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)

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 18, Number 6

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

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2014

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1005]

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. McRae: Joining us in the House today is a very remarkable public servant. Jane Holland is the advocate for service quality at the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation and has served in this capacity for 17 years. I was informed this past summer that she’ll be leaving us. Jane is retiring in January.

As the advocate, Jane is the independent voice advocating for adults with developmental disabilities, transitioning youth with special needs, and their families. As the parent of a son with a developmental disability, Jane’s deep commitment to people with developmental disabilities is personal as well as professional. She’s been actively involved in the community living movement for many years, spending time with the Family Support Institute and the organization now known as Inclusion B.C.

She has extensive experience with our education system. Jane is a compassionate and respected advocate known for integrity and her unique ability to bring opposing parties together and working to get to yes.

In her spare time Jane runs marathons and recently completed the 2014 Tough Mudder endurance event at Whistler. She’s an amazing woman, and she will be missed. She’s joined today by her friend and also an employee from Social Development and Social Innovation, Paula Grant.

Would you please say hello to Paula Grant and wish Jane Holland a great retirement.

H. Bains: In the gallery there are many, many familiar faces of Pakistani-Canadian leaders. These are the people that actually make a huge difference in making our community proud. They are involved in many aspects of Canadian life. I know PCA members are here. Haroon Khan is here. There are a number of others, and if I name a few more, I think I’m going to miss a few.

I just want all of you to please join with me and welcome them to this great hall.

I say thank you very much for the work that you do in the community.

J. Yap: I’d also like to follow on that introduction by the member for Surrey-Newton. Two constituents of mine are in the gallery to be with us to view question period. They’re accompanying the delegation from the Pakistani-Canadian community. Please extend a warm welcome to my constituents Mahmood Awan and his wife, Mahmooda Awan. Would the House please join me in giving them a warm welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: One of the issues that we all experience here in the Legislature is that we often miss milestones for our family loved ones. I’d just like to send a very happy sweet 16 birthday to my baby, Zoey.

Happy birthday, Zoey.

R. Sultan: I would like to introduce three people this morning. Firstly, Kirstin Clausen, executive director of the Britannia Mine Museum; accompanied by Leonie Tomlinson, an executive vice-president of Hunter Dickinson mining company, one of British Columbia’s most successful international mining organizations, and chair of the Britannia Mine Museum; and Bob Dickinson, who’s a director of the Britannia Mine Museum and chair of Hunter Dickinson.

As the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky explained yesterday in his two-minute statement, the Britannia Mine Museum is one of our premiere educational assets explaining the importance of the resource industry to over 60,000 visitors a year — many, many of them youth and children.

Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Shin: I would also like to join the member for Surrey-Newton in welcoming our friends from Masjid al-Salaam and Education Centre along with the B.C. Muslim Association. This group has done wonders in Burnaby since 1998. The Burnaby Masjid, since its opening, has been the leader in establishing a new role for mosques in our lives.

[1010]

Not only does the Burnaby branch hold regular prayers in the mosque but Arabic lessons for children, adult education, public seminars for non-Muslims on Islam, lectures on health, movie screenings on Islam. They’re full of activities. They’re also serving the soup kitchens in our community.

I just want to again welcome the group here as well as the leaders that organized this, Farida Bano Ali and David Ali. Please welcome our group here.

Hon. T. Wat: It is also my pleasure to join all my colleagues in welcoming the Pakistani community to this House. His Excellency Mohammad Tariq, consul general for Pakistan; Mr. Haroon Khan, president of Pakistan Canada Association; and Mr. Farooq Rai, the former assistant deputy minister of multiculturalism, are accompanied by several members of the Pakistan Canada Association and representatives from the Pakistani-Canadian community.
[ Page 5558 ]

They are all here today to celebrate and recognize the 50-year anniversary of the founding of the oldest Pakistani-Canadian association and Al Jamia Masjid, the first mosque built in British Columbia. Would the House join me in welcoming them.

Hon. S. Thomson: I’d like the House to make welcome representatives from the B.C. Wildlife Federation who are in the gallery today: their president, George Wilson; vice-president, Jim Glaicar; and their director of operations, Cheryl Johnson. We’re pleased to have them here today through their executive and through fish and game clubs throughout the province. They’re great partners in wildlife and fisheries management and conservation throughout the province. I’d ask the House to make them welcome today.

Hon. B. Bennett: I’d also like to welcome George Wilson, the president of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, who happens to be a constituent and a good friend who is from Fernie. I thank the minister for introducing them formally.

It’s also my pleasure introduce Shirley Ottman from Niagara Falls, who is sitting up here in this part of the gallery; Dave Morningstar, also from Niagara Falls; and Leslie Symes. Many members will recognize Leslie. She’s the executive coordinator at the deputy minister’s office, for Energy and Mines, a great, great ministry. Plus she does a wonderful job trying to look after the elected people and the deputy minister and so forth.

Fourthly, with them — and the reason that Shirley, Dave and Leslie are here…. Butch Morningstar is here, Butch is the executive director on the business lead for Natural Resource permitting.

I wanted to just say a couple words about Butch. He’s a lifelong public servant — 30 years in the public service. He’s worked both out in the regions and in places like Smithers, and he’s also worked and currently works here in Victoria. He started out in B.C. with Forest Renewal. He’s worked with the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. He was involved in restoring capacity to the mines and mineral division of my ministry back in 2005 when I was Minister of State for Mining.

I’ve worked with Butch on numerous occasions, as have many people on this side of the House, and perhaps on the other side of the House as well. I want to, on behalf of everyone here, thank Butch for his service to the people of British Columbia over the years that he has served.

L. Krog: I want to advise the House that today is the birthday of the member for New Westminster. Modest as she is, she hasn’t revealed to me what milestone she’s celebrating. Not withstanding that she’s an ardent and strong feminist, let’s help her celebrate her Jack Benny birthday.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

NANAIMO COMMUNITY AND
CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS

L. Krog: All of us think we represent caring communities and believe it to be true, but I know I represent a caring community. Just last week we kicked off the Sally Ann kettle campaign with the Salvation Army, ably led by Dawne Anderson and Darcy Olsen, who were recruiting folks like crazy to get out there and help with the kettles and raise money for the poor and needy in our community.

[1015]

The week before that, the Tillicum Lelum Friendship Centre was out raising money again to help poor families in our community. All of these groups are working to make Nanaimo a better place.

Finally, there’s the Loaves and Fishes Food Bank. Just a couple of weeks ago it made a significant request to the city of Nanaimo for funds because the demand for their services has become so great that the existing facility, located at the aging, old Croatian Miners Hall, is no longer sufficient for them to meet the incredible needs in our community: 62,576 visits last year to the food bank. One out of every 13 people in this city requires assistance, a third of them children. So the food bank is asking for money from the city of Nanaimo in order to expand their premises.

These three organizations are just three of the organizations in my community that are doing good work. It is a particularly compelling thing at this time of year when those of us who enjoy the honour and benefit of seeking work and having work and being able to serve the people in this chamber need to be incredibly conscious of the benefits we have.

In contrast, the very day that the headline was “Food Bank Asks for Aid to Expand”, in a community in Florida a 90-year-old man was arrested for breaching a local bylaw because he was publicly feeding the homeless. I can say with confidence that in my community we care. Nanaimo is a caring community. I’m immensely proud of it.

FAMILY SERVICES OF THE NORTH SHORE
AND YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH

J. Thornthwaite: Mental health issues affect the lives of many British Columbian youth. Anxiety, eating disorders, depression, bullying and abuse impact every aspect of life and often prevent youth from reaching their full potential. Often stigmas that surround mental illness make it difficult to reach out for help.

Family Services of the North Shore is a non-profit community-based organization that is working hard to raise awareness of youth mental health issues. They offer
[ Page 5559 ]
education, support and counselling services and, for the past three years, have hosted a youth leadership advisory board for kids in grades 10 to 12.

The leadership advisory board welcomes 12 youth each year and runs from September to April. Participants are called mental health ambassadors. They learn about a variety of mental health topics from experts and use that knowledge to create and execute a variety of public service campaigns aimed at increasing mental health awareness in youth.

Since its inception, members of the advisory board have reached nearly 1,200 youth across the North Shore through in-class presentations and video and print campaigns. The aim of each campaign is to make youth more open to discussing mental health matters with friends and family and to build compassion for peers suffering from mental illness.

We must get rid of the stigma around youth mental health. Initiatives like this bring mental health issues to the forefront and provide a safe environment for those who are suffering to reach out.

Sometimes the hardest thing to ask is for help. But by educating youth to help youth and creating a welcoming and open setting, we can empower those who are suffering to take charge and to seek the help they need. I want to thank Family Services of the North Shore for helping this generation of youth connect to community, find help and heal.

BURNABY LOCAL HERO AWARDS

R. Chouhan: Without volunteers it’s almost impossible for any community to be strong, safe and productive. In Burnaby we are blessed with hundreds and hundreds of dedicated volunteers who work tirelessly helping people in Burnaby. They work as a bridge between cultures and faiths, raising money for mental health and community wellness or working on anti-bullying education initiatives.

Since 1997 the city of Burnaby has recognized 233 outstanding citizens for their outstanding contributions to the community. They are called local heroes. This year the Burnaby Local Hero Awards were presented to ten local heroes. They were Peggy Woodruff, for her more than 20 years of volunteer work and being the founding member of Burnaby Association for the South East Side, also known as BASES. Farida Bano Ali is here in the gallery today. She is a volunteer with the B.C. Muslim Association on numerous issues and a strong advocate of women’s rights.

[1020]

Flavia Crema is an active volunteer with the Burnaby Art Gallery for 19 years. Ernest Maitland is a champion of home library services. Ceilidh Millar, a BCIT student in 2009, started delivering her own anti-bullying education initiatives. Teresa Morton is a volunteer with the Canadian Mental Health Association. Susan Nugent is a longtime volunteer with Edmonds Community Centre, Burnaby Fall Prevention and Burnaby Hospice Society. Carol Rush — for more than 20 years she has volunteered at Burnaby Village Museum as a docent. Arlene Sawchuk was recognized for her countless volunteer hours with Burnaby citizens support services. Yun-ik Schallert, an active volunteer with the Burnaby-based Korean Senior Citizens Society and the Korea Veterans Association.

I congratulate all of these heroes.

TRAINING FOR LEGISLATORS

S. Sullivan: Alison Loat of the Samara institute recently published a book called Tragedy in the Commons. It is based on exit interviews with dozens of members of the Canadian House of Commons. She notes that in any Canadian election cycle there are 100,000 candidates for office and 25,000 legislators at the civic, provincial and federal levels.

The book identifies a classic job description of a legislator in the Westminster system of government. There are three: (1) to consider, refine and pass legislation; (2) to hold a government accountable for its administration of laws and authorize required funds; and (3) to determine the life of the government by providing and withholding support.

It also reviews the two different schools of thought on the role of representatives: the trustee model, where representatives are required to use their best judgment; and the delegate model, where the representatives follow the preference of their constituents. In the interviews, legislators expressed a great desire for training and knowledge on the various aspects of the role of legislators.

Prof. Max Cameron of the Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions at UBC has created the only course of its kind in the world. It is called the Summer Institute for Future Legislators. There are Saturday workshops in June and July and a week of a simulated legislature in August. Aspiring legislators learn about making laws, budgets, ethics, the challenges of juggling personal and family priorities, and they listen to a host of speakers — from people like Mike Harcourt, Preston Manning, Chuck Strahl and Anne McLellan.

All of us who know aspiring legislators should encourage them to look into this unique course. We should all be grateful to Prof. Max Cameron and his team for their efforts to make our democracy better.

RENEWAL OF PEACE TREATY BETWEEN
HAIDA AND HEILTSUK FIRST NATIONS

J. Rice: It was well over 100 years ago that the Haida First Nation paddled their canoes across Hecate Strait, down the coast of B.C. and into Bella Bella, where they captured Heiltsuk slaves and raided the village. This raid-
[ Page 5560 ]
ing and counter-raiding went on for some time until, at some point in the 1800s, a peace treaty was signed by Haida and Heiltsuk chiefs to put an end to this.

This September I was privileged to bear witness to a modern-day renewal of this peace treaty. I travelled on B.C. Ferries from Prince Rupert to Skidegate with 75 Heiltsuk who had just made the long journey north from Bella Bella. The ferry was filled with Heiltsuk of all ages, from babies to elders. Kids were out of school for this monumental event — although a few teens did tell me that they had to write papers about their experience to get out of class. The boat hummed of drumming and powerful voices. A sea of red regalia filled the passageways of the ship.

Heiltsuk Hereditary Chief Harvey Humchitt invited me to walk off the ferry with the Heiltsuk when we landed in Haida Gwaii. We were greeted by singing and drumming and welcoming Haida on the shores of Skidegate. It was a sight to be seen. The B.C. Ferries crew commented that they’d never participated in anything like this before. An exchange of singing and drumming echoed across the waters as we exited the ramp off the ferry and walked onto Haida territory.

The Haida welcomed us with open arms, and so began a weekend of feasting. A feast was held in Old Massett at the north end of the island, and renewal of this peace treaty was signed. The singing and dancing was incredible, and it went on forever. In fact, I have never seen stamina like I have seen with First Nations across this coast.

[1025]

Peter Lantin, president of the Haida Nation, described what this peace treaty was about — and something worth seeing across this province today. Peter says: “There’s this connotation that in B.C. everyone’s divided and there’s no unity in the province, and this is a way of showing that First Nations are coming together. It’s going to be a trend that you’re going to see more of.”

YALE COMMUNITY

L. Throness: There’s a special place in my riding that I like to visit, and that’s the historic gold rush town of Yale. Situated between high mountains, beside the mighty Fraser, this small place has a big heart and a lot to offer.

In September I attended the opening of a new rest stop there — thanks to our Minister of Transportation. After taking a break, travellers can visit half a dozen significant historical sites staffed by volunteers in period costume. There’s a popular roadside market open six months of the year, and the Yale ratepayers have taken over the former elementary school and made it into an excellent community centre.

I was amazed at the range of services offered at the centre, and not just to townspeople. Last winter there were 26 truckers and other travellers stranded in town due to bad weather, and the people of Yale took them in. They showed me where they store quilts and beds and generators and other things so they’ll be ready for any emergency.

I saw the thrift shop they maintain, the quilting parlour, the computers with free Internet for seniors and the commercially equipped kitchen. They offer regular foot care. They host Easter egg hunts, weddings, parties and funerals, and the new patio outside has a big barbecue with lots of picnic tables around, because their community celebrations are really remarkable.

This summer I had the privilege of attending a hillbilly hoedown there, along with a couple of hundred others. A broad mix of people attended — old and young, First Nations people and folks from as far away as Chilliwack and Lillooet, all there to enjoy the fine music and the great food served up by some 30 local volunteers led by Pam Worsfold and Gail Kerslake.

My mind was impressed by the efficient use of space in the centre and the number and quality of services they offer, but my heart was touched by the outstanding spirit and warmth they show for their community. Would the House join me in thanking and congratulating the Yale Ratepayers Association.

Oral Questions

REVIEW OF
HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION
INTO ALLEGED PRIVACY BREACH

J. Horgan: Things go from bad to worse for the Health Minister’s efforts to cover up the Premier’s office’s involvement in the firing of eight health researchers two years ago. According to a statement released just an hour ago by Graham Whitmarsh, the deputy minister in charge at the time of the wrongful dismissals, he has concluded that Ms. McNeil, the independent individual put in charge of the investigation, will not be able to produce an independent report.

To quote Mr. Whitmarsh, he says: “While Ms. McNeil may be independent, her review is not.” So as a result, he won’t participate. He’s entitled to not participate because when the terms of reference were put together and then revised, there was no ability for Ms. McNeil to compel testimony.

So my question to the Minister of Health is: how is it that we’re going to get to a truly independent and thorough and exhaustive review of the debacle of the firing of eight British Columbians if we can’t compel anyone to speak?

Hon. T. Lake: I think it’s important to remind the members opposite that the terms of reference, the appointment of Ms. McNeil, was done not by politicians but by the public service — the head of the public service.
[ Page 5561 ]
Ms. McNeil is doing her work. In three weeks she will present a report that will be delivered to the assistant Attorney General and made public.

I would encourage the opposition members to wait for the content of that report, and then all of us will have an ability to determine how comprehensive it is and if there are next steps that need to be followed. We look forward to that report on December 19.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: If I heard the minister correctly, he said that the head of the public service drafted the terms of reference. Well, the head of the public service was responsible for the firing of those individuals, in concert with the head of the public service agency. So how these individuals can draw up terms of reference and then declare it to be independent is a bit ludicrous.

[1030]

On October 7 the minister said that Ms. McNeil would have a broad mandate, and the Premier, the next day, said the following. It’s an unlikely quote, but it may well be the most we’ll get out of the Premier today.

“The investigator has full authority to speak with anyone she wants in government. I have directed all members of the government, and this certainly includes myself, to speak to her if requested. I have full confidence, as well, that people who once worked for government who no longer do will also make sure that they participate, cooperate and speak with her.”

Well, that will compel a lot of people to take the stand — if there’s an indemnity attached to it, perhaps. But Ms. McNeil doesn’t have an ability, unlike the Premier who can ask politely for people to participate…. Ms. McNeil does not have that ability. In fact, according to Mr. Whitmarsh, the government has not released to Ms. McNeil the so-called internal review done by the current deputy minister, Stephen Brown.

If I’m correct here, the government, the Premier, has said: “Well, it was Graham Whitmarsh that did all of this. We’ve done an internal review, but we’re not going to give that internal review to the person doing the public review before she concludes her work in three weeks’ time.”

We have a pretty bizarre situation. Again, my question to the minister is: like the review that was found to be wanting yesterday, how is it that this one will be any better?

Hon. T. Lake: Ms. McNeil is conducting her review. I know she is interviewing members of the public service. She has the ability, I understand, to ask questions of the current deputy minister and the work that he has been undertaking since June of 2013 when he was appointed.

Since he was appointed, he was directed to review the matters related to the privacy breach, to deal with the report from Deloitte that was commissioned by the ministry and also the Privacy Commissioner’s report, and to implement the recommendations. He’s been doing that. He has restored frozen contracts and also has addressed issues with some of the former ministry employees.

The deputy is cooperating with Ms. McNeil. I’m confident that Ms. McNeil will be able to glean as much information as she requires from the deputy minister.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: Independent, but not too independent. The man in the middle of the scandal, according to the Premier, has said: “Take a hike.” The individual, the prominent individual, Ms. McNeil, appointed to be as independent as she can be, has not yet interviewed the people involved in the firing. Those that were let go, those that were besmirched by the government, those that were alleged to be under RCMP investigation have not been talked to.

In fact, two years on, the government still hasn’t clarified that there was never an RCMP investigation. They just made it up.

My question, again, to the minister: if we have confidence that we can do do-overs on independent reviews, as the Minister of Finance suggested when it comes to the Minister of Advanced Education, how in the world are you going to look at Ms. Kayfish and all those individuals involved with a straight face when this sham is released on the 19th of December?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the member is appearing to know the intimate details of Ms. McNeil’s review. I think he’s making it up on the fly, to be honest. Ms. McNeil is conducting her review. She is interviewing people in government. We would say that it’s unfortunate if people outside of government choose not to be interviewed by Ms. McNeil, but that is the purview of Ms. McNeil.

Ms. McNeil is conducting an independent investigation. I don’t have any role to play in her review of the process that was followed. But I am looking forward to her report.

[1035]

I would caution the members opposite, who have been rushing to judgment on this issue. Let’s wait till we get the report on December 19 so that we understand the comprehensiveness and any limitations that Ms. McNeil may face.

A. Dix: Well, contrary to what the minister just said, Ms. Tarras said in an e-mail to Mr. Whitmarsh that her mandate was deliberately limited to identifying process improvements related to HR management across the public service. That is the only purpose of the review, and further, there’s no power to compel attendance and testimony.

Those decisions weren’t made by Ms. McNeil; they were made by this government intentionally to limit the review.
[ Page 5562 ]

On October 3 in a written statement put out under the minister’s name, it was stated that John Dyble directed Stephen Brown to do a review of the Health dismissals and that the review “finalized the investigation and initiated a process to address terminations of former ministry employees.”

Mr. Whitmarsh said this morning Ms. McNeil has not been provided a copy or access to the earlier review undertaken by Stephen Brown.

Today it appears from the minister’s response that the Brown review is not being shared with Ms. McNeil — this important review — because it simply doesn’t exist.

Now, it’s possible for both of these statements to be false. It’s possible for one of these statements to be false. What is impossible is for both of these statements to be true.

So which is it? Is the government deliberately withholding the Brown report from Ms. McNeil, as Mr. Whitmarsh said explicitly this morning? Or did they, in fact, mislead the public about the very existence of the Brown review at all?

Hon. T. Lake: The Deputy Minister of Health, Stephen Brown — again, as I mentioned earlier — was appointed in June of 2013 and has done a considerable amount of work to look back at the issue around the data investigation to put in place recommendations of the Deloitte report and also the Privacy Commissioner.

He went back and dealt with some of the former employees of the ministry and, in some situations, came to agreements with those employees.

I don’t talk to my deputy minister about Ms. McNeil and her work, because this is not driven by politicians. This is Ms. McNeil’s independent work, and I’m sure she will have the ability to sit down with the Deputy Minister of Health and ask him all the questions that she would like to ask him about the work that he has conducted over the last 18 months.

Madame Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: The Premier said they were going to get to the bottom of it with this review. Ms. Tarras says the review is about “identifying process improvements.” The Premier and the minister said they were going to hear from everyone. There was no need to compel witnesses. We asked them in the House, hon. Speaker. “There’s no need to compel witnesses.”

Now, Mr. Whitmarsh isn’t participating, and they haven’t set up interviews with any of the individuals who were wrongly dismissed. That is a fact.

The minister said that all the documents would be shared, and now we hear from Mr. Whitmarsh that they’re not being shared. The minister and the Premier pointed to Mr. Whitmarsh, and they said, “He’s responsible” — when it turns out Mr. Dyble was involved, the Minister of Finance was involved, Ms. Mentzelopoulos was involved.

The senior people around the Premier were directly involved in these firings. That is why we require an independent investigation. That is why Ms. McNeil, or whoever does the investigation, has to have the right and the opportunity to compel witnesses.

Will the government set up an independent inquiry under the Public Inquiry Act today to actually get to the bottom of this issue?

[1040]

Hon. T. Lake: I want to just clear up a couple of things that the member opposite said in misleading the House. He said that they have not set up interviews, indicating that government was setting up interviews.

This is an independent process by Ms. McNeil. We don’t set up interviews.

He also said that the Premier and I….

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

Hon. T. Lake: Madame Speaker, the member opposite also said that the Premier and I had pointed to a particular person that used to work for government. Neither one of us has assigned blame in this situation. That’s why we are having an independent investigation going on.

Now, I get the fact that the members opposite have not worked with the members of the dedicated public service for a very long time, but it gives them no right to assassinate characters in the public service, to impugn the reputation of people that have given their hard-working careers to the people of British Columbia. I find it abhorrent that the member opposite would impugn the characters of the members of the public service who work so hard for the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members. Hon. Members, the Chair will hear the answer and the question.

B.C. CANCER AGENCY AND
CANCER TREATMENT WAIT-LISTS

J. Darcy: The last time we raised serious concerns about deteriorating conditions at the B.C. Cancer Agency, concerns raised by the agency’s own dedicated and hard-working doctors, the minister refused to answer questions from this side of the House.

Now, in addition to overwhelming workloads and plummeting morale at the B.C. Cancer Agency, we see from an unpublished internal document that wait times for cancer patients are also suffering as a result of this government’s neglect. In fact, the wait times to see a cancer specialist have steadily worsened over the last decade, and wait times for treatment are now worse than that in
[ Page 5563 ]
several other provinces in this country.

Will the minister finally address the dysfunction at the B.C. Cancer Agency and the threat that it poses to patient care by agreeing today to an independent external review of the B.C. Cancer Agency?

Hon. T. Lake: I have stood in the House and spoken about this issue previously. B.C. Cancer Agency is a world-renowned organization, and that’s reflected in the great outcomes that we have here in British Columbia when it comes to diagnosing and treating cancer. But there’s no question that as the population ages, the incidence of cancer increases because people are living longer. The prevalence increases because more people are living with cancer successfully today than ever before.

All jurisdictions, including the National Health Service, which is held up often by the members opposite as a superior health care system, are struggling with the increased incidence and prevalence of cancer. But I’ll tell you this. We are dedicated to working with the Provincial Health Services Authority and the B.C. Cancer Agency to make sure this organization remains one of the world’s leading cancer organizations.

Madame Speaker: The Member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: Well, the Minister of Health can keep repeating platitudes in this House that he thinks British Columbians want to hear, but he can’t avoid responsibility for what should be his number one priority, and that’s saving the lives of British Columbians.

I don’t want to go into statistics after statistics, but I would ask the minister to take a look at…. Yes, incident rates for cancer are lower in British Columbia than elsewhere in the country, but frankly, our survival rates are starting to fall behind other provinces. Those facts are stubborn things, and the minister ought to start looking at the facts and not keep mouthing platitudes in this House.

[1045]

Since 2005 patients have been waiting longer every year for referrals to radiation and chemotherapy, and the fact is that almost 25 percent of patients waited double the recommended wait time to see a cancer specialist. That’s not acceptable, and the minister should stop behaving like it is.

Madame Speaker: Question.

J. Darcy: Again, will he today order an external review to look at the agencies identified by the Cancer Agency’s own dedicated specialists and researchers so that we can get to the bottom of this and so that they can get on with doing what they do best, which is saving lives of British Columbians? Will he order an external independent review today?

Hon. T. Lake: The Provincial Health Services Authority and the B.C. Cancer Agency have been actively working and engaging physicians over the last few months to address wait times and to improve the care they provide to patients.

Some of the short-term actions that B.C. Cancer has taken are adding additional locum oncologists in every cancer centre in the province, adding extra chemotherapy capacity to increase access to several cancer centres across the province, adding additional PET scanning capacity and beginning pilot projects using nurse practitioners. They established a workload committee in July which included cancer oncologists.

There’s a lot of work going on and will continue to go on to make sure that we address the growing tide of cancer as the population lives longer.

It’s pretty rich for the members opposite to talk about caring for people with cancer when they talked about building a cancer centre for ten years and did not do it. We’ve built cancer centres in Abbotsford and in Prince George so that people throughout British Columbia have access to the cutting-edge cancer therapy that they require.

JUMBO GLACIER RESORT PROPOSAL
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
AND SITING OF LODGE

N. Macdonald: Three weeks ago we learned that the developers of Jumbo Glacier Resort poured the slab for the day lodge in a class 4 avalanche zone. Now, according to a report prepared for the Ktunaxa Nation Council, we learned that the developers aren’t building the day lodge where government said they could.

The expert witness report written by Cal Meiklejohn Architects concluded: “…we believe that the day lodge building is not located within the boundaries of the land tenure that has been granted.”

To the member for Kootenay East, who is the minister that has been pushing this for his friends against the wishes of locals for years, the question is: how is it that a slab of concrete outside of the boundaries of the permit area constitutes the substantial start of a billion-dollar project?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ll take the question on notice for the Minister of Environment.

GRANTING OF INDEMNITIES IN
MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY

L. Krog: Three weeks ago I asked the Justice Minister whether she could tell the House the names of the two individuals the government granted indemnities to in relation to their involvement in the quick-win scandal. Can the Minister of Justice tell us who government indemnified, whether they are in still in the employ of government and what proceeding, civil or criminal, they were indemnified against?
[ Page 5564 ]

Hon. S. Anton: The system of indemnities that we have in government has been in place for some decades now. It is used for senior civil servants to help them in legal issues that arise during the course of their employment. I know members opposite will be very familiar with the system, because I believe some of them have availed themselves of it.

The indemnities are reviewed in the level of the senior public service. They are not political. They do not come to me personally, as Justice Minister.

[1050]

And there is a matter of privacy around them. Insofar as they can be reported, they are reported. But there are privacy issues around them, and we abide with the rules of the privacy issues and report the amounts and the cause when the time comes.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo on a supplemental.

L. Krog: Well, the Justice Minister well knows that staff routinely prepare briefing notes on controversial indemnities that are tabled in the Legislature. For example, the briefing note staff prepared for the 2010-11 fiscal year outlined the indemnities provided to Paul Taylor, Gary Collins and the Premier.

The Attorney General has had three weeks, and still no answers. It’s a safe bet that there is a briefing note explaining who government indemnified in the quick-win scandal. Only two explanations are possible: the minister is unable or she is unwilling to find the note. Simple question: which is it?

Hon. S. Anton: As I mentioned a moment ago, there is a process in place for indemnities. It’s not a political process. There has been a policy in place for well over 20 years now, and in fact, as I said, some of the members opposite will be very familiar with it.

The process was reviewed by Professor Toope recently. We accepted all of his recommendations. We enacted new regulations. It is a very robust process, and it is in place to protect senior public servants who encounter legal issues during the course of their employment. It is a proper thing for governments to do.

As I said, it’s been reviewed. Government followed the recommendations of Professor Toope. It is a good process. Insofar as pieces of that process are made public and the results of it are made public, that is done.

JUMBO GLACIER RESORT
MUNICIPALITY AND FUNDING

M. Mungall: We just heard how the story of Jumbo keeps getting more ridiculous. Not only is this concrete slab in an avalanche path, but now it’s not even in the tenure in which the proponent is supposed to be building things. But it doesn’t end there. The Liberals keep this fake town going with $200,000 a year for its appointed mayor and two councillors.

Last spring the government for no one….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Excuse me, Member.

Members.

The Minister of Energy and Mines will come to order.

Please continue.

M. Mungall: I appreciate that the minister gets riled up when we talk about this issue.

Last spring the government for no one wanted to give $180,000 of the $200,000 that they got from this government…. They wanted to give it back. They didn’t need it — I’m guessing for obvious reasons.

So to the minister for local government….

Oh, pardon me, Madame Speaker. I forgot to mention that the Liberals’ response to being offered to get this money back was to say to Jumbo: “Nope, keep the money.” No citizens, no roads, no people, but keep the money.

To the minister for local government: why are you forcing money onto a town of no one, no roads, no nothing, when other things are needing this money in the region?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I know that we canvassed this question last year in estimates, and it was very clear that if you go back on record, the questions that came forward are certainly misleading from what you’ve presented today.

If I may take a moment to talk about the importance of planning with local governments. Last week we celebrated a significant day in British Columbia. November 19 was the birth of British Columbia.

Let us remind us. If we look back at the history of British Columbia, when we had communities without oversight, without official community plans, you had communities like Barkerville that came up, sprung up, communities that didn’t have the official plans. They didn’t have the proper pieces in place to ensure the safety of the public.

Then you move forward and you look at communities such as Kitimat, industrial communities that had really strong planning processes in place, strong official community plans, strong official oversight by communities. Then you look at the modern day with the Community Charter.

[1055]

The members opposite — and there are so many people who have local government experience…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.
[ Page 5565 ]

Hon. C. Oakes: …on that side of the House — should well know that within the Community Charter there are specific requirements to build communities such as official community plans, ensuring that the pieces in place are there for the public around safety.

Again, I would remind the members opposite to look at what you asked during estimates of last year. We canvassed this very much, and again, as British Columbians, we should be proud of our communities.

Madame Speaker: Member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: Yes, back on topic.

Jumbo was given $200,000 by this government, and they didn’t even need it all. They tried to give it back. We have it in writing. They sent an e-mail, saying: “Please, take this $180,000 back.” And this government said: “No, keep the money for your fake town.” That’s what they said.

There’s nothing even in this fake town. There’s no need for an official community plan, because there’s only a concrete slab in an avalanche path.

This government has said no money for Invermere Community Hall, no money for the Nelson and District Art Council, and, worst of all, no money for survivors of the Johnsons Landing mudslide, but money for this fake town that has no people, no elections, no nothing.

When is this government going to end the Jumbo farce?

Hon. C. Oakes: To the member opposite, thank you very much for your question. But, hon. Speaker, I would remind the member opposite, and maybe canvass some of the history of what has happened in the past…. I have letters back from 1993 with former Premier Mike Harcourt. Oh, and then 1995 — we have former Premier Glen Clark, who supports the notion of building economic development in communities.

We believe in tourism. We believe in resource development. We believe in supporting economic development in the province of British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

A. Weaver: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Weaver: I would like to take this time to introduce a remarkable group of students from Mount Douglas High School — their leadership program. They joined us through question period up behind me. They’re here with their teacher, Derek Horton and a grade 12 student, one of their leadership stars, Lizzie Bomford.

Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Fleming: I seek leave to make an introduction as well.

Leave granted.

R. Fleming: I would ask the House to make welcome a group of 22 grade 5 students from St. Patrick’s Catholic school from my constituency in Victoria–Swan Lake. They’re here with their teacher, Miss Wendy Currie.

They’ve just been through question period as well and hopefully enjoyed themselves. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

M. Mungall: Madame Speaker, I’d like to reserve my right on a point of personal privilege regarding the comments made by the member from Kootenay East.

Hon. C. Oakes: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to table a report.

Leave granted.

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. Oakes: I’m pleased to present the B.C. Arts Council annual report for 2013-2014.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, continued committee stage debate on Bill 4.

[1100]

Committee of the Whole House

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

(continued)

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

The committee met at 11:03 a.m.

On section 8 (continued).

M. Farnworth: Yesterday, when we left off, we had a discussion around Delta and whether or not they were exempt or whether the views of the mayor of Delta…. I know that the minister provided some clarification, and I’m quite sure that the mayor of Delta took great interest in her comments. I asked some questions around Vancouver, related to their concerns that Chief Chu, I know, has communicated to the minister.

Before we move off this section, because there are other
[ Page 5566 ]
sections, I’d like to ask the minister her thinking in terms of this section, because it, again, also gives considerable power. When the minister talks about specialized services and regionalization…. This is, apparently, out of the Oppal report.

[1105]

What are the minister’s thoughts, then, in terms of specialized teams? Is it going to be participating in RCMP teams — for example, those who are not…? Let’s take Delta, for example, or Port Moody or New West. If the minister were to decide and use the powers under this act that they would be participating in these specialized teams, would they be participating under the RCMP specialized team units? Or would she, for example, put them under Vancouver, which also has specialized teams? Has she got any thoughts around that?

Hon. S. Anton: I think we are getting into the next sections. Section 4 is not much changed from what it was, except for the two changes that we discussed yesterday. However, I will say again as a general comment…. I think that’s what the member is asking. Let me give a couple of examples.

There’s the example of PRIME, which is the police information services. A few years ago the Police Act was actually amended to accommodate PRIME. If this had been in place at that time we might well have used this, rather than an amendment to the Police Act. PRIME came up as a recommendation from the B.C. chiefs of police. They wanted an information-sharing system around British Columbia.

PRIME, as the member may know, now gives police in British Columbia access to more information than other police services, any police services, across North America. It is a system which is used in the whole province. Every detachment uses it, and every police officer in his or her vehicle has access to PRIME, as they do at they desks. It’s a provincewide system that everyone pays for. That’s a big system for the whole province.

Alternatively, as a specialized service, there might be a small system. There might be a domestic violence unit, for instance, over a number of municipalities. There are different ways that these specialized services can be used.

[1110]

M. Farnworth: That wasn’t the question that I asked. I understand what the minister is saying around PRIME. I think the issue here — and it doesn’t matter whether it’s in section 8 or 9 or 10 — is that there are a number of municipalities who have been asking questions in terms of: is the minister going to force integration on specialized services over their wishes?

Yesterday we heard that, in fact, all municipalities are covered, that there is no special exemption — despite what some of them may think, that they won’t be forced. Despite what some of them may think, those powers are here in the particular piece of legislation.

The question I’m trying to get at is: in the minister’s thinking, in terms of creating specialized service areas or specialized service units…? Vancouver, for example, has specialized teams. Victoria has specialized teams as well. Those municipalities that are not participating — does the minister see them…? If the government were to say, “No, you are going to participate,” do they participate solely with the RCMP ones, or does the minister see that they could also be put in with Vancouver, for example, or Victoria?

Hon. S. Anton: As I mentioned yesterday, the proposed legislation is enabling legislation. It is needs-driven. I think the member is asking: could it be an RCMP that provided the service? Could it be a municipal force? The answer is all of the above, and we’ll get into that in the next section when we discuss what the service provider looks like.

Let me give an example. Let’s go back to PRIME for a moment. In PRIME the service provider was in fact a new corporation that was set up to deliver the service. So depending on the need and the specialized service contemplated, the service provider may be a variety of things. It may operate over a variety of jurisdictions — including, yes, both municipal and RCMP jurisdictions.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

M. Farnworth: Hopefully, we’ll get more answers here than we’ve had so far.

Section 9 puts out the regulations respecting specialized policing and law enforcement. This is considerable, 4.01 through 4.05. The best way to put it is they give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council broad powers to bring in regulations.

[1115]

As the minister likes to say, this is enabling legislation. As I said yesterday, the thing about enabling legislation is it allows you to do things. And particularly, when it’s done by regulation, that means you don’t have to come back to this chamber.

You don’t have to actually be upfront with people what it is you want to do, because you decide in cabinet what you’re going to do. That’s where the regulations are done, and there’s no opportunity for scrutiny. There’s no opportunity to answer the questions or to see the questions answered that the member for West Vancouver–Capilano asked yesterday in terms of how these are going to take place.

What I want to make sure that we get on the record here is a thorough understanding of how the government intends to use these very substantial powers it is giving itself to make changes to policing in British Columbia behind closed doors. At the end of the day, that’s where those….
[ Page 5567 ]

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I’m sorry. You’ve been here long enough to know that changes….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I’m looking right, through the Chair, hon. Member…. If we want to get that way, you can heckle from your own seat.

The point is that regulation is done in cabinet. It’s not done in this chamber. It’s not subject to debate in this chamber. The member knows that.

The question that I’d like for the minister to answer is: how are these regulations going to be developed? What kinds of consultation processes are going to be put in place? What we’ve seen today is confusion or concern amongst a number of municipalities in terms of the scope of this legislation and the changes and the impacts that it could have on their own policing services.

Some of those changes have been voiced outside by elected officials in this House. Some have been voiced by elected officials in the member’s own caucus. If the minister could outline the processes and how this is going to take place, that would be great.

Hon. S. Anton: The minister may recommend that cabinet make the regulations “if (a) the minister considers that the regulations are necessary (i) to address the frequency or complexity of criminal activities or investigations, or (ii) to promote efficient or equitable delivery of policing and law enforcement services.” That’s the test for taking something to cabinet.

[1120]

Long before you got to that spot, we have an extensive history and practice and longtime work together between police services and municipalities. That will not stop. There are extensive consultations.

There are ongoing consultations on the structure and funding of policing, which is an ongoing piece of engagement between government and municipalities and the UBCM. There is no question that there would be extensive consultation before some form of specialized services — whether it be provincewide or a more localized, specialized service — was implemented.

M. Farnworth: I’m glad to hear the minister say that there will be consultations. Does the minister have any sense of what form of those consultations will take place? For example, does she see, when making changes to communities — such as, let’s say, Port Moody or New Westminster or Vancouver or Delta — that there would be public consultation, that the public would be involved, not just municipal councils or police boards? Would there be opportunity for a public consultation in terms of changes that the minister would be contemplating?

Hon. S. Anton: The British Columbia Policing and Community Safety Plan, which was released in December of last year, was a plan built with extensive public consultation throughout British Columbia.

Theme 1 is called “Rational and Equitable,” where “Policing is structured, governed and funded in a rational and equitable manner.”

Action item 1:

“The Ministry of Justice will work in collaboration and consultation with local governments, other key stakeholders and a committee of external experts to: (a) define and clarify policing responsibilities at the federal, provincial and municipal government levels; (b) consider models of service delivery ranging from further integration to the regional delivery of services while retaining local community-focused policing; and (c) develop options for funding-financing models that reflect each level of government’s policing responsibility and distribute costs accordingly.”

That came out of a very robust consultation, and that is in the B.C. Policing and Community Safety Plan.

M. Farnworth: Again, though I understand what the minister is saying, I didn’t hear mention of the words “the public.” They are not a stakeholder; they are the public. It would be nice if there was recognition that the public has an interest, particularly in communities. Again, I used Delta for a reason. You have municipalities and local governments who have chosen a particular model of policing.

We know why this legislation is here. It’s because that is what the government believes that it needs to have powers — and I will be charitable here to the minister — to have regionalization, greater integration. So in order to do that, the government needs enabling powers to allow them to do what has not been accomplished to date.

[1125]

Otherwise, if the government was satisfied with the progress or the movements that have been made to date, we would not have this legislation and these changes here. That’s the very nature of the fact of it being enabling legislation — in particular, the powers that are given to it in later sections in this act.

Again, my question is: does the minister see a role for public input — not council, not “experts,” but public input — when changes are being made? It’s important, because at the end of the day it is homeowners in communities such as West Vancouver, such as Delta, such as Port Moody who are paying the bill. That’s the question I would like the minister to answer. Will there be opportunity for public input, and how would the minister see that taking place?

Hon. S. Anton: As I mentioned, in the policing plan there was extensive public consultation. We had round tables around British Columbia, about ten of them. The input we received from the public, also from surveys — 2,400 respondents to our surveys — developed the B.C. policing plan. The work here is in response partly to the plan and obviously to the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry recommendations.
[ Page 5568 ]

The question is: do we go out to the general public in every situation around policing? Well, we don’t go out to the general public, necessarily, but we certainly engage local governments. They do represent the public. We go to UBCM.

To go back to PRIME, for example, which was North America’s best police communication system, did we do a public consultation as to whether or not PRIME was a good idea? No.

[1130]

The consultation was with local governments and police departments, because they’re the ones who are intimately involved in the issue. It is their input, their advice, working with them, that allows us to create a system like we created with PRIME.

M. Farnworth: I know the minister likes to talk about PRIME and that PRIME is wonderful, and that’s all well and good. I know she wants to talk about round tables, and that’s all fine. That’s all well and good. That’s historical.

What I’m talking about…. All those things have taken place under the existing legislation. The changes in these particular amendments give the minister some significant powers to do things — enabling, as she says. That’s what I’m trying to get to the bottom of. So let’s look at those areas that…. The minister says: “We can’t go out and talk to the public on everything.” Okay. I’ll give the minister that.

Let’s go to — I keep coming back to it — the municipality of Delta, for example, or Port Moody. If the minister doesn’t want to talk about Delta, we can talk about Port Moody — but a municipality like that.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Well, Coquitlam already participates. Coquitlam already participates in the specialized teams.

The minister knows why this legislation is here. She wants to see….

Interjection.

The Chair: Let’s hear the question first.

M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Chair.

Minister, we understand that. Coquitlam participates. The legislation is here because there is a lack of integration — and that’s why it’s here — in some areas. The minister has said that. Some of those municipalities have voiced their concerns to the minister.

The question I would like answered and to get on the record…. It can be Port Moody or, let’s say, Delta, for example, and the government determines: “You know what? We think you need to be in this specialized service area.” Okay? The government thinks that you need to be in this specialized service area or in this specialized service team. So the question is: when you go out and you make those decisions and you talk with the council and talk with your experts, will you talk with the public in those affected areas? Will you talk with the public in those affected specialized areas that would be covered by the changes you want to make?

[1135]

Hon. S. Anton: This is legislation to allow the creation of specialized policing units. The member seems to wish to take it to an existing unit, namely IHIT. This legislation is much broader than IHIT.

It’s to allow specialized services around British Columbia as needed. It’s enabling legislation, so that those specialized policing services can be built as needed around British Columbia. They will depend on geography, depend on policing needs of the day. The consultation at the time will be with local councils, with UBCM, if needed.

At the end of the day, as minister, I am responsible for effective and adequate policing. It is for me to take the recommendations to cabinet as is appropriate with these specialized policing sections if they are passed. That does give me the ability to recommend services to cabinet which will serve and create adequate, effective policing around British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: I’m not referring to just IHIT. I’m talking about specialized teams. IHIT has been used in a couple of examples. The ability to create specialized teams is already in place. That already happens. I think the issue, and this is the question to the minister, is why the legislation is here.

They keep saying it’s enabling legislation. It is going to allow you to do things that you think should be taking place that haven’t been taking place. That is fine. If the minister would just say that, that would resolve an awful lot of questions. Because that’s what’s happening. You know that’s what’s happening, I know that’s what’s happening, and outside knows that that’s what’s happening. That’s fine.

You answered the question as well, I guess, which is no. The public is not going to be consulted in specific decisions. As the minister said, she will have the power to make those recommendations to cabinet, and the government will determine how those processes are in place or who is consulted and who is not consulted. That’s the path that the government wants to go.

Again, that’s the government’s prerogative, and the powers contained in this legislation are pretty extensive.

I know my colleague from Delta has some questions on this section, and then we will continue down the road.

Hon. S. Anton: I’d just like to reiterate that we have a long history of consultation with regard to policing in British Columbia. I do not see that changing. This legislation does not change that.
[ Page 5569 ]

M. Farnworth: You know, I get these messages because I asked a very direct question. I asked a very direct question. A municipality that is impacted by changes that the minister or the government wants to put in place — I asked, very simply, would there be public consultation, and I got this: “Well, we have the power.”

The answer the minister gave did not say yes. I’m interpreting the minister’s comments, and it is pretty clear, that the powers…. The government will decide how consultation will take place. The government will decide who it chooses to consult with, and there is no commitment — there’s no guarantee — that the public in an affected municipality, for example, will specifically be consulted.

The answer that I get when I’ve asked that was: “We have a great record on consultation.” Well, that’s not a specific commitment.

[1140]

V. Huntington: I’m concerned, personally, not so much with the issue of public consultation on an issue of specialized policing services, but I am extremely concerned about the issue of consultation with municipalities.

My concern is that the wording in the act does not indicate there will be consultation. It does not indicate there’s any exemption for any municipality or regional government, and it doesn’t indicate to a municipality’s satisfaction that the level of consultation will be to their agreement.

Given that the outside…. My own mayor is at least of the impression that this legislation will not be applicable to Delta, or that the minister, to quote the mayor’s words, “has no intent on using this legislation for Delta or the Lower Mainland,” is my understanding. I reiterate my concern that nowhere in the bill are these words or intent reflected at all.

I’m therefore proposing an amendment, Mr. Chair, that I’ve provided notice of to the minister and to the Opposition House Leader, and I’d like to move the amendment.

The amendment is:

[SECTION 9 (4.01), by adding the text shown as underlined:

(5) Any regulations made under section 4.01 shall not apply to a municipality without its prior written consent.]

The Chair: Member, can we have a copy, please.

On the amendment.

V. Huntington: As I mentioned, the amendment states: “Any regulations made under section 4.01 shall not apply to a municipality without its prior written consent.” Earlier this month the corporation of Delta unanimously passed a motion stating: “that Mayor Lois Jackson advise the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General that the corporation of Delta does not support legislative changes that would compel municipal participation in integrated regional policing units such as the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team and that Delta council would like to retain its authority to decide whether or not to join integrated policing units to ensure public safety in Delta is not compromised.”

Mayor Jackson at the time said of integration: “It would cost us a great deal of money, and we are basically pretty happy with what we have here in Delta at the moment, given that we have such a low crime rate and we have a very effective, efficient policing force working for us.”

Council, in that report to council, was extremely concerned about the loss of local control and about the cost of being forced to join integrated units. The estimate in that report to join the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team was between $800,000 and $1 million a year. Now, that’s very, very difficult for a municipality like Delta to have to budget when you feel very strongly that your own forces are already in a voluntary commitment on many integrated teams and are already an extremely efficient police force.

On November 5 on CKNW, following a meeting with the minister, Mayor Jackson was quoted as saying: “That’s not the intention of the minister or any of her staff — of requiring any integration by Delta or anybody else in the Lower Mainland.” The problem is that we have no longer got that assurance from this minister.

In fact, we have the assurance that this act will apply to all municipalities and all regions of the province. So the comfort extended, I believe, by the minister to my own mayor is not apparent in reality.

If this bill isn’t meant to be the hammer that some of us are concerned it is, then it should, in my view, say so in this bill. It’s simple, as the proposed amendment makes it: add a subsection that says that a municipality’s written consent is required prior to integrating its services. That would alleviate all the concerns that have been expressed.

[1145]

The references to consultation and negotiation should be real and should give municipalities the comfort that they’re looking for.

The minister may respond that the ministry already has the power to reorganize the municipality’s policing and law enforcement under the existing section 4 of the bill. But section 4.01 has been added for a specific purpose. If the minister is telling the corporation of Delta and other municipalities that this section will not be used as a hammer, that Delta, for instance, will not be forced to join an integrated policing service, then there should be no problem, in my estimation, of requiring the municipality’s consent before the ministry makes regulations to force them to join.

I do look forward to the minister’s comments, and I hope she does give some serious consideration to amending the bill so that the municipalities in this province have the comfort they deserve.
[ Page 5570 ]

[1150]

Hon. S. Anton: Thank you to the member for Delta South. I do appreciate her bringing the concerns of her community, and indeed, I did meet with Mayor Lois Jackson on this issue.

I think what I would like to reiterate are comments I made at the time. There is nothing that would be done under this act without consultation with local municipalities and local police services. At the end of the day, though, the province is responsible. Crime knows no boundaries, and the province, through myself as minister, is responsible for adequate and effective policing in British Columbia.

I would observe that the report to Delta council acknowledged a similar principle when it agreed or concluded that mandatory participation in integrated police units should only be considered if there’s a public safety concern.

That’s not exactly the test we have set out in the act. It’s slightly different, but it reflects the same principle, which is that if there is a public safety concern, we do need to look at specialized services, integrated services across municipalities. That would never be done…. It will always be done with consultation.

I know that the municipal detachments are being singled out here, but I think we should not lose sight of the fact that it is taxpayers who are paying. Whether it be municipal departments or RCMP detachments, it is still, for the most part in British Columbia, local taxpayers who are paying, unless it’s a rural area which is more covered by the province.

As I said, I think that the principles set out in the Delta report are ones that are essentially what we are proposing here in terms of the specialized services.

V. Huntington: One of these issues in this act — for myself at least, and I’m responding specifically to the minister’s comments about the local taxpayers — is the fact that this act removes the accountability of the local taxpayer. The local taxpayer isn’t accountable and cannot punish, change, complain to the province; their role is to complain to their municipality. It is the municipal taxes that build the municipal police forces that build the specialized police forces.

By removing the ability of a municipality to consent or to agree with a reorganization of the policing in their area, they are removing the ability of a local taxpayer’s opportunity to hold decision-makers to account.

That is one of the issues that I think is a serious problem here. By permitting or mentioning some form of negotiation or consent, then you remove what I consider to be a problem for the administration of democracy and justice in this province. Some form of consent or approval should be required in order to maintain those links of accountability to the local taxpayer.

[1155]

Hon. S. Anton: Again, on the amendment and in response to the question, let me give the example of PRIME. PRIME is an advanced system of information-sharing which is the envy of North America. At the time it was controversial. There was not universal agreement. There was not written sign-off by every municipality in British Columbia. There was consultation and there was extensive work leading up to it, but at the end of the day it was through the Legislature, through government making the decision on it.

Again, this is the kind of specialized service that may well fit within the proposed amendments here. But the answer is there was not universal agreement, yet it is a universally admired system in policing due to the advanced information-sharing it provides to our police departments in British Columbia.

The Chair: Member, noting the hour, please.

V. Huntington: Yes, I’ll be quick. I won’t pursue the debate further, with the exception of saying my concern with this piece of legislation is not that this minister or her staff or this government would do something without negotiating. It’s the fact that she could. The language in this act enables this government, this minister, this cabinet to do whatever they want with police forces in this province. I object to that. I am trying to inject some level of consent, some level of accountability and some level of assurance that this act in the future could not be used improperly.

That’s what I’m trying to do with this amendment. I believe there is a fundamental loss of democratic accountability in this language. My attempt to amend the act is simply to put back that accountability in the language. I rest my case.

Hon. S. Anton: Noting the hour, I move that this committee rise and request leave to sit again.

The Chair: The committee on Bill 4 now stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:58 a.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 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.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