting thing is that many schools and roads and all kinds of parks have been named after Terry Fox. Even in my own community of Abbotsford there is a Terry Fox Elementary School.

Terry Fox — a great Canadian, a hero, and what a special tribute to have a day named after him. I’m very pleased and honoured to speak in favour of that today.

D. Donaldson: I’m very, very happy to be taking my spot today in the second reading of the bill, Terry Fox Day Act. It’s been said many times before, and it seems like an obvious statement, that Terry Fox is a hero. One of the aspects of a hero is a person who can touch people’s lives who’ve actually never personally met the person who’s being called a hero. In this case, Terry Fox has touched many, many lives, even though he lived only a short time and even though the run was shortened. That’s a really, really true measure of a hero.

I was happy to rise today to speak to this, for a couple of connections I’ll mention. I had to look it up because it was a while ago. I remember when Terry undertook his run. He was 18 years old in 1977 when he lost his right leg above the knee due to bone cancer. A very short while later, on April 12, 1980, he began his Marathon of Hope to raise money for cancer research.

[1345]

He began it in St. John’s, Newfoundland, as we know, and 143 days later he had to end that run in Thunder Bay — I was living in Ontario at the time, and I remember that — after 5,373 kilometres. He ran a marathon a day for 143 days.

I portray myself as a struggling runner — not as an aspiring runner, but a struggling runner. Before I became an MLA, I ran marathons — some half marathons and some ultra marathons, informally arranged ultra marathons on trails, 50- to 60-kilometre runs. It amazes me that day after day Terry Fox would be able to fight through the pain, fight through the sore muscles, the tiredness, the mental fatigue. I mean, many of us who train for long-distance running know that those last few kilometres are a matter of mind over matter. It’s mental fatigue. To be able to do that every day for 143 days really demonstrates the character of this young man and how he believed in the cause that he was running for.

We, through our MLA offices in Hazelton, have become co-sponsors of the Terry Fox Day run along with
[ Page 5471 ]
Northwest Community College. We’ve done that for the last three years. It’s a great little run — you know, the 2K walk-run for younger people or those who aren’t runners and then the 5K and the 10K. It’s a beautiful run along the Eagle Down Trail in the Hazeltons.

This year we had 60 participants, which is a pretty good turnout on a Sunday morning in Hazelton, in a small town of 350. People who had survived cancer were there, watching grandchildren of theirs participate in the run. We had the family of Fred Wale. Fred Wale was a Gitxsan man who participated in every one of the Terry Fox Day runs in Hazelton until he passed away a number of years ago. At the run this year his daughter, granddaughter and great-grandchild participated in the run. It was a lovely event to be able to be part of that with them. I know them well. As well, we know that over $650 million has been raised since the inception of the run for cancer research.

In the Hazeltons, as well, there are other preventable diseases that take their toll — type 2 diabetes, for instance. Having people out and providing another opportunity for what is really a social event…. The run is such fun, and it’s not exactly — in Hazelton, anyway — a competition about who can finish first. It’s a competition of how many people participate. It’s out there to participate. When we have other preventable diseases such as type 2 diabetes, the more opportunities for people to get out and be active, the better. It’s become a real joyous event and something that I’m very happy and proud that myself and the staff at the MLA office in the Hazeltons are able to help put on in our community.

I was thinking of Terry Fox the other day. These days I only have time for training for half marathons because it takes a long time to train for full marathons. You have to go for six-hour runs, often, to get those in, as some people in this Legislature know, so half marathons. I’m going to be running one November 30. I did a 20K on Sunday afternoon here in Victoria along the ocean. It was a beautiful day. As I was finishing the run, I turned up Douglas, and I saw the bronze statue there of Terry Fox. I just…. Well, I’m getting a bit emotional. It just brought home how a young man like that had the courage that it took to do a marathon day after day, 143 days.

I’m very glad to finish off, to say that I…. This is an opportunity that sometimes you don’t get very often in this Legislature, to say I’m very happy to support this bill and to salute Terry Fox and his family and to give my full support to the Terry Fox Day Act.

[1350]

Hon. D. McRae: I want to echo the sentiments of my colleague across the way. He is right. There’s often some acrimony in this chamber, some gibing, but there are certain times when we come together, when we are united. I think this is absolutely the right time to do so. I applaud all members of this chamber for their passion for this great Canadian and the legacy he has left.

By the time I have risen, many of my colleagues in this chamber have spoken so eloquently. They have canvassed the history of Terry Fox and his trials and tribulations. But let’s put it in context. This happened 34 years ago.

Thirty-four years ago I was ten years old. I remember watching Terry Fox on television, going across Canada. At ten, I understood it was a large endeavour, but I didn’t have the full understanding of the magnitude. As I’ve aged, I’ve had friends — people who went to school at SFU and remember Terry Fox running around SFU campus training for the run — who knew him personally.

My colleague the Minister of Health spoke in this chamber yesterday and talked about how even though he was not a friend of Terry Fox — and I don’t think he’d ever met Terry Fox — Terry Fox made an absolutely huge impression on him.

I want to remind members opposite as we stand in this chamber: we have that living memory. We have that living memory because we saw it — we experienced; we were there — because of our age. There is a generation of young people who weren’t there for Terry Fox. They weren’t there because they were not born. They will know about Terry Fox because of what we say, what we’ll watch on video, what we’ll teach our children, what we’ll learn in school, what our communities will share with us.

I can’t say thank you enough to our colleague who has brought forward this bill for Terry Fox Day. We always, as Canadians, need to celebrate our past to remember our past. School children across this nation have understood that Terry Fox is that true hero in our country. As a high school teacher, I got to experience it firsthand. I taught. I went to school. Heck, I even went to a little daycare program at G.P. Vanier. I haven’t gone very far to school in my life.

G.P. Vanier is just one example where school children and teachers have embraced Terry Fox’s legacy. Every year they come together at school — when I was teaching there, there were about 1,200 or 1,300; it’s about the same today — will come out en masse and celebrate a Canadian who they never met. They will understand the legacy and the importance of what he did, the opportunity he has to make all our lives better in this nation, because cancer will touch, if not us, someone we know.

Betty Fox had the opportunity to visit G.P. Vanier when I was there because of the work that people like my colleague Tim Krutzmann had done to grow and support Terry Fox Day. As each of these students leave Vanier, I am sure they will remember that time. For some, it will just be a memory of their three or four years in high school. But for others, it will be an inspiration, and it’ll be a chance for them to share that knowledge with others as they go forward.

So I say to teachers and to students across this nation: thank you. It is so essential we don’t forget our past. And to my colleagues in this chamber, I say thank you.

By making this day formal, we are ensuring in British Columbia — and hopefully it’ll be taken up across
[ Page 5472 ]
Canada — that a great Canadian, a Canadian who was not partisan, a Canadian who gave so much of himself and whose family has given so much of themselves, going forward, to make the lives of so many of us better…. I want to say thank you so very much, because Terry Fox, I think, is the epitome of a true Canadian.

M. Farnworth: It’s a pleasure to take my place in the debate on private member’s Bill M203, an act to name the second Sunday in September in honour of Terry Fox.

For me, it’s particularly special to rise after hearing the comments that members from both sides of the House have said — and also, at this opportunity, to thank the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam for bringing forward this bill to make this name change official and permanent. I’m the MLA for Port Coquitlam, and Terry Fox was from Port Coquitlam. It was his hometown. It is where he grew up. It’s where he went to school. It’s where his family’s from. And so am I.

[1355]

Many people in this chamber have said an awful lot about the impact of Terry Fox on themselves and their community and this province. They have outlined the details of the run, the marathon — the sheer courage of it, the impact it has had on cancer research, the impact it has had on us as Canadians, the 143 days, a marathon a day, the sheer courage and effort in pursuing that dream, and the dedication and the courage that he has shown.

What I want to talk about is the Terry Fox that I knew, the community that Terry Fox knew, the impact that what he did had on us in the town that he grew up in.

It’s funny. I want to start my remarks with a reference to a conversation that the member for Vancouver-Quilchena and I had. He said to me: “I didn’t know that you grew up and went to school with Terry Fox.” I said: “Yes, I did.” He said: “You know, it’s interesting. I have this memory, like so many do, of Terry Fox as that young man, and I don’t really think about the fact that he had peers.”

He did. He died as a young man. He was 22, just short of his 23rd birthday. There are a lot of people in Port Coquitlam who remember that image and that young man but who were also young at that time with him.

I first met Terry Fox in grade 8 — Mary Hill Junior Secondary School. This, to me, is what is so remarkable about what he did and ties into what people have said about him being a true Canadian hero. Often when we think of heroes, we think of extraordinary people, special people. We see them as heroes when they are heroes. We don’t think about them before they became heroes.

When we look back and when I look back, Terry Fox was just like us. He was an ordinary kid. He was a regular guy at school. He grew up in Port Coquitlam in a middle-class family in what was basically — and still is, in many ways — a blue-collar town.

The big industries were the railway, the Flavelle Cedar, Riverview Hospital. It was a town that could have been a town anywhere in this country. There was nothing particularly unique about it, other than it was typical.

Terry Fox was one of us. He had the same teachers as us. He played the same sports as us. He knew the river the same way that we did. He knew the parks the same way that we did. He knew the corner stores the same way that we did. He was one of our community.

At the time, you don’t realize that. You don’t think about that, only till much later…. Then, as we know, he had his cancer and the amputation of his leg. It was at that point the genesis, the remarkable transformation of someone who was just like us — a regular, everyday kid in Port Coquitlam — started this incredible journey of transformation to an iconic Canadian hero.

My colleague from Nanaimo remarked about celebrity. We live in a society with a cult of celebrity. Often there’s a lot of importance attached to celebrity. Terry Fox was far more than that. He ended up, I think, embodying everything that we think of about what we think is great, in terms of our nation.

[1400]

He started the run, as members have talked about, in Newfoundland, and it ended in Thunder Bay, just outside Thunder Bay. What I remember at that time was, “Wow, he’s actually doing this” — when he dipped his toe in Newfoundland. All of us were incredibly proud, because it’s like: “Hey. It’s the guy we went to school with. It’s the guy we went to school with, and he’s doing this.” We watched, and we followed along as the journey evolved. We were like: “This is impressive.”

The journey came to a tragic end outside of Thunder Bay, and I think all of us were saddened and touched, in a way that we probably had never imagined, by the events of that day. We all felt an incredible pride in his accomplishment but also an incredible sadness at the human tragedy that was taking place.

We watched as he got the Order of Canada. I remember being down at the city hall in Port Coquitlam. There were huge crowds there. They had the Governor General there. He was there getting the Order of Canada.

For those of us who lived in PoCo at that time, this was a really remarkable ordeal. We had the Governor General of Canada here in our town of Port Coquitlam, which at that time was only, I think, just over 20,000 people. This was the biggest thing that had happened in PoCo for a very long time, and it was one of our own who was getting this unbelievable honour.

We remember his dream of what he wanted: to raise a dollar for every Canadian for cancer research.

I remember watching on television the reaction when the run came to an end. It was really interesting. Some things have stuck in my mind.

You had the Premiers who were in Ottawa, I think, at the time. They came out, and they were asked to comment. They made, all of them, wonderful, wonderful comments. But one of the most moving that I remem-
[ Page 5473 ]
ber was René Lévesque, someone whose principles were to break up Canada. I’ve never forgotten the way that he put it in words. He used words which were humble but powerful, because he said — it was very simple: “A remarkable kid.”

What he had accomplished and what he had done was far more than any kid would ever be expected to accomplish, but the reality is: he was. He was a kid. He was 22 years old. He was at the start of what should have been a long and happy life.

What happened was that you saw provincial governments step forward with large cheques — $1 million from this province, $1 million from that province, sums of money that, for most of us, were just like, wow, right?

We were pleased and happy to see that provincial governments were stepping forward, but what happened at the same time…. Right across this country, from Newfoundland to British Columbia to the Northwest Territories, his story had galvanized Canadians, who came out and broke open piggy banks and bank accounts and donated money. They had bake sales. They had fundraisers in Legions and pubs and in schools right across this country.

[1405]

His journey gripped this nation, and I remember it. It was a remarkable feeling to see what was going on and to know that this was happening because of someone that you had grown up with and that you knew.

I remember sitting around with friends, and there were telethons going on. I can still see the living room, and I still know who the people were in that living room. We were watching it on the news. I remember that there was myself and my friends. There was Brent Ballard and Dan Sewell and Dave Hutchison and Doug Connors and Pete Hornig. We were talking about what was happening, and I remember we all just emptied our pockets of what money we had and got money and sent it in.

We were doing that. Families and people, as I said, right across this country were doing that. He achieved his goal of $24 million, a dollar for every Canadian, and he achieved so much more.

What is remarkable about that is that it didn’t stop there. The foundation was created, hundreds of millions of dollars have been raised, and we know that the cancer that killed him, which was incurable, basically, at that time, now has an 80 percent success rate. I have a friend who…. A few years ago his son was diagnosed with that same cancer. That cancer was a death sentence 34 years ago. Today it’s not. His son was cured, and he’s fine and healthy and living a normal life today because of the work and the research that was done, out of Terry’s dream and his journey that started in Port Coquitlam.

As I close my remarks, I also want to pay tribute to some of the people around Terry who made that journey possible, because again, they are as much a part of his story as Terry Fox is. What strikes me today, 34 years later, when I see them, is that they’re just regular people. They are regular Canadians that we all are.

Doug Alward, who’s been mentioned in this House…. I grew up a few blocks from him. We’ve known each other since elementary school. He drove the van across the country. Derrick Hill, who did the advance and the promotions, again, grew up in Port Coquitlam, was in Scouts — just a regular person.

We had some exceptional teachers who encouraged Terry. Terry Fleming gave him the initial story about the amputee runner in New York. Bob McGill, who was Terry’s basketball coach and coached us kids at Mary Hill Junior Secondary, had the ability to recognize when a kid needed a push in a particular direction — “You know, you should try out for basketball, or you should try out for wrestling” — and wouldn’t take no for an answer.

All of those people had an impact on us growing up but in particular on Terry Fox. Along with his family — his parents, Betty and Rolly, and his brothers and sisters — they all helped shape him, and they helped to shape that journey and to make that dream come true. I want to acknowledge their role, because I think it’s important.

Finally, I want to say…. It’s been 34 years. Every year we have…. I mean, there are runs right across the country, but we have that hometown run in Port Coquitlam. It’s a remarkable event because every year when you participate in that run, you see his peers, who were young people at that time.

[1410]

They are older, they are heavier, they are balder, they are greyer, but they come and they run, because they remember that time, and they remember that individual. They remember him as a hero, and they remember him as that regular person. They bring their kids, and they bring their spouses, and they bring their families, and they participate.

Terry Fox showed us that heroism can come to ordinary people who do remarkable things. It’s not about celebrity. It’s about doing something that comes from within. It is doing something that will stand the test of time. What he accomplished has stood for 35 years. It will stand the next 100 years. It will stand as an example in this nation of ours for as long as the red and white Maple Leaf flies over our home and native land.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam will close the debate.

L. Reimer: I want to take a moment to once again thank the Premier for her steadfast support and encouragement of this bill. I also want to thank the members of this House who have joined together to honour our great hero. Members of this House have shared their stories, some of cancer survival, and their very vivid memories.

Terry, while appearing to be a very normal teenager, loving hockey, basketball and soccer, was one of those
[ Page 5474 ]
superior human beings who cared for others and whose outlook, because of his situation, was that of a person much older and wiser.

I’m so pleased that we’re finally recognizing the contributions of this extraordinary human being, while also recognizing those who have kept his dream alive: Terry’s mom, Betty, who recently passed away; his dad, Rolly; brothers Darrel and Fred; his sister, Judy, who worked tirelessly at the research institute and foundation; family friends such as Doug Alward and Mark Pettie; and all the Terry Fox Run organizers, the volunteers and those who support over and over again.

This is all about people, their quality of life and saving many whose lives years ago were in jeopardy. Perhaps it is late and should have been done years ago. However, given next September will be the 35th anniversary of his Marathon of Hope, let’s make sure that Terry’s legacy is big, strong and remains forever, and that this coming anniversary, the 35th, is very special and creates even more hope and success than any in history.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

With all this said, and with the supportive comments of the members of this House, I thereby move second reading.

Motion approved.

L. Reimer: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill M203, Terry Fox Day Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call committee stage of Bill 4, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 4 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2014

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 4; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:15 p.m.

On section 1.

Hon. N. Letnick: Just in terms of background — the application of the sections of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the ATA, in relation to agriculture, the amendments to the regulation-making authorities that we’re talking about today. We have section 58 of the ALC Act, which is not sufficient to allow the provincial government to prevent local governments from prohibiting farm uses of the land of the ALR. Section 58 has been relied on for this purpose in the past, but current legal advice is that the authority is not evident and should be clarified.

Also, we have in Bill 24 created two-person panels, which creates the possibility of an impasse if both panel members disagree with one another. By applying section 26(6) of the ATA to the ALC Act, the chair of each regional panel will have the deciding vote.

The third piece in the bill that has to do with agriculture. Bill 24 repealed the requirement of the ALC Act for government to consult with the chair of the ALC on appointments. Section 3(1) of the ATA, which is applied under section 5 of the ALC Act, does require consultation with the chair. To avoid a conflict between the statute and possible changes to appointments, it is necessary to repeal the reference to section 3(1) of the ATA.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain to me why the change was made in the first section?

Hon. N. Letnick: The actual section itself, if I can read it, says: “An appointment made under subsection (2) (b) or (3) may be for an initial term of 2 to 4 years.” If that’s the section the hon. member is referring to, it provides that a member other than the chair could be appointed by the appointing authority after a merit-based process and consultation with the chair to hold office for an initial term of two to four years.

What we’re saying here is that we’re removing the portion that says “consultation with the chair” and then leaving the rest whole, which is between two and four years. Actually, the member might notice that when we made the appointments of the 18 members, there was a range of two, three and four years made.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me who the appointing authority is?

Hon. N. Letnick: The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for the chair and the six vice-chairs, and the Minister of Agriculture for the other 12 positions.

L. Popham: So if I understand correctly, the Minister of Agriculture can appoint commissioners or chairs himself?

Hon. N. Letnick: The Minister of Agriculture gets to appoint the two panellists in each of the six regions, but the vice-chair — the third person in each of the regions, the six vice-chairs — plus the chair is appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

[1420]

L. Popham: Just so I’m clear, is this a change from prior to the spring, when Bill 24 came in? Has there been a time when the minister has had so much involvement in appointments?

Hon. N. Letnick: I’d just like to inform the hon. members that other than the one section on the consultation with the chair, everything else is status quo.

Regarding whether or not the minister has had this much involvement with appointments before, this is the first time I’ve had any involvement with appointments — being the minister at the time when we had to make the appointments.

I would just say that I had this much involvement with appointments and I would expect to have this much involvement in future appointments, should I have the privilege of being the minister the next time.

L. Popham: Thank you for that answer, but maybe I just don’t have the capability of understanding. Maybe you could let me know: has a Minister of Agriculture had this much involvement in appointments in the past?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Just to say once again that ministers, in general, have had the responsibility for appointing members of the commission, other than the chair and vice-chairs, after a merit-based process. Nothing has changed here from before, other than…. I guess I would say that the numbers, of course, are different going back to the regional panel system where we have potentially 18 seats, 12 of which, of course, were ministerial appointments.

L. Popham: Well, it’s my understanding that the chair had more involvement, so maybe there has always been involvement of a minister. But has the power of the chair been revoked on making appointments?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. The answer is no, the power of the chair did not change. The minister always had the responsibility to make the appointments to the commission.

The only thing that has changed now is…. Before, the minister was required to consult with the chair. Now the minister, if this passes, will not be required to consult with the chair. The minister always had the responsibility and was accountable for those appointments. The chair of the ALC was never accountable for the appointments.

L. Popham: Why is it that the minister would not be required to consult with the chair anymore? What was behind that decision, and why do we see that in legislation now?

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, thank you to the member opposite for the crux of the matter that, I believe, she wants to get to. It’s a good question. The answer — one part — is that the minister is responsible, accountable to the people of British Columbia for the appointments, not the chair of the ALC. Also, it provides the minister of the day some flexibility and streamlining of the process.

Just to give you an example, when we went through the process for the last set of appointments, I did contact the chair of the ALC. But knowing that the chair of the ALC probably didn’t know all the people that had applied and were being considered, I also contacted the chair of the B.C. Ag Council to get his input into whether or not he knew of any of the candidates.

[1425]

We went through a merit-based process that the board resourcing office went through to look at all the applications and provide me with a series of applications by region.

Once that initial set of consultations with those two people was complete, I then had an opportunity to whittle down the list some more and found that I needed more people. So go back to BRDO, the board resourcing office, and get them to provide me with more names. I had to then go back to the chair of the ALC to comply with the act. That happened three or four times through the process as, again, the list got narrow and new people had to come on.

The fundamental purpose, I believe, for this is to allow some flexibility to the minister so that if they get into a position where time is short and they already have consulted with some other people — for instance, the chair of the B.C. Ag Council — and feel they have enough understanding of the people being proposed, they wouldn’t be compelled to discuss the matter with the chair of the ALC. However, they could choose to, as I did in this particular case.

L. Popham: Well, it seems like the minister took a lot of care to make sure the process was fair. But what if we didn’t have a minister that took that into consideration? What if we had a minister that was bent on making political appointments? How do we ensure, with this legislation, that this hasn’t changed it for the future in the case of political interference in an independent commission?

Hon. N. Letnick: I think it’s important to note that the obligation that was there in the past and is currently there does not stop a minister from doing exactly what the member opposite has suggested he or she may do.

At the end of the day, it really is the people of this House, through questions such as from the critic, that would hold the government accountable and, of course, the minister accountable. The minister is always accountable to the people of British Columbia. I believe that hon. members of this House will follow the appropriate process when appointing people to the land commission.

As shown in the people that are on the commission
[ Page 5476 ]
now, after this process we went through over the last few months, we have many, many people that come from all walks of life throughout this province and that are well qualified. They are not only encouraged but passionate about serving their province in this manner.

L. Popham: I appreciate that answer, but I’m thinking about the future because, you know, we have the ideal Agriculture Minister working in the ministry at the moment. But if we didn’t, we’ve lost the checks and balances of checking in with the chair of the commission.

I’m wondering if the minister has considered that. I’m wondering if he would consider amending this to reflect that we are trying to maintain the independence of the commission and not make it a political vehicle for a minister who may not have the same values that we share.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the compliment. I’m actually blushing. Let me say it again, maybe in a different way.

Changing this, whether it’s in or out, does not change the opportunity for a minister to do what the member opposite is suggesting a future minister might want to do, which is appoint someone for political purposes.

If you consult with the chair or not consult with the chair, at the end of the day, it is the minister that is responsible and accountable for making those appointments. That minister, not the chair of the commission, is who is responsible and accountable to the people for those appointments.

Not having to consult with the chair does not remove the opportunity for the minister to consult with the chair. Again, to the challenges, for example, that we’ve had over the last few months, if for some reason, in that third or fourth iteration of consulting, as I’ve gone down to my last one that I needed, I didn’t consult with the chair, then in theory the chair could hold up the legislation and say: “You didn’t consult with me. Therefore, that appointment is invalid.”

[1430]

I think, obviously, that would be a terrible thing to happen for all concerned. By removing this legal obligation on the part of the legislation and on the part of the minister, it still provides ample opportunity for the minister of the day in the future, who I know would be operating under the same set of standards that the hon. member across has and would take every opportunity to consult with whomever he or she may need to consult with so that they could have a good understanding as to the merits of the person that was being recommended for the position.

The Chair: May I ask the members to please keep your voices low? It’s very difficult for the Chair to listen to questions and answers.

L. Popham: The example that the minister gave where a minister may appoint somebody to the panel and then the chair may disagree and have the power to stop that appointment, given that there was a consultation that needed to be done…. That, to me, sounds like it would be more of a check and balance than this current legislation. To me, it seems as though the direction that this legislation is going down makes the commission less independent.

Why didn’t the minister suggest legislation that took the political aspect completely away from the appointments of panels?

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, the matter of whether or not a position could be more or less a political appointment, as the member has suggested, does not change with the change in the legislation.

Also, in the legislation that has been passed in this House over the last few months, the independence of the land commission has been reaffirmed, not only in terms of the practice but also in terms of the language of the legislation, which provides opportunities for the chair of the land commission to pull back decisions that are made by local panels, under certain considerations, to the executive level — and also to withhold the decisions to go down to the local panels in the first place, again under certain conditions.

When you put all that together, I actually see the legislation, as we have it today and has been proposed by this, to be stronger in terms of reinforcing the independence of the land commission in making their decisions. It also provides the minister of the day the responsibility to be accountable to make sure that when they make their appointments, they do so knowing that there’ll be, as there should be, a lot of scrutiny on who they appoint.

L. Popham: Does this legislation affect the appointment of the CEO at all?

Hon. N. Letnick: No.

L. Popham: Is there any legislation that we’re going to be dealing with today that affects a CEO appointment?

Hon. N. Letnick: No.

L. Popham: When is the minister going to appoint a CEO to the Agricultural Land Commission?

Hon. N. Letnick: The appointment of CEOs is an order-in-council. It’s not my appointment.

L. Popham: Thank you.

Maybe I should just check to see if my colleagues have any more questions.
[ Page 5477 ]

V. Huntington: I’m just a little bit confused now. I thought section 2 is the one that would be on removing the need to consult.

[1435]

I understand that there are a number of tribunals that are exempt from the Administrative Tribunals Act need to consult with the chair. Could the minister tell me what those tribunals are?

Hon. N. Letnick: I don’t have that information, but I’d be happy to get it to the hon. member.

V. Huntington: Can the minister tell me: in this attempt to streamline the consultation process, how much time does he think he will actually be saving himself, or any future minister, in the next go-round?

Hon. N. Letnick: The issue of time is important, but also the issue is a requirement as you move through the iterations of people that go through the list. As I described before to the critic, going through a list of almost 80 people and consulting with the chair, and then having to go back and then consult, maybe, on another 15, and then having to go back and consult on another four, and so on….

This way it would give the minister of the day the opportunity — when they get down to the short strokes, after consulting with some other people — if they wished, to say: “You know what? I know everything I need to know about that person. I don’t need to go back to the ALC chair.” They can do so. Right now in the legislation — because Bill 24 removed the requirement, and the Tribunals Act still has it in there — we don’t have that ability.

V. Huntington: I’m assuming, under the Administrative Tribunals Act, that’s the situation with every tribunal that the act covers. Has the minister heard of any difficulties in this respect from any other ministers who are responsible for tribunals?

Hon. N. Letnick: The answer is no. No, I don’t know of any other minister that’s had a similar situation.

Just for clarification, what we are applying here, or looking at amending here, is the Agricultural Land Commission Act, not the ATA. I’m sure the hon. member opposite knows that.

V. Huntington: Yes, I’m just trying to figure out why we have to amend the Agriculture Land Commission Act when the ATA applies to so many other tribunals and always has. Perhaps the minister can advise me.

The board resourcing and development office says that consultation with the chair on appointments “is intended to ensure that the views of the chair and the operational requirements of the tribunal are key factors that government considers in making tribunal appointments.”

Why has the government decided that in this specific case that’s no longer a key factor in making appointments?

[1440]

Hon. N. Letnick: We’ve already canvassed this. The importance of getting the feedback of several people when making these kinds of appointments is in the minister’s area of responsibility, whether it’s through a particular stakeholder group like the B.C. Ag Council or through a chair of a commission like the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission — all these or others, for that matter.

In cases of, as it happened in this particular case, where I would go through the list and neither of those people would know the people I was referring to that have put in their application, I had to find somebody else to talk to, to see whether or not the people had a balanced approach to take a fair, independent look at the decisions that they would have to make on behalf of all of us in this Legislature and the people of B.C.

Again, what we’re trying to do here is bring the ALC Act in balance with itself. In one section of it, it says, “Don’t need to consult,” and in another section it says: “You need to consult.” That’s what we’re trying to rectify here.

V. Huntington: I just wanted to agree with the critic when she said, “It all depends on who’s sitting in the minister’s chair,” on whether or not you’re getting the type of appointments that we hope will always be the case with this minister.

Given that we’re removing that consultation with the chair, is the ministry considering establishing criteria for appointees?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. The first cut is that the board resourcing office has its set of criteria which it applies to all applicants, things like criminal record checks and whatnot. Then there is a merit-based process that goes through that’s identified in section 5(1) of the legislation, which says: “The commission consists of at least 13 individuals appointed under this section who are knowledgeable in matters relating to agriculture, land use planning, local government or first nation government.”

[1445]

What I found over the last few months as I made the appointments is that you had some people that actually had all of that embodied in them, themselves, and in other cases you had teams that would complement each other by the time you put the two or three people together. That’s why it made it more interesting to try to consult, to put the two or three people together. Then together, you had that strength, but not always in each individual person.
[ Page 5478 ]

L. Popham: Well, given that answer, I have a more specific question for the minister about appointments then. As an example, if someone would have applied to be a commissioner but they had quite a controversial history with the Agricultural Land Commission…. For example, somebody who may have put in an application, had it refused and then put it in again and used the media and ministers to eventually have that application removed — how would the merit-based system affect an appointment like that?

Hon. N. Letnick: The board resourcing office, when they do their due diligence, if that information was available — and the way it was described, clearly it would be available, because it’s very public — would make that information known to the minister. In this case, it would have been me. Then I would have to use my judgment as to whether or not the person would qualify under the merit-based process, notwithstanding the fact that they had the experience that they had with the Agricultural Land Commission.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain to us what is happening in this next section?

Hon. N. Letnick: It’s doing two things. The first thing is removing subsection 3(1), which required the minister to consult with the chair. It’s adding 26(6), which is the tiebreaking provision, so that if the two members of the local panel disagree, then the vice-chair of that local panel has the ability to break the tie.

L. Popham: Is there ever a time when the chair can override that decision?

Hon. N. Letnick: The same rules apply. If a decision of two local panellists is contrary to each other, the chair, under the change to this legislation — or, sorry, the vice-chair, in this case — would have the ability to break the tie.

[1450]

If you’re referring to the chair of the land commission, then they would still have the same power in either case, whether there was a tiebreaker or no tiebreaker. Changing this legislation does not change the ability of the chair to pull out a decision that was made at a local panel and bring it up for review by the executive panel.

L. Popham: If there was a tie, the vice-chair could break that tie. If the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission didn’t agree with that decision, can the chair override that decision at that point?

Hon. N. Letnick: Section 11.2 of the act says: “Subject to the regulations, if any, the chair of the commission may refer an application to the executive committee if he or she determines that any of the following apply….” It goes through some of the things to keep it at the exec committee. Once the decision is made at the local panel, if the chair believes that they made a decision in error, then that decision can be pulled up to the exec committee to be reviewed.

I’m just looking for language here which covers that. The language is located in 11.1(3) of the act. It says:

“If the commission decides to reconsider under section 33 a decision in an application referred to a panel under subsection (2), the chair of the commission must refer the reconsideration of the original decision to the panel that made the original decision” first.

“(4) This section does not apply to the following: (a) an application for which the power to decide has been delegated to a local government, first nation or authority…(b) an application that the chief executive officer may approve under section 27; (c) an application that the chief executive officer has refused under section 30.1; (d) a reconsideration of a decision of a panel under section 33.1;” — there’s what you’re looking for —“(e) an appeal under section 55.”

L. Popham: Can the minister override the decision of the panel?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. The minister cannot override the decision of the independent Agricultural Land Commission.

L. Popham: Let’s just make sure that we’re clear on that. The minister can never override or interfere in an application decision that’s being put forward to the Agricultural Land Commission.

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, the minister cannot override a decision of the independent Agricultural Land Commission.

V. Huntington: I just want to be quite clear on something. Did I understand the language to say that what the chair of the ALC can do is refer a decision of the panel back to the panel for reconsideration? Can the chair of the commission decide that that decision has to be reviewed, or does he have to listen to very strict criteria in order to make that decision?

[1455]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. The chair may decide not to send the decision to a local panel in the first place. The chair may decide, after a local panel has made a decision, that there’s some new evidence that has been brought forward and then would send it back to the local panel again, which is appropriate, to look at the issue again with the new evidence. If after all that, the chair believes that the local panel has made a decision in error, then the chair can bring the decision up to the executive panel, okay?
[ Page 5479 ]

In particular, if you look under 11.2(1) of the act, it says: “Subject to the regulations, if any, the chair of the commission may refer an application to the executive committee” — so bring it up, basically — “if he or she determines that any of the following apply: (a) the application may be of provincial importance; (b) the application raises an issue that is novel or is otherwise of general importance for the administration of the Act; (c) the determination of the application may substantially affect more than one panel region.”

If you make a decision in one area that has an impact in the adjoining area, he or she may bring that decision up to the executive panel.

V. Huntington: Just to clarify, the subject of error isn’t in that list, but he has also the discretion, if he feels there is an error, to bring it up to the executive council.

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

L. Popham: Could the minister explain the legislative intent of this section?

Hon. N. Letnick: The main purpose of this section is to clarify that a farm use cannot be prohibited by a local government.

L. Popham: I noticed that it could also not be prohibited by local government or a First Nations government. Could the minister explain what that means?

Hon. N. Letnick: It’s common language in the act, where we talk about both local government and First Nations government. In this particular case, what we’re saying is…. The lawyers tell us that it’s a little bit ambiguous in the legislation as it is now, so we’re making it very clear for all local government and First Nations governments that if it’s a bona fide farm use, local governments cannot prohibit. They can restrict, but they cannot prohibit.

L. Popham: Could the minister give me an example of something?

Hon. N. Letnick: The intent here is to ensure that local governments respect the direction of government that they should not prohibit medical marijuana facilities from being situated on agricultural land reserve land.

L. Popham: Okay, so we’re talking about medical marijuana facilities. Are there any other examples the minister can think of?

[1500]

Hon. N. Letnick: Some other examples are farm retail sales of products grown on the farm, timber production harvesting, silviculture, forest production, greenhouse, farm buildings or structures, intensive livestock operations, mushrooms, an aquaculture facility. Those are some of the things, and then we’d like to add in there medical marijuana.

L. Popham: This is stating that local government and First Nations government cannot prohibit farm usages. How does it apply to non-farm uses?

Hon. N. Letnick: In 3(1) of the regulations there are examples of things they can prohibit. Here we have accommodation for agritourism on the farm, all or part. We have accommodation up to ten sleeping units. These are things they can prohibit, right? These are things they can prohibit. Total development for buildings, landscaping, access. Each parcel can have one secondary suite, a single-family dwelling, one manufactured home.

But there are things that they cannot prohibit. These are things like ecological reserves, parks established under the Park Act, protected areas established under the Environment and Land Use Act, wildlife management areas and so on.

You can see the themes here. They’re very park-like. These are things that they cannot prohibit.

L. Popham: Could they prohibit, for example, a diesel repair shop going in as a non-farm use on agricultural land?

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. A diesel repair shop is not a permitted non-farm use. They would have to go in front of the commission and get permission if they wanted to actually do that.

L. Popham: Why was this legislation amended?

Hon. N. Letnick: As the legislation and the regulations are currently drafted, it uses the term “permitted uses,” which is not defined. What we want to do is use words that are: “farm use” and “non-farm use.”

[1505]

We’ve been advised that by making this change, we can then have the legal authority to make sure that local governments and First Nations governments do not prohibit medical marijuana and other permitted uses on ALR land.

L. Popham: What about something like, for example, a rodeo? Would that be permitted or not permitted?
[ Page 5480 ]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. The example of rodeos is not a permitted or a not permitted non-farm use. Therefore, if it would occur, it would have to go in front of the Agricultural Land Commission.

S. Fraser: I just have a question for the minister. He’s raised the issue around section 3 prohibiting local government from enacting any of their tools of local government to curtail farm use. The minister mentioned medical marijuana. I recognize, in the House, the importance of medical marijuana.

It’s a legal use, and it serves a purpose, certainly, but as the minister knows, in many areas, including my constituency near Nanoose, there’s a very big controversy about a large facility that’s being proposed, a medical marijuana proposal on agricultural farmland within the ALR. Many of the people that have moved there and built their houses and the community there did so with the understanding that this would be for farm use. That would be a compatible use for raising their children. Suddenly, a proposal is coming up where it is not farm use.

It is an industrial operation. These are huge warehouse-type operations. There are security issues. It is the opposite of traditional farm use or even conventional farm use. The minister seems to be bringing in amendments here that are taking away the right of those residents, through their local government, to have any meaningful say over those uses. They are legitimate concerns. I know the minister will agree. He’s heard them.

So why is this being brought in, seemingly, to thwart the efforts of residents from raising legitimate concerns and having a legitimate local process that allows them some ability to input the decision?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I understand the concern of some of his constituents. I, of course, have heard from some others in other parts of the province as well. As the member opposite may recall, the federal government made a decision whereby they do want to see medical marijuana grown in more, I’d say, larger plants than in small ma-and-pa, in homes and communities around the country.

They’ve already given us the direction, as the senior level of government, as to where they would like to go. We respect that as a provincial government. We also respect the opinion of the Agricultural Land Commission, which came and said that medical marijuana is an appropriate crop to grow on ALR land. With that conclusion by the ALC and also the direction from senior government, it is our government policy that we will work towards finding opportunities — or, at least, allowing business people and farmers the opportunities — to grow medical marijuana on ALR land.

So how do we get there? Well, we get there in cooperation with local governments and the people they represent — through what we’re doing right now, which is consulting with local government on a minister’s standard bylaw.

[1510]

It would, working with them, allow local governments to help us formulate a bylaw that could be applied which would deal with things like setbacks, height restrictions and other factors that are important to make sure that we don’t prohibit the application of medical marijuana growing on ALR land but, at the same time, have some rules and some restrictions which would comply with the intent of the federal government and of the opinion of the land commission and also, of course, respect some of the needs of local governments.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that answer. But I mean, here section 3 is putting in a specific prohibition by a local government, or a First Nation government, enacting — or really to use any of their tools. You’re taking away a local ability, or you’re clarifying that local governments have no say here.

I’ve met with the regional district chair, Joe Stanhope, and this is a big issue. Bill Veenhof, in another area of my constituency to the south — similar concerns. I don’t want to argue about whether or not….

If there were fields of marijuana growing, you might be able to say that this is a legitimate use of farming on the land for medical marijuana, but that’s not what’s happening. These are warehouse…. These are industrial operations. This is not on the land or in the land anyway.

Again, having this particular section seems to contradict what the minister was saying about working closely with local governments. It’s actually doing the opposite. This is specifically telling local governments that they basically have to keep their nose out of this. That puts them on the front line in dealing with residents and communities that have legitimate concerns about security, about quality of life, even about watershed protection in some of the areas in my constituency.

Does the minister have any comment on that, please?

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, thank you to the member opposite for the question. I understand this is an important issue, with people, of course, having very serious opportunities to provide feedback through the member. He’s hearing, and he’s expressing that in the House. That’s appropriate, so thank you for doing that.

I just want to reiterate that this is the policy direction, but we’re not talking about prohibiting it. We’re talking about the opportunity for them to regulate it. We’re not removing all their tools. We are just saying, “You cannot prohibit it,” just like you can’t prohibit other farm uses — things like mushrooms or greenhouses or milking facilities. These are things that happen on farms all across the province. What we’re saying….
[ Page 5481 ]

Interjection.

Hon. N. Letnick: Well, you grow flowers.

What we’re saying is, based on the direction from the federal government and based on the advice from our own independent Agricultural Land Commission, we are agreeing that medical marijuana should be regulated but not prohibited on ALR land. That’s what the change in this language allows government to do.

B. Ralston: I want to take the minister back to the question about rodeo and rodeo grounds that he referred to earlier. As I understood his answer, that use, under these proposed amendments, would fall into a category where it would not be prohibited but would have to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission for approval or not.

Would this provision have retrospective application? Let’s suppose that there was already a rodeo and rodeo grounds on agricultural land.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member for Surrey-Whalley for the question.

There are two things. There are farm uses and non–farm uses. Everything else goes to the Agricultural Land Commission.

If you’re talking about a use that was already in place and permitted by the Agricultural Land Commission, then, I believe that question would be best posed to them because they’re the ones that allowed it.

If it’s in place and it’s not permitted by the Agricultural Land Commission, then, since it’s a non–farm use, I would suggest that it would be in violation.

[1515]

B. Ralston: Can the minister explain, then, what the enforcement mechanisms would be, assuming that this went forward to the commission and was declined, refused, and the rodeo and rodeo grounds already existed on the agricultural land?

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, thank you to the member opposite for the question. Just to be clear, we’re not changing any of that in the proposed amendments to the act today. But given the question, if I may, I’ll just say what would happen, hypothetically, if that was happening today.

Under section 57(1) of the act, under “Offences”:

“A person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1 million or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or to both, who contravenes the following: (a) an order of the commission; (b) section 20 (1); (c) a covenant referred to in section 22; (d) section 49 (2); (e) a stop work order under section 50; (f) a remediation order under section 52.”

To put that in plain English for people like me, if you’re breaking the law and the ALC tells you to stop doing it, you’re subject to a fine of up to six months or $1 million or both if you don’t stop.

B. Ralston: So is it a breach of the statutory duty of the Agricultural Land Commission and its enforcement mechanisms to fail to enforce such an obvious and clear breach of the act?

Hon. N. Letnick: The decision as to whether to enforce or not enforce would be a decision up to the independent Agricultural Land Commission. I have not found anything in the act so far that compels the independent commission to enforce in any particular case.

B. Ralston: Is the minister, then, confirming that the enforcement provisions of the Agricultural Land Commission are completely and utterly toothless and that the agricultural commission is not obliged to act even in the case of the most flagrant and outrageous violations of the act? Is that what the minister is saying here?

Hon. N. Letnick: What I am saying is that a person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1 million or imprisonment for up to six months or both, who contravenes any of the following.

[1520]

If you look at the following…. Under section 57(1) of the act, you can probably find the language in here that would say that if the ALC decided that it was going to enforce the case the hon. member is discussing, then it would be subject to these fines or penalties. I don’t classify that as toothless.

B. Ralston: What is the role of the Minister of Agriculture when clearly those people appointed by him or his predecessor to the commission to exercise the powers conferred upon them in the act fail to exercise their statutory duty to enforce the act?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. At the end of the day, recognizing that the Agricultural Land Commission is independent when it makes its decisions, the minister is still accountable for the Agricultural Land Commission.

They are currently working with us on a comprehensive compliance and enforcement regime. We are also going to hold a number of key achievement areas for the Agricultural Land Commission. One of them will be, of course, how many applications it processes, how much is done in a timely manner, how much enforcement they are going through, and we’ll have an opportunity to measure their performance on an annual basis moving out from here. But like I said at the beginning, even though they are independent when they make the decisions, if they are not meeting the expectations of the member opposite or anybody in this House, they do always have a recourse to the minister.

B. Ralston: What consideration was given during the reappointment process of a number of members of the
[ Page 5482 ]
ALC, or Agricultural Land Commission, to their propensity or not to exercise the statutory duties conferred upon them and, in particular, to enforce the law that they are entrusted with enforcing?

[1525]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. If I understand the question, the specific one is on what criteria were used when looking at reappointing the six members that were on the commission before back to the commission.

The chief criteria that I was looking for was continuity. Because we were going to have an additional 12 new members, I wanted to make sure that we had that continuity throughout the province wherever possible to give an opportunity to the new members for some mentorship. Also, when I consulted with the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission, the chair did say that all the existing members were doing a good job and suggested that they should be reappointed.

On the other piece — which the member didn’t specifically ask, but I think I should update the member — with the increase in money going to the Agricultural Land Commission over the last couple of years, the ALC has increased their complement of enforcement officers from one to three. They’ve also increased their complement of enforcement officers not directly employed by the ALC but through Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations by deputizing up to 30 members of FLNRO to also work on the enforcement piece.

B. Ralston: Well, dealing strictly with section 3, of course, given that there was one enforcement officer and there are now going to be three, can the minister just give a sense of the volume of complaints that are backlogged and have not been acted upon?

Hon. N. Letnick: Given that we were coming to talk about section 3, I don’t have those numbers with me here, but I’d be happy to report back to the hon. member later with the numbers.

V. Huntington: I just want to go back to canvass the medical marijuana issue again. The minister said that the ministry was cooperating with municipalities in developing a bylaw. I hesitate to think that it’s anything to do with cooperation when the minister is requiring the municipalities to develop that bylaw, and it will only be approved when the bylaw is what the ministry wants it to be.

I guess what I’m trying to get at is that medical marijuana is a federally licensed activity. It might be an agricultural activity, but for the life of me I don’t understand why the minister feels the province has to become involved in determining whether or not it’s a permitted farm use.

Surely the ministry and this government could decide to leave that decision in local hands and put criteria around it. If they do want to make it a permitted farm use or a farm use in the municipality, let them. If they want to put it on industrial lands, let them. If the federal government steps in or the operator or owner says, “I want to do X,” let them take the municipality to court to prove the point. Why does the ministry feel it has to get involved in this issue that is of such critical importance to so many municipalities?

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, thank you to the member opposite for the question. When you look at the list of farm uses similar to medical marijuana in the scope that we’re trying to achieve — things like dairy, greenhouses and mushrooms, for example…. If you left it up to every local municipality to determine whether or not they wanted mushrooms in their area in the ALR, you might find there aren’t too many mushrooms being grown in B.C. anymore. That’s because of the impacts that growing mushrooms has on the community around it.

[1530]

What we’re doing, going back to, I think it was, UBCM…. At the beginning of September, or sometime in September, we invited the local municipalities to work with us on developing conditions for minister’s standard bylaw.

After the election, we’re now working with newly elected councils to come up with another standard that we can agree meets the intent of the government’s policy direction — both federal and now provincial policy direction — and not prohibiting these from moving forward but also giving some flexibility to local governments where it’s possible for them to look at specific items like setbacks, height restrictions and so on. This has been a cooperative thing that we’ve done with other municipal governments before, to do with other matters.

I think at the end of the day, when we’re done, we’ll be able to see this part of agriculture continue on ALR land — and not only, of course, provide jobs but also help farmers get more revenue from their farmland.

The Chair: Before the member starts, the ambient noise in the House seems to be increasing. If you could please keep your private conversations to a whisper so that the Chair can hear the member for Delta South.

V. Huntington: There is no reason why medical marijuana has to be included with all of the other farm uses. It’s a very simple thing to just say: “Leave it up to the municipalities.” In the municipalities it’s a licensed use. It’s a legal thing to do, to grow medical marijuana. They’re not saying: “We don’t want to allow it to be grown in our municipalities.” They’re just saying there are appropriate places for it.

I guess I’m saying to the minister that I do not under-
[ Page 5483 ]
stand why his ministry and his government have dug in on this, unless there’s another reason out there that we haven’t quite figured out yet. But there’s absolutely no reason. I come from a municipality where the minister still has to approve every bylaw related to agricultural land. We haven’t even been allowed to grow up yet. I’m saying there are some things that should be left to a local community to decide whether it’s appropriate.

I don’t see any farmers with these licences. I just wish the minister would reconsider and permit local governments to make the decision of whether it’s appropriate on agricultural land and, if it is, whether it’s appropriate under a different classification.

[1535]

Should it be more appropriate in an industrial area? Why would you allow a concrete bunker on Class A land?

Hon. N. Letnick: First of all, I would say that this is a legal activity. It is a legal activity. Based on the definition of it, we are talking about “an occupation or use of land for farm purposes, including farming of land, plants and animals and any other similar activity designated as farm use by regulation, and includes a farm operation as defined in the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act.”

Based on that definition, the Agricultural Land Commission has said that if a landowner is lawfully sanctioned to produce marijuana for medical purposes, the farming of said plant in the ALR is allowed and would be interpreted by the ALC as being consistent with the definition of farm use under the act.

If it’s going to be consistent with farm use under the act, now with this opinion by the ALC, government is obliged through its regulations to clarify what the intent is, and that’s what we’re doing today.

V. Huntington: I just wanted to briefly thank the minister for his courtesy in replying to an often repetitive question.

L. Popham: My question is around “permitted types of subdivision of agricultural land.” Can the minister explain why this is being added, or is it being repealed?

Hon. N. Letnick: We’re not removing. What we’re doing is breaking it up into two pieces for clarity. Currently it reads: “…prescribing permitted uses and permitted types of subdivision for agricultural land, and specifying permitted uses that may or may not be prohibited by a local government, enactment or a law of a first nation government.”

We’re making it simpler to understand by breaking it up into two, so that it would be shown in subsection 58(2)(b)(b): “…prescribing permitted non-farm uses of agricultural land and specifying permitted non-farm uses that may or may not be prohibited by a local government enactment or a first nation government law” — and then also — “(j.1) for the purposes of section 21 (1), prescribing permitted types of subdivision of agricultural land.”

So nothing is being removed or added. It’s just the language is being changed to make it simpler.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me what “permitted types of subdivision of agricultural land” are?

Hon. N. Letnick: Part 5 of the regulations describes what permitted subdivisions are. If you look at the list…. I’m just going to just read a few of them. “Consolidates two or more parcels into a single parcel by elimination of a common lot line; removes a building encroachment on a property line and creates no additional parcels; involves not more than four parcels, each of which is a minimum of one hectare, and results in the following: no increase in number of parcels, boundary adjustments, no parcel in the reserve of less than one hectare” and so on.

[1540]

B. Ralston: The minister may know that one of the issues that’s sometimes debated in the Lower Mainland is the propensity of certain owners of agricultural land to situate a primary residence essentially in the middle of the agricultural piece of land, thereby arguably sterilizing it for future agricultural uses and creating, perhaps, some momentum towards future subdivision of a residential type.

Do these regulations and this clarification give the commission the authority to prescribe where on agricultural land a primary residence — because, typically, they’re permitted — might be located on that land?

[1545]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. There’s nothing that we’re changing in the act that would limit the ability or empower the ability of the land commission to determine whether or not they can tell a property owner where to put a house. We’ll endeavour to find any powers that they may or may not have and get back to the member opposite with that later.

B. Ralston: Thank you for that response from the minister.

Perhaps the minister can just clarify, then. Is he saying that there may be indeed a power which has been declined to be used by the Agricultural Land Commission, or is he searching to find out whether there was never a power?

Certainly, it’s an issue that, among Lower Mainland mayors and regional districts, has been an issue for some time. I think it’s been commented upon publicly.

It seems surprising that this, as a policy issue, would have not come forward to the minister, particularly at a time when this specific section of the act is being revised to clarify the power to make regulations to stipulate just such restrictions on building location because of the dele-
[ Page 5484 ]
terious effect on farmland. In a time when California is experiencing extreme drought and we may not be able to count on California imports as a source of food in the future, it seems rather shortsighted on the part of the minister and his staff.

Given that it’s a live issue that has been raised repeatedly — at least, as far as I can recall, over the last decade — perhaps the minister can explain, if he can — I don’t know whether he can — why it isn’t expressly included in this revision.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

What we are talking about today are those things the government today would like to propose as amendments to the act. I’m sure the member opposite has a number of things that he would like or the members opposite would like to see changed in the Agricultural Land Commission Act. Maybe over the years to come we’ll see further changes in the act and the regulations. But for today these are the ones that government has put forward for amendment.

Having said that, I’ve heard the concern of the member opposite as to the siting of homes. I believe that if someone wants to put their home on their property and they can show that it is for a proper farm use, they still have to go in front of local government and get permission by the local authority, and then the whole issue of siting may at that point come up.

As I said before, we’ll confer with the independent Agricultural Land Commission to see whether or not they are doing siting choices when they give subdivision approvals.

L. Popham: Are the permitted types of subdivision of agricultural land in the form of applications that have go through the Agricultural Land Commission, or can anybody subdivide by going through local government only?

[1550]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I’ll refer the member opposite to section 10 of part 5 of the regulations, which says, with some preamble, that “an approving officer under the Land Title Act, the Local Government Act or the Strata Property Act or a person who exercises the powers of an approving officer under any other act may authorize or approve a plan of subdivision without the approval of the commission if the proposed plan achieves one or more of the following.” Then it lists some of the conditions by which they could do so.

So the answer is a qualified yes. Some approvals could happen without going to the land commission.

L. Popham: Does the minister know of any circumstances where local government has approved a subdivision of agricultural land without going through that the Agricultural Land Commission?

Hon. N. Letnick: This again is a longstanding rule that we are complying with here that is being articulated. The particular issue is whether or not we would have seen some subdivisions without going to the land commission for consolidation or removing building encroachments, etc.

My gut tells me yes, there would be examples of this happening, but we don’t have those examples here. I’m not even sure if the land commission would have them since the subdivision could occur without going to the land commission under these particular considerations.

Again, consolidating two or more parcels into a single parcel by eliminating a common lot line is something that would probably happen on a frequent basis in the province over the years. So yes, this probably has happened, but specific examples, I don’t have any for the member today.

L. Popham: Well, thanks to the minister for that answer. The consultations that took place over the summer…. There was a lot of discussion about subdividing agricultural land. One of the things that came from the conversations that I was listening to around the province was that people really trusted the Agricultural Land Commission to have the final authority over subdivisions.

I’m just wondering. Through this change in legislation, we’re making way for regulations to come probably in the new year. Does the minister have any feeling on the fact that the province wanted the Agricultural Land Commission to be the final authority? Or is he thinking that the regulations that are in place now and that might come later would allow for local government to continue making decisions on subdivisions if an application wasn’t forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. Once again, I have to reiterate that we’re not changing anything here. We’re changing the language to make it simpler by dividing the pieces.

The consultation that occurred this summer…. I acknowledge that the member opposite attended several of those panel discussions, and thank you for doing that. The consultation that was done this summer is complete.

I’m currently in the process of working through with my staff and my caucus on what those regulations might be, taking into account many things, including what we heard this summer. The member opposite is correct. Sometime between now and early in the new year I think we should have that work done and be able to make those announcements and be held accountable for those decisions at that time when we meet again, probably after our break.

L. Popham: Yes, well, I’m expecting those regulations to come sooner rather than later. I’ll be very curious to see what we ended up with after that short, insufficient consultation, in my view.
[ Page 5485 ]

[1555]

Does the minister believe that the regulations that might be coming our way soon will have any effect on the types of subdivisions that are allowed on agricultural land?

Hon. N. Letnick: That would be purely speculation on my part, so I won’t do that. We’re working through the input that we received on the 12 questions, and we’ll have an announcement to make as soon as it has gone through the process and approved by cabinet at some point in the near future.

L. Popham: Well, if the minister would like my help on getting those regulations out any quicker than he’s planning, I could assist him as I took part in many parts of the consultations and also did consultations on my own as well. So I’ll make that offer to the minister.

Section 3 approved.

The Chair: We’ll take a brief recess as we reset for section 4.

The committee recessed from 3:56 p.m. to 3:59 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

On section 4.

S. Fraser: I note that (3.1) of section 4 states: “The time limit for laying an information to commence a prosecution for an offence under this Act is 3 years after the date on which the chief inspector learned of the facts on which the information is based.”

[1600]

That’s significant, a major amendment to what is currently in place, if I’m not mistaken. Can the minister just explain the rationale? I mean, this is a big change in the timeline.

Hon. B. Bennett: What we’re doing here is we’re bringing the Mines Act legislation into alignment with other natural resource legislation to allow sufficient time for thorough investigation and recommendations for prosecution, if required.

The two acts that I’m thinking of are the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Environmental Management Act, which had already gone to a three-year time period. We had planned to change our legislation, and now we’re doing that to bring it into line with the other two pieces.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for the answer. The minister’s answer does make some sense. However, this is a 300 percent increase in the timeline that’s set aside. Were there issues under the current regime of the mining act, where the current regulations were six months? Have there been incidents where there’s been an obvious need to increase, 300 percent, that timeline?

Hon. B. Bennett: I’m going to take a bit of a risk here and try to make an assumption of where the member wants to go with this discussion and give him perhaps a little more information than what he asked. I take it that he’s interested in this, so hopefully, I’m not wrong about this and this is relevant.

The member is well aware that we had a horrible accident at the Mount Polley mine in August. We believed in the ministry — and of course government, generally, supported us — that we needed to make sure that our legislation was consistent with the other two pieces of natural resource legislation and allow the same amount of time that those other two pieces of legislation allow for the laying of an information.

In other words, if the Crown prosecutor’s office is going to lay a charge as a result of any investigation — not just the Mount Polley investigation but certainly that one as well — we want there to be enough time for the laying of that charge and the same amount of time that any other enforcement officer would have under the other two pieces of legislation.

We’re not in any way shrinking from the fact that there is some relationship between doing this and the Mount Polley accident. But what we’re doing, we intended to do in any case and will apply to all investigations, not just to Mount Polley.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for the answer. Am I correct, then: is the minister saying that section 4 was drafted in reaction to the Mount Polley disaster?

Hon. B. Bennett: I’ve already answered that question. I’ll answer it one more time.

We have intended for some time…. The ministry has intended for a few years to have that section changed and updated so that it was consistent with the other two pieces of natural resource legislation. When the Mount Polley accident happened, it obviously created more impetus to get it done, and that’s the linkage.

The changes, of course, will apply to not just the Mount Polley investigation but any other investigation under the Mines Act.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I’m a bit confused. I appreciate what the minister just said. But if this is adopted in Bill 4, in this omnibus bill, or this miscellaneous bill, this will be retroactive and, then, apply to Mount Polley?

Hon. B. Bennett: Yes.

S. Fraser: Will it apply to other mining operations? There were some concerns raised recently around Red
[ Page 5486 ]
Chris, their tailings pond engineering. That’s another mine. Will that, then, apply to that operation?

[1605]

Hon. B. Bennett: Red Chris has no relevance to the legislation or the discussion. There’s no investigation happening at Red Chris and no other serious investigation that I’m aware of at any other mine in B.C. This legislation, as I’ve said now four or five times, will apply to all investigations done under the Mines Act.

S. Fraser: Thanks for that clarification from the minister.

With the proposed changes from six months to three years, what we’ve seen on this side of the House…. And certainly other groups are challenging the withholding of specific information that the public should have a right to regarding, specifically, the Mount Polley disaster. The timeline for the Mount Polley investigation, I believe, was six months, which now, according to the minister, will be expanded by another two and a half years.
[ Page 5487 ]
Does that mean that the government will be able to withhold that information from the public and from the opposition for, then, three years?

Hon. B. Bennett: The independent panel will present its report to government and the local First Nations on or before January 31, 2015. That hasn’t changed. The time for laying an information to the Crown prosecutor’s office has been extended from six months to three years to make our legislation consistent with the other natural resource legislation.

S. Fraser: To the minister: will this expansion to three years from six months for the potential laying of charges…? I won’t say specifically for Mount Polley and the disaster of the tailings ponds there, but certainly, it could apply. Would there potentially be an effect on the company, on the operation of the mine? If there’s a 300 percent extension of the timeline, could it mean that a closure or curtailment of that operation or other operations that were under investigation could last for six times longer than might otherwise occur now?

Hon. B. Bennett: There’s no connection between what we’re doing with this legislation and what the company may or may not want to do with respect to reopening.

S. Fraser: Just for my clarification, to the minister: following a major disaster, a mine shuts down its operation, and people are sent home. Is that just at the discretion of the company involved? Or is there any requirement during the investigation for them to have that closure? Is there some requirement for the company to have a closure during any or all of an investigation that may lead to criminal charges or may not?

Hon. B. Bennett: The reason that this mining company is not operating at Mount Polley is that they don’t have access to a tailings impoundment facility, given what happened on August 4. It is completely up to the company to decide how they would propose to reopen the mine. Obviously, I think, certainly, the people who depend on that mine for the livelihood in the communities — especially Likely, but Williams Lake and Quesnel as well — would like to see the mine reopened.

From the ministry’s point of view, we are certainly supportive of the mine reopening at some point in the future, but the company will have to apply for the right to change their mine plan, because their mine plan today currently has them using the tailings impoundment facility that has the breached dam at it. They would have to identify where they would put their tailings, because they certainly can’t use the current tailings impoundment facility for some time.

[1610]

They would have to identify where they would put their tailings — and they have made some preliminary comments about where they would put their tailings — and apply for a change to their mine plan. Then this ministry and also the Ministry of Environment would make a determination as to whether that new mine plan was going to protect the environment and workers’ health and safety to a sufficient level. That’s what the decision would be based on.

I want to make it clear that we have not received any formal application from the company to do any of what I just talked about. When and if we do, we’ll respond as effectively and efficiently as we possibly can, given so many families are dependent on this mine. But we have to do that in a context of making sure that we are not helping to create any sort of additional risk to health and safety or the environment.

S. Fraser: Specifically, with Mount Polley, the ministry said that the timeline is still in place for the report coming out in — I think he said — January of 2015. That would be made available to communities, this House, First Nations. The minister also said that the changes contemplated here, moving up that timeline to three years, would apply to Mount Polley.

If he could explain how that would work. A report would come out, still, in January. Then, subsequent to that, would the information that’s being withheld…?

You know, there are data. There are reports. There are permits. There are things that we have certainly requested, on this side of the House, to see to help explain what might have happened with Mount Polley and the disaster there. Would that information finally be freed up as of January, when the report is made available, or would it be withheld from the public and from us in the opposition for another two and a half years?

Hon. B. Bennett: There are three separate independent investigations happening. There’s the investigation by the independent panel that the member has referenced.

There’s also the investigation by the chief mines inspector, who is a statutory officer under the terms of our legislation. He does not answer to me. He doesn’t even talk to me about the legislation. Nor does he talk to the deputy minister.

That statutory decision–maker role in government — and it’s been there a long time; it was there when the current opposition party was in government as well — is there for a reason. These statutory decision–makers need to have the space and the independence to do things like make independent investigations. So that’s a second investigation that’s happening.

Then there’s a third investigation being done by the conservation officer service in the Ministry of Environment — again, by statutory decision–makers that do not take their marching orders from the executive portion of a ministry.

Those two investigations, the conservation officer service and the chief mines inspector, will probably — almost certainly, I think — take longer than the independent investigation will take. I don’t know how long they’ll take, but it’s unlikely that they will have their investigations done and their reports done by January 31. Typically, this…. I mean, this type of an accident hasn’t happened in B.C., so we don’t really have a precedent for how long it would take to sort all this out and to go through all the documentation.

One of my staff members said to me a while ago that he has located 280 reports relating to the Mount Polley mine, each of which has some geotechnical component relating to the tailings impoundment facility. That’s just the tailings pond and the dam. All of those 280 reports are going to have to be read carefully and analyzed as part of the investigations that are happening. It’ll take whatever time it takes to do it properly by these statutory officers.

That’s the background for trying to answer the member’s question about how long it will be before all of this documentation and all this information can be released to the public. The people doing the investigation will make that determination.

[1615]

I am very supportive of having as much information made public as possible, as quickly as possible. It makes no sense to have any other approach to this, from the government’s point of view.

However, there are people with a lot more experience and knowledge than I that are involved in this investigation, and they are telling us, in addition to the Ministry of Justice, that this information should not be released until the independent investigations are completed.

When will all the information become available to the public? I don’t know. It will certainly be after the independent investigations are done.

One final point. It’s conjecture on my part, but I think, in fairness to the member, he needs to know this. There is potential for legal actions in this situation. You could have a situation where legal counsel goes to court and demands from a judge that in fact the information is not released, even when government would like to release it. That’s a possibility. I don’t know if we’re going to encounter that, but we could.

It wouldn’t be government asking that it not be released. It would be the lawyers representing…. I’m not even going to speculate on who the parties might be, but this is not a simple investigation on a simple matter.

Long story short, I really don’t know when the information that the member wants to have a look at will be available. It will, sometime, be available. I look forward to seeing all of it, I think, as much as he does.

S. Fraser: While I appreciate the answer from the minister, I’m still not clear. The changes made here, under the act — that “a prosecution for an offence under this Act is 3 years after the date on which the chief inspector learned of the facts on which the information is based.” That’s up from six months.

We haven’t been able to get access to information that should be made available to us. Indeed, information that was refused to us was actually found in a local library, so there’s a somewhat subjective withholding of information by this government.

Could this not be used? These changes — could they not be used to withhold information for much longer, for six times longer than might already be withheld from the public? Would that not be an option for government, to use this type of legislation to prevent that information?

I’m not accusing the minister or the government of anything here. But if a government were actually culpable in a mining disaster…. If, say, through careless, callous policies of deregulation and underfunding — which the current minister in another role cited before — that would prevent the ministry from doing their job, which might lead and contribute to lack of oversight or lack of inspections or whatever, where the government themselves are, in part or in whole, culpable for a disaster, could they not use this legislation to prevent the true information from being made public, maybe till after another election?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, there’s a lot there that I’m not going to bother with, but I will tell the member that the dam safety report that he referred to in the library — it wasn’t “found.” There was no careful sleuthing by this particular reporter. The mining company told him where it was, and he went and retrieved it. That’s how he got the dam safety report. The mining company didn’t have anything to hide. They actually told the reporter where to go look for it.

I think the member is making an incorrect linkage
[ Page 5488 ]
between the legislative change that we’re making here to allow sufficient time to lay in information — so that if criminal charges are warranted, they can actually be made — and the release of information.

[1620]

The release of information around this accident…. The decision on when and how that information is released will be made, first of all and primarily, by the advice that government gets from the statutory decision-makers — the conservation officer service and the chief mines inspector — and, very importantly, the legal advice we get from the Ministry of Justice.

If, as I said a minute ago…. I shared some information or some perspective with the member a second ago that it’s a bit speculative in terms of legal actions between parties. But if, in fact, we get advice that…. “Okay, it’s all right to release information, documentation.” Those 280 reports on the tailings impoundment facility, for example — I’m sure the member would have a lot of fun reading through those.

We may also get advice. “No, wait a minute. You can’t release them because someone has gone to court, and there is a legal action between….” Again, I’m not going to speculate on who the parties would be. But some court somewhere has decided that that documentation, that information has to remain confidential until these legal actions are over and worked out. That will have absolutely nothing to do with this legislation, and it will have absolutely nothing to do with government.

That’s something that could happen that I wanted the member to know about, but we have no control over it.

A. Weaver: I had a question with respect to the relationship between this date here in this proposed amendment and the date that would exist in federal jurisdiction under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The reason why I raise that is there has been some suggestion that in the case of Mount Polley, perhaps there was some violation of the Fisheries Act. That might hypothetically lead to some litigation down the road.

My question is: to what extent would the time frames in this legislation match up with the time frames federally, under the department of Fisheries and Oceans?

Hon. B. Bennett: Myself and my assistant deputy minister, David Morel — who I neglected to introduce — are not aware of the limitation periods involved with the federal legislation, so I don’t know if they match up or not. We’re certainly aware that there is a federal investigation happening, but I can’t shed any light on what the limitation periods are for that legislation.

A. Weaver: I guess that sort of answered my question indirectly. There was no linking — not deliberate — in putting the legislation together. It wasn’t done to tie in with, say, DFO legislations.

A simple follow-up, then. Suppose litigation occurs federally. Does this somehow undermine the ability of the province to conduct its own separate litigation through the introduction of this time frame here or not?

Hon. B. Bennett: Short answer: no.

A bit more detailed answer. Each of these independent investigations that are taking place in a provincial context takes place under the terms of a particular piece of legislation. In our case, the chief mines inspector does his investigation under the terms of our legislation and the conservation officer under, I think, the Environmental Management Act. The federal investigation would take place under the terms of their legislation.

Each of these investigative bodies can lay charges in accordance with the terms of their own legislation on the timelines that their own legislation provides. You could have three different sets of charges going forward, potentially — or two or one or none. But they’re not dependent, as I understand it, on each other in terms of timing or…. I don’t think that the federal ministry would be prevented from taking longer or taking less time, laying charges at a different time than the province might lay charges. I hope that’s more or less what you’re looking for.

S. Fraser: Subsection (3.2) of this section 4: “A certificate purporting to have been issued by the chief inspector certifying the date referred to in subsection (3.1)” — the previous section — “is proof of that date.”

[1625]

Just a question: what is the normal timeline for such a certificate to be issued from the chief inspector? I’m just not familiar with that.

Hon. B. Bennett: There really isn’t any normal timeline. What this particular provision is intended to capture is a situation where the chief mines inspector is challenged to know when these circumstances arose that are going to cause the chief mines inspector to do an investigation.

The three years starts when the chief mines inspector becomes aware of the set of circumstances. It’s a very common legal concept. What this provision does is allow the chief mines inspector to certify the date upon which he or she became aware of the circumstances that are going to cause this investigation.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. That helped. Further on that, the chief inspector — it’s the date stamped of him having knowledge, in this case, of a breach? Does he or she have to do an investigation, or their office has to do an investigation, to determine whether it warrants a certificate that means an investigation will proceed?

I’m just wondering how that…? Could it, in theory, take months or longer for a certificate, for it to be
[ Page 5489 ]
stamped, for a decision to be made by the chief inspector? I am ignorant of this. I’m just getting some clarification, if I could.

Hon. B. Bennett: One of the purposes of this particular subsection is to make it clear that the chief mines inspector is obligated — authorized as well, but to the member’s question — to certify the date upon which he or she becomes aware of the set of circumstances that the investigation is based on.

Immediately upon the chief mines inspector knowing there is a set of circumstances at some mine site in the province that is going to justify an investigation, that’s the date that would be certified.

S. Fraser: Thanks for the clarification from the minister. The investigations that are occurring now — three separate investigations…. My colleagues next to me asked questions about the federal role in an investigation and potential charges being laid.

The minister said that if this change comes forward and three years is given as the new timeline…. Does that mean that the…? He said it would apply to Mount Polley. Are there any legal issues associated with making this retroactive — changing regulations sort of midstream following, already, the initiation of three different investigations? Is that perceived as any kind of an issue that could be challenged by the company or someone?

Is that normal — to bring in legislation and make it retroactive? Is that considered to be a problem?

Hon. B. Bennett: The legal advice we have received from the Ministry of Justice is that the retroactivity of this change would hold up if it was challenged in court.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

The Chair: Member.

S. Fraser: Thank you, hon. Chair, and welcome to the proceedings.

Following up on that last question and the answer from the minister. Did the Ministry of Justice or the Minister of Justice…? Was it their request that these changes be made? Did they see a flaw in their ability to be able to effect justice in an incident like this because of the existing timeline being too small? What was the role of the Minister of Justice or Ministry of Justice in this?

[1630]

Hon. B. Bennett: The Ministry of Justice provides legal advice to ministries that are considering drafting and trying to pass legislation like this or any other piece of legislation that comes through the House here.

As I have said a couple times, the impetus for this change is that our legislation was not consistent with the other natural resource legislation that government has in terms of this time period. The other two acts that I’ve referenced earlier have a three-year time period. This act had a six-month time period. The ministry has been wanting to change this legislation. I’m not sure for how long, but for a while.

As I said, Mount Polley certainly got us all thinking that the change needed to be made sooner rather than later. We made it retroactive, for obvious reasons. We got legal advice that it was supportable to make it retroactive.

I’m not aware that the Ministry of Justice or any other ministry encouraged us to do anything. My understanding, and my advice from staff, is that in fact we in the ministry wanted to change this legislation and then went for legal advice after we decided that we wanted to make the change.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. The other two acts that he cites that were already at three years as the time set for charges to be laid, and the explanation that changing the mining act here in Bill 4 would make that consistent with those two acts — when were those two acts expanded to three years?

Hon. B. Bennett: The member has got me on that one. I figured he might ask that, but I never thought about that until about a half-hour before we started. I apologize. I don’t know the answer, but we’ll get the answer for him.

S. Fraser: I would appreciate that. And just in the context, it would be interesting to know, if this is considered to be a failure now and needs to be amended in Bill 4 to bring it to up three years, if this was already anticipated as a problem in the other two acts cited by the minister. It would certainly raise the question of why this was held off till now and why it was not contemplated when the other two acts were amended to be increased to three years.

With that in mind, I do have…. I have exhausted my questions on this. I have a discomfort that’s also been raised by my colleagues and the critic about how this might be used. I’m not confident that this government will be using this in maybe the right way and that it could be used to continue to withhold information that should be made public and should be made available to us in the opposition to do our job in overseeing what went wrong in this disaster at Mount Polley, for instance. So I certainly will not be supporting section 4.

Hon. B. Bennett: Okay. Thanks to the two members who asked questions. I guess, certainly, the member is right not to support this legislative change. What he is actually saying is that the NDP is in favour of taking the risk that information would not be laid in time for charges to be made against whoever or whatever ends up being responsible for the accident that happened at Mount Polley. It’s a surprising position for the NDP to take.
[ Page 5490 ]

S. Fraser: I’d just like to respond to that comment. I have acknowledged from the beginning that there is an argument to be made for the changes that are being contemplated here. I said that at the very beginning. I do see some rationale based on the argument that the minister has put forward.

[1635]

On the history and track record of this government in this and other issues — Mount Polley, in particular — in this House and those involved in Likely, in the area and the First Nations involved…. We’re getting less than transparent information from this government.

Indeed, they were underplaying, downplaying, any kind of severity of this disaster in a way that was not helpful — again, information that should be made available and is being challenged legally. This government’s being challenged for withholding information that should be made available so that we can get to the bottom of this and also to get to the bottom of what happened with the government’s role, potentially, in deregulation and other things that might have contributed to the disaster at Mount Polley.

It’s those questions from this minister and this government that I haven’t received confident answers to, that make it difficult to support this, even though there may be valid reasons for this to happen. I just do not feel confident that this government would be able to handle these changes in a way that would not adversely affect the public interest.

Hon. B. Bennett: Okay. The member is not going to support the legislation, which means that, again, he’s prepared to risk the capacity for the statutory decision-makers to lay a charge and have a subsequent prosecution take place. Again, I find that surprising.

Secondly, he apparently is suggesting that a minister of the Crown should just disregard the advice that the minister receives from statutory officers like the conservation officer service and the chief mines inspector and also from the Attorney General’s office. Again, I find this a surprising position for any MLA to take.

Section 4 approved on division.

The Chair: We’ll take a brief recess while we make some changes here.

The committee recessed from 4:37 p.m. to 4:38 p.m.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

On section 5.

D. Eby: Section 5(a). I wonder if the minister could start by giving us the legislative intent behind this particular amendment.

Hon. M. de Jong: The amendment to section 69 of the Gaming Control Act is intended to make clear that, for any reasons under section 68 of the act, the general manager may issue a warning to a registrant, cancel or suspend the registrant’s registration, impose new conditions or vary existing conditions on a registration.

It’s also intended to, we hope, more clearly articulate the general manager’s authority to impose new conditions or vary existing conditions in relation to specific premises of gaming services providers that have multiple sites. That whole question of premises versus individuals lies at the heart in part of the amendment.

[1640]

D. Eby: The definition of registrant in the amended subsection (1) would be gaming service provider and a gaming worker, inclusive of both of those. Is that right?

Hon. M. de Jong: I believe the answer is yes.

D. Eby: The subsections 1(d) and (e) both refer to…. Conditions can be imposed “either generally or for a period of time.” I notice that there’s not a maximum or a minimum period of time defined. Does the minister understand that there may be some sort of statutory limit on the period of time that these conditions could last under any enactment other than this one?

Hon. M. de Jong: We’re not aware of any limitations embedded within the act itself. There’s maximum discretionary authority given to the general manager. I can’t, off the top of my head, think of any other limiting feature that might inhibit the discretionary authority of the general manager.

D. Eby: Perhaps there’s a defined time, then, for a registrant’s registration. Is it for two years, maybe, or five years as the maximum registration before it’s renewed? On that note, are there particular standard clause conditions that are imposed on all registrations and that would be part of this as well?

Does that make sense? There are two parts to that question. The first is: is there is a fixed time for registrations that would cause an automatic renewal? The second is: are there standard conditions — for example, a fixed time — in these registrations generally?

Hon. M. de Jong: There is a general registration period. I’m advised that it’s five years. The question I anticipated, perhaps based on what the member was referring to earlier…. That means that the conditions that might be applied by the general manager could extend through the period of registration — therefore, up to a maximum of five years. They could be shorter, but they generally couldn’t be longer than the period of registration.

The second question, I think, was on the existence of
[ Page 5491 ]
a general set of conditions that would attach itself to a registration. The answer is yes, there are general terms. I don’t want to suggest that there aren’t variations or couldn’t be variations, but there is a general set of conditions. I am further advised that they are available if the member wishes to see them.

D. Eby: I will follow up with the minister to obtain those. I appreciate his offer.

I may be missing something here, and I would appreciate clarification on it. When I read subsection (1) against the old act, the only substantial change I see is the “either generally or for a period of time” addition to subsections (d) and (e).

Otherwise, it seems like issuing a warning, cancelling a registration, suspending a registration, imposing new conditions or varying existing conditions were all captured under the previous act. Am I missing something here, or is that the only substantive change there?

[1645]

Hon. M. de Jong: I sort of alluded to this in the initial question from the member as to what lies at the nexus of this provision. The provisions that are being amended, that currently exist within the act, focus on premises. The member has alluded to that in his question. The concern is that, arguably, that restricts the gaming policy and enforcement branch’s enforcement actions to actions against one or more specific gaming premises of a registrant but not the registrants themselves.

What has been done here, in the first series of provisions, is to create the ability to track and follow and apply conditions to the registrant, separate and apart from the premises. Then the subsequent section is dealing with premises.

D. Eby: Thanks to the minister for that clarification. The amended subsection (1) refers to the general manager, who I understand to be the chief, for lack of a better word, the head of the gaming policy and enforcement branch. Is my understanding of that correct? And are these powers fully delegable under, I believe, section 25 of the act? Could he ask a junior GPEB officer to cancel someone’s registration or give that power, that authority, to do that?

Hon. M. de Jong: I should have mentioned that we have Mr. Mazure, who is the general manager — so we’re not dealing in the abstract. And yes, the authority that exists under these provisions can be delegated and, I am advised by Mr. Mazure, has been delegated to the director of corporate registration.

D. Eby: I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome the general manager to the House. It’s a pleasure to have him here. Grateful to have such a knowledgable person on this.

Subsection (2) in the Gaming Control Act, section 69, refers to fines. I’m wondering why fines aren’t included, for example, as subsection (1)(f) here, where you could impose a fine in addition to conditions. For example, you can do (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f). You could do a combination of a fine and conditions.

Is it your understanding that the drafting of this allows a fine to be imposed, as well as conditions? Or does the authority have to make a decision between a fine or conditions for a given issue with a service provider or a worker?

[1650]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I understood the question to be: are there any limitations on the imposition of a fine in concert with any of the actions contemplated in what would become section 69(1)? If that is the question, then I’m advised the answer is: no, there are no legislative impediments to the imposition of a fine in concert with any of these actions.

D. Eby: That was exactly my question: whether one of the options available for a single infraction by a registrant could include conditions and a fine at the same time for the same violation — just to clarify that the minister is correct on that point.

I’m going to be moving to section 5(b) of Bill 4. My question relates to the general structure of this. I’m having difficulty understanding why specific conditions — for example, selling lottery tickets, who can sell lottery tickets, particular games that may or may not be permitted — have to be posted.

Why are these conditions listed out specifically, which could be understood to limit the discretion of the general manager or his delegate? Why wouldn’t you just leave it open and say “conditions as are appropriate to the circumstances” or “as are reasonable in the circumstances in the opinion of the general manager”? They seem remarkably specific — lottery tickets and particular games — when you might have any number of potential violations you’d want to address through conditions.

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ll give you a general answer, and that may help the member probe further. The language is specific, and that’s because the focus of this section is (1) lottery retail and (2) to cover circumstances like convenience stores. I won’t mention a specific one, but I think the member understands what I mean by convenience stores — one operator, multiple locations. In those circumstances, the intention is to contain language that is specific about the activities engaged in and also recognize the fact that, in that case, the registrant has perhaps many, many different premises or locations.

D. Eby: Then, it’s the minister’s understanding that in addition to these very specific conditions, general condi-
[ Page 5492 ]
tions or warnings or suspensions could also be applied by the general manager to a single location of a large convenience store chain or a chain of casinos, for example?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes.

[1655]

D. Eby: The minister was very fast in that answer, which didn’t give me a chance to prep the next question. It’ll just take a second to find my notes here.

Can the minister advise why he has chosen to make it discretionary to post the conditions in public view at premises rather than mandatory any time conditions are issued under this section?

Hon. M. de Jong: I was just canvassing with staff. Obviously, there is a discretionary authority here in what circumstances it might be necessary or appropriate to exercise that discretionary authority. An example that I’ve been provided with is the fact that the condition relevant to a particular premises may pertain specifically to a single employee of the registrant. In those circumstances, it may or may not be necessary and/or appropriate to post something to the public. It may in some cases, but in other cases it may not.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

D. Eby: There seems, to me, to be an omission here in the consequent amendments. I’m sure I’m not correct on that. I just would like to know why it has been omitted. It looks like subsection 69(3) as amended isn’t included in this consequential amendment section. I’m curious about why 69(1)(d) or (e) were included but not conditions that might be imposed under subsection (3). Is it because…? I’m not going to guess, because it’ll just sound worse.

I’m just curious about why it doesn’t say “imposed or varied under section 69(1)(d) or (e)” or sub (3)”?

[1700]

Hon. M. de Jong: Once again, I’ll start by providing the member with a brief description of why the amendment is necessary at all. That’ll give him an opportunity to probe further the rationale.

There is a gap that will occur as a result of the amendment we have just made in section 69. Section 105(8) of the Gaming Control Act refers to conditions of registration for gaming services providers or gaming workers — registrants.

Section 105(10) presently states that those conditions are in addition to conditions attached under section 56(3) and as the general manager’s discretion to attach varying conditions to registrants.

This amendment also includes conditions on a registrant that are imposed or varied according to subsections (1)(d) and (e) under the revised section 69. We’re ensuring that the authority and the link also exist with respect to the amendments that we have just considered and passed by the committee.

D. Eby: That concludes my questions on section 6.

Section 6 approved.

The Chair: We’ll have a brief recess while we make some changes.

The committee recessed from 5:01 p.m. to 5:03 p.m.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

On section 7.

M. Farnworth: I am pleased to start committee stage on section 7, on “Justice Amendments” — part 4.

I’ll have a number of questions for the minister. I don’t think we’ll finish today, but I don’t think that’s going to be too much of a problem as we do have a lot of time next week.

I’ve got one question for the minister — a couple questions. I’ll ask it, and then also ask her to introduce at that time her staff with her.

I’ll ask this question at this particular point because I think it’s as good a place as any to ask the question. I mean, the minister when introducing and speaking to the legislation, said that this was implementing Justice Oppal’s recommendation around regional policing.

[1705]

I’m somewhat puzzled because I’ve gone through the legislation. I have looked at every single word in the legislation, and I have seen the word “regional” mentioned only once, not in a context of anything else other than regional district.

So I’d be really interested if the minister could explain how the changes proposed here are, in fact, the implementation of the recommendation of Justice Oppal, which was to implement regional policing, which — I’m sure the minister would agree, or I would hope she would agree — I think has a much different connotation in the terms of Justice Oppal’s report and in terms of the public at large of British Columbia as to how they think of regional policing when they hear the term.

Hon. S. Anton: This legislation proposed in part 4 of the act is enabling legislation in response to issues which were raised in the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. The House will know that the failures in policing or the lack of coordination in policing was a theme running through the entire commission of inquiry.

One of the things that the commissioner urged upon
[ Page 5493 ]
government was to work on coordination of policing across jurisdictions, particularly around specialized services. The goal of this part 4 is to allow delivery of specific specialized services across jurisdictions. When I say “specific,” we’re not setting out any particular specialized services in the legislation, but it’s enabling the legislation to allow government and police departments to work together to create specialized services and government to require it if needed.

M. Farnworth: Justice Oppal did talk about the importance of coordination. But the recommendation was a specific recommendation, which was the creation of regional policing. There’s a lot more involved to that, and that has a much different connotation than saying “improving coordination” or “better coordination amongst specialized services.”

[1710]

I would ask the minister again how she squares that recommendation and the comments of Justice Oppal, which were very much around a regional police force as opposed to the enabling legislation that we’re seeing here today. I think they’re two quite different things.

People who have been involved in the issue outside this House have also made the point that this is not the same as the recommendation in Justice Oppal’s report. Again, I just would be interested in the minister’s comments in terms of why that is.

Hon. S. Anton: One of the statements made by Commissioner Oppal in the report of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry was this: “Without a doubt, one of the critical police failures in the missing-women investigations was the failure to address cross-jurisdictional issues and the ineffective coordination between police forces and agencies.”

There’s no question that both in the response to the missing-persons reports that were received by police departments over the years and the lack of action on those reports and then, during the crisis — I think that’s probably not a bad way of describing it — in the Downtown Eastside, when many women were missing and, in fact, were murdered, the failure of police agencies to communicate particularly well with each other led to some real delays.

It is those critical police failures that Commissioner Oppal was referring to, failure to address cross-jurisdictional issues and ineffective coordination. That is the goal of these amendments.

M. Farnworth: As I said, I agree that Justice Oppal did talk about and was concerned about lack of coordination. I don’t have a problem with that. I just want to make it clear that if that’s what this legislation is doing, that’s one thing.

But what it is not doing is establishing a regional police force. It is not the recommendation of regional policing or a regional police force as in Justice Oppal’s report. I just want to make that point clear, because I think it’s a valid public criticism that has been out there, that people who’ve been reviewing the legislation have been making. I think it’s a valid point.

One of the key, I think, issues that we’ll be exploring in this during the discussion in committee stage is around what the minister has talked about, which is the issue of this being enabling legislation and the powers that it does give to the minister and the amount of change or what can be done through these amendments through regulation. I think it’s very important that we spend some time on that, which we will do.

But starting off, we’re still at the beginning in terms of the definitions. They are pretty straightforward — specialized service, specialized service agreement, specialized service area, specialized service provider, specialized support service. But they’re all specified by regulation.

When it comes to specialized service, can the minister outline what the current definition in terms of “specialized service” is? What are currently classed as specialized services, and does she see any additional specialized services being captured by this definition or potentially coming into creation with the adoption of these sections?

[1715]

Hon. S. Anton: We do have integrated teams at the moment — a fairly extensive set of integrated teams. These teams may be specialized through their knowledge, through their skills, through their equipment.

In answer to the direct question — is there a definition of “specialized” in the act at the moment? — no, this is new, this definition of “specialized service”. We have kind of traditional policing — murder investigations, which are done through IHIT — and we have evolving policing, as crime evolves. For example, there may be Internet crime which needs a specialized form of technical support.

To be clear, the specialization in the proposed amendments…. There’s a list, without limitation, of some that may be provided in section 4.02(3), which includes criminal investigation services, traffic enforcement services, and support services for policing and law enforcement, including police communication services and forensic services.” Those are the kinds of specialized units that could be addressed through this.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for her answer. So the definition of “specialized service” would apply to the ones that are traditionally out there. It’s the ones that the minister has enumerated, such as IHIT, for example. ISPOT would be another one. The integrated traffic units would be another one.

She mentioned around the Internet. Are there areas that are evolving, that are not yet, perhaps, well known
[ Page 5494 ]
amongst the public and that are being considered or are looking at being created, in addition to the ones that are currently operating and functioning?

Hon. S. Anton: The member is correct that there are the traditional ones — IHIT; ISPOT is a newer one; traffic — but there’s no question that these specialized units, the teams, may come and may go, too, depending on the needs of policing at the time.

[1720]

So in answer: are there some specific ones that are being considered? I will tell you that I don’t have any right here on my desk, but it may be that the police have them, because they do develop their abilities and their teams in response to the challenges that they currently face at any one time.

M. Farnworth: The reason I asked the question is…. I mean, yes, there are issues being raised by local government around this particular piece of legislation, and there are the traditional teams, specialized services, that we know are in place, and municipalities are familiar with them.

One of the concerns that municipalities have in terms of this legislation and its potential impact on them is on how they go about doing their particular policing, particularly the independent forces, but also on issues around costs and concerns like that. If there are additional ones being considered or aware of, I think that’s something that I was looking for the minister to elaborate on.

I do understand that policing is an evolving issue, that there are things that come up, and Internet crime is a focus more today than, let’s say, it was ten or 15 years ago. But I ask them in that context because those are, I think, some legitimate concerns that local government does have.

That’s why I was wondering, in terms of when it comes to the definitions: what is the thinking of the ministry? Is it just the traditional ones, or are there additional ones that they’re aware are becoming more high profile than they have been in the past? That’s why I was asking the question, with that regard.

In terms of the rest of the definitions, I think they’re pretty straightforward. I know my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville has a question around, I think, specialized service area, and I’ll yield the floor to her at this point.

S. Robinson: I do have a question for the minister regarding the specialized service area. I understand from the definition that it’s to be defined geographically in some context. I’d like to understand how that determination will be made and who will be making that determination about what the area will consist of.

Hon. S. Anton: The service area would really be defined at the time of the forming of the specialized service, defined by what the problem is that is being solved and what area it needs to be solved in. I’ll give the member an example. On southern Vancouver Island there was a regional crime unit which was developed by regional police agencies, and it was to deal with property crime on southern Vancouver Island. There was indeed a defined area at that time.

The integrated units that we have — some of them are provincial, some of them are restricted to certain areas. As I said, it depends on the problem being addressed.

[1725]

S. Robinson: I thank the minister for her response. While I appreciate that, depending on the type of issue that’s going on in the communities, that would help to make some sort of determination, who or what process will be used in order to define the specialized area?

Hon. S. Anton: A specialized service comes by way of a specialized service agreement. And the agreement itself…. I’m looking at subsection 4.02(3)(c), where it talks about the specification of the area in which there are “the municipalities, regional districts, electoral areas or other geographical areas within which the services are to be delivered.”

S. Robinson: I did read that. I guess what I’m just trying to understand is: who will decide which municipalities or areas will be participating in this service area?

For example, I think about the Lower Mainland, and there are particular issues, for example, in the Fraser Valley. It’s not really quite clear. Would that include the Tri-Cities, for example, or would that be further out in the valley? How would that…? Or would it be sort of completely regionwide? I’m just trying to understand where there will be….

There has to be a boundary made, I would imagine, and somebody would have to make a determination about the boundary. I’m trying to understand: who would make that determination and based on what criteria?

[1730]

Hon. S. Anton: The boundaries, as I said earlier, will be created by way of the agreement, and they will be the boundaries which make sense for the issue or the problem that the specialized service is being formed to deal with.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

M. Farnworth: In regard to the issues around the specialized service area, that’s something that we will be canvassing further in some of the other sections, particu-
[ Page 5495 ]
larly section 9 and section 10, which are sections which give significant power to the minister to make all kinds of determinations by regulation. There’s considerable interest around that.

“Section 4 is amended (a) by repealing subsection (1) and substituting the following: (1) Despite section 3, on the recommendation of the minister, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations to enhance, provide or reorganize policing and law enforcement in any or all areas of British Columbia, including, without limitation, in any or all municipalities to which section 3 (2) applies., and (b) in subsection (2) by striking out ‘Costs incurred by the government under subsection (1) (a)’ and substituting ‘Costs incurred by the government under subsection (1) of this section in respect of a municipality to which section 3 (2) applies’.”

There will be two parts to my thing. We’ll deal with the (a).

What is the rationale for repealing the subsection, and how is it different from the existing section that’s there? What is this designed to accomplish that the current section is not able to accomplish?

Hon. S. Anton: Overall, the authority being granted in the section is essentially the same. However, because we were making some changes to the act, it was thought wise to update this particular section so as to clarify and simplify it to align with what we do in modern policing. It’s to align the section with the realities of modern policing and also to complement what we’re doing in the rest of the proposed changes.

M. Farnworth: I am intrigued by the use of the minister’s term “the realities of modern policing” as opposed to the…. Could she give me some examples of where the existing section doesn’t meet the needs of the realities of modern policing?

[1735]

Hon. S. Anton: We’ve added the word “enhance,” which is added to support the changes with regard to the specialized police services which are proposed in the upcoming section. It’s a reflection of the fact that crime, I guess traditionally, would be more based in a neighbourhood or a city. But now, with crime that police forces are dealing with these days, crime doesn’t know boundaries — and new modern crimes in particular. If you think about Internet crimes or things that are going on in social media, those, of course, know no boundaries at all.

So the word “enhance” really is to enhance the section to conform with what we are proposing in the following section.

M. Farnworth: We will come back to this, and I will have some more questions on this, but I do know that a couple of my colleagues…. The member for Delta South has a quick question, and then another colleague also had a question. I will be happy to yield the floor to the member for Delta South at this particular point.

V. Huntington: I thank the hon. House Leader for giving me this moment.

I’m just wondering if the minister can tell us why this is the only section in the act that doesn’t specify “specialized” policing and law enforcement. By omitting that word, it opens up the language to enhancing, providing or reorganizing police and law enforcement. I wondered if she could explain why this section is much broader than all the others.

Hon. S. Anton: To be clear, the section as it exists right now does talk about “provide or reorganize the policing and law enforcement” in a municipality or in an area or region of British Columbia. So the authority, I think, that is being questioned here is an authority which is already existing in the current section 4.

M. Farnworth: I believe another colleague, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, also has a question.

R. Sultan: I appreciate my opposing member’s generosity in giving me time to raise what is perhaps more of an extended statement or an extended question bordering on a statement. But, noting the hour, I will at least get started on some topics and hope that the Attorney may consider them as embodying a series of issues that she may wish to respond to when I’ve completed.

To begin, I am rising to talk about Part 4, Justice Amendments of Bill 4, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. This is, in my opinion, very important legislation. I’m a little bit surprised to see it buried within a miscellaneous statutes bill.

The amendments propose to amend the Police Act in two important ways. Firstly, it will empower the minister to impose multi-jurisdictional task forces on our existing police organization and the means to pay for them.

[1740]

Secondly, it will confirm, clarify and emphasize the power of the minister to reorganize, redesign, reconfigure and reshape any or all of the police forces of the province in any manner she or he wishes to by order-in-council, through executive council, obviously, without resort to parliament, including, it is clear, the possibility of recreating a single provincial police force.

Now, I do not surmise that that, in fact, is the intent of the bill, but certainly the powers are embodied in the bill.

After many discussions with those engaged in policing, I’ve come to support the first part of the bill — the power to establish multi-jurisdictional specialist police units. On the second point, I regret the government felt it must re-emphasize its order-in-council powers to structure police services at the local levels as it sees fit, but I will not vote against that measure either.

Policing is no small matter. It ranks, in my opinion, right up there with health care and education. Issues of crime, public safety, the protection of property and poli-
[ Page 5496 ]
cing are foundational in government, one of the highest responsibilities which citizens bestow on their elected officials. The Police Act emphasizes that the Attorney General is responsible, and I know the Attorney feels these heavy responsibilities keenly. It’s a big burden to carry and a big responsibility.

Few would suggest, and certainly not myself, that the present organization structure of policing across the province is perfect. For example, we have one-third of our entire national police force, the RCMP, ultimately commanded from Ottawa, about 4,000 kilometres away, but working right here in B.C., focused on everything from ISIS national security threats to handing out tickets for infractions on Taylor Way in my riding in West Vancouver–Capilano.

To suggest such a sprawling set of duties may occasionally create police management issues is probably an understatement. But one thing we can say for sure, the RCMP is certainly integrated nationally, from the Pacific to the Arctic to the Atlantic. However, in this legislation British Columbia asserts and reminds us of its constitutional authority in this domain.

At the other management extreme, we have the spectacle of eight — count them, eight — separate police agencies spanning south Island, covering all of the ten or 15 kilometres from North Saanich to Oak Bay, chronically unable to cooperate, it seems, in the supreme challenge of rounding up street-level and property crime offenders who casually stroll across municipal boundaries.

Organizational absurdities notwithstanding, these various police forces are, at the end of the day, creatures or hirelings of the various municipalities and regions which pay for them. If the province seeks to wade into this tangle and impose some larger new organizational arrangement upon us, I strongly believe in the merits of debating that issue right here in this House, rather than resorting to the shortcut of order-in-council.

To be sure, at one level, the new amendments might seem to be very benign, if not trivial. The new law amends section 4 by repealing certain provisions and substituting other provisions, which I will not take your time to read. It has been argued and will be argued that it’s really just amounting to the same thing.

It seems to me the existing provisions of the Police Act, however, give the minister significant leeway to shift things around as she deems necessary right now. I believe in the old saying: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Or if it is deemed to require fixing, it prompts those of a skeptical mind to wonder why. What’s the flaw that we aren’t quite smart enough to see?

[1745]

I’d like to turn to the other section of the bill, with one eye on the clock. Perhaps I won’t get through my remarks — my extended question, Attorney — before we adjourn. It’s a part of the bill which I was initially very skeptical of, but as I talked to more professionals in the field, I have come to believe it is indeed important and necessary. I commend the various officials and the minister for bringing them forward.

I refer to the portion of the amendment to the Police Act giving the minister the authority when he or she judges it to be appropriate to unilaterally ensure specific specialized services are integrated across various agencies and coordinated across any area where they are needed.

In the proposed amendment the minister will also be empowered to specify the body which provides the specialized service, which might even be a ministry or a branch or agency of the government of British Columbia, including the provincial police force. That name keeps popping up kind of in a Freudian way. However, it’s already mentioned 42 times in the act, I’m told, so this is hardly an innovative idea.

In this regard, the proposed amendment empowers the minister to identify those areas in which specialized cross-municipality police services will operate and the manner in which costs will be calculated and allocated, including, it appears, the cost of any to be picked up by the government of British Columbia.

I must say it’s tempting to believe that this is a tantalizing hint that the province and our Minister of Finance are willing to start writing some big cheques to help municipal policing in this province. Knowing, in other contexts, the fiscal situation of the government, I would say, “fat chance,” but at least the potential is there. So there’s some hope that maybe dollars would flow in the future.

In the future in the adjudication of duties and costs, the minister is required to take into account all sorts of things, as one would hope the minister would — the complexity, the frequency, the equitable delivery of services, public input and so on. All of the conclusions will be published on a website no later than ten days after the new rules have been implemented — hardly a challenging deadline, it seems to me. So it’s a big hammer indeed.

Should, hon. Chair, you wish me to carry on for another five or ten minutes, I’m willing to do so, or else I would just reserve the right to pick up my remarks.

Interjection.

R. Sultan: Keep going? Five minutes. Okay, in five minutes let me tell you — talking to all of these cops, officials, mayors, ordinary folks — about what are some integrated units and identify six that I personally would strongly support, some already in existence.

First of all, intel IT. We have PRIME. It was introduced by this government several years ago. It’s now a model where people come from all over the world to understand how we manage to get an integrated police intelligence database going, and we have it. It should be extended. We should put some muscle in to make sure that everybody participates. That’s one.
[ Page 5497 ]

Two, crime lab. Anybody who watches the movies or the television programs knows what a crime lab is, and it’s only common sense that not every jurisdiction in this province attempts to maintain one of their own.

Homicide. A major homicide investigation can cost at least $1 million. As the experts told me, two or three homicides can virtually bankrupt a smaller community to the point where they may not even investigate it very thoroughly because they just don’t have any money. If they call upon Big Brother, the bigger city next door, and say, “Would you help out?” they say: “Well, why should we? We’ve got our own budget problems.” So homicide is a good case for having a further expansion of the existing integrated homicide team, IHIT, which is the largest homicide investigation unit in Canada already, responsible for 600 investigations.

Three more to go. Major fraud. Here you get into my turf: seniors. They’re being stolen from willy-nilly and to ask the average constable to figure out where Grandma Moses’s money went and how to get it back is an impossible consideration. It calls out for specialized service.

Internet crime, ranging from bullying to underage sexual solicitation. Police agencies are frequently overwhelmed by the scale and difficulty of making a case. Let’s do it cross-jurisdictionally.

[1750]

Finally, dispatch. I was surprised to read that many Lower Mainland communities are not yet participating in E-Comm, even though, with some skepticism on my part, West Vancouver joined a few years ago. It works like a charm. We should require compulsory participation in E-Comm.

These are six that I’ve chosen, not at random but as suggested to me, which makes good sense for what the Attorney is proposing. I think if it takes a bit of muscle to force the municipalities to ante up and help pay for it, so be it. I think it’s money well spent.

I could go on with further remarks, but noting the hour, could I suggest the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:51 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Cadieux moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday morning. Have a glorious weekend.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada