Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 4, Witness Security Act. In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family and, when that finishes, the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training estimates.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — WITNESS SECURITY ACT

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that Bill 4 now be read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, it’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 4, the Witness Security Act. This proposed legislation will provide an important tool to police and Crown as we work to address gang and gun violence in the province of British Columbia.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Based on 2017 numbers for Canada, British Columbia recorded the largest provincial increase and the highest proportion of gang-related homicides in 2017 and is the only province in which gang-related homicides represented a third or more of total homicides two years running — in 2016 and 2017. Such violence is used to establish and maintain drug supply chains. An increase in dial-a-dope operations also encourages the violence. Proactive and preventative approaches are needed.

Witness evidence is the key to obtaining successful convictions in criminal cases. This legislation is aimed at securing and retaining cooperating witnesses to provide essential evidence in order to support the prosecution of organized crime here in British Columbia. This legislation establishes the witness security program. The program will supplement the federal witness protection program. The Witness Security Act is modelled on legislation in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba but in many ways is a made-in-B.C. and cutting-edge approach.

[1:35 p.m.]

The legislation prioritizes not only the safety of the protected individual but also their health, which are vital to them attending and providing testimony at trial and helping to secure successful convictions. Successful prosecutions will send a message to those involved in organized crime that the province is taking firm action on gang violence and will increase overall public safety. The legislation empowers law enforcement agencies to apply to the program on behalf of a witness or a person associated with the witness, such as a family member who is also under threat. The program will be voluntary and require the cooperation of the participant. Participants may withdraw from the program at any time.

The legislation establishes a director of witness security within the provincial government who will receive applications to the program and complete an initial eligibility assessment. A law enforcement agency with expertise in witness protection will be designated to provide security and arrange for services to program participants. The director of witness security is empowered to seek information and require cooperation from public bodies and agencies within British Columbia in order to assess someone’s suitability for the program.

Sponsoring law enforcement agencies will provide the director with information on the individual’s legal obligations; medical records, including mental health; family circumstances and cultural support needs; and any other information the director requires to facilitate success in the program. In order to be eligible for the program, the witness’s testimony must be of a substantial value to a B.C. prosecution, and the individual’s health or security must be at risk in a way that is not being met through other means.

Once the director has determined that someone is eligible, they will refer the application to a committee of subject-matter experts. The committee chairperson will then convene a panel made up of three to five members from the committee to make the final decision on accepting someone into the program. Panels will ultimately determine eligibility for the program, duration of program participation and nature and scope of program services in a service plan, such as health and addictions support, temporary financial support and/or housing, assistance complying with legal obligations, transportation of people and possessions to and from a secure location and change of identity. A protected individual must sign a statement of obligations setting out the nature, scope and duration of the program services and any other conditions.

The director will have the authority to authorize temporary program services in urgent cases. This ensures flexibility and a quick response time that is lacking at the federal level. If an applicant is rejected, then the sponsoring law enforcement agency may apply for reconsideration or submit another application with new information. In order to ensure program entrance, the individual sponsoring law enforcement agency must enter into payment arrangements with a designated operational agency. The province may pay for program services for up to ten days in urgent cases while a payment arrangement is created to ensure that an individual is secure.

The panel may terminate a participant from the program or service plan when and how it may end. Former program participants may continue to receive some program services, such as transportation to and from a secure location, as necessary.

Confidentiality is essential to program effectiveness. The legislation provides for a comprehensive list of offences with significant penalties. A key example of an offence is the prohibition on improperly disclosing sensitive information pertaining to a protected individual. The penalties are high, as they are intended to have a significant deterrent value. They include up to $50,000 or two years in jail, or both, for individuals and up to $100,000 for corporations.

The Witness Security Act is exempt from disclosure of sensitive information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the public information disclosure act in order to ensure that the program participants are kept safe. The Witness Security Act should be seen as one of many tools that we are putting in place for the public safety sector to address gang violence.

[1:40 p.m.]

This piece of legislation will allow us to have a witness security act that is designed to meet the needs of this province, its unique circumstances, the ability to deal in a way that the federal legislation does not allow us to do. That is something that we have been lacking for some time.

It has been a priority for police agencies in this province. It is one that has been developed not only in consultation with police agencies but with agencies outside of government — judiciary, legal advice and experts. This is an important advancement to build on the work that has been done in previous years in terms of combating gang violence. That is why I’m pleased to have this legislation for the House, and I ask for its support from all members.

M. Morris: From the outset, as well, I just want to say that we do support this. There are some concerns that we’ll bring up in committee stage, as with any new legislation. But anything we can do to provide the tools and the support for our law enforcement officers, for our prosecution and for the judiciary in the prosecution of these criminals in British Columbia, I think we should be doing, and this is a step in the right direction.

I go back in time — a little bit of history, of course, from my previous life. Up until the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in British Columbia, the police had the ability to keep confidential the names of those vulnerable witnesses that would testify in support of gang activity or homicides or a myriad of criminal activity across the province here. Of course, with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the complexities of police changed. The increase in the resources required to investigate these offences changed and multiplied extensively.

The most significant piece of legislation that came along that affected disclosure and how we do business today was the Stinchcombe decision from the early ’90s — 1991, I believe. That’s a case that went to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada basically said that the collection of evidence is not for the prosecution of an individual — I’m paraphrasing here — but it is to ensure that justice is done. That opened up a wide variety of problems and issues for policing and for prosecution.

There were a number of cases that had to be stayed at that particular time — very serious cases, as well — because it would have revealed the names of informants and undercover operations and sources and agents and whatnot. The police forces right across Canada had to change how they did business as a result of that particular decision. As the cases progressed over the years, we have now morphed into the systems that we have here today.

It was also identified at that particular time that even if the information was relevant to the particular case, the judge also had the opportunity to determine whether or not the information was critical to the accused in his or her trial. So a lot of closed-door sessions would take place to determine whether or not the information from a source or an informant was critical to the case, and the judge would make a determination.

Sometimes the courts would make a determination, that: “Yes, police, you need to reveal your sources.” The various police departments across the country would pull the plug on the investigation and the prosecution because it would ultimately have meant a serious risk to the safety or life of some of the individuals that would be testifying on that particular case. So again, the world has morphed and proceeded, and the complexities of these cases have become so significant that we are now seeing cases that don’t meet charge approval.

We’ve seen evidence of that in this province and right across Canada. We’ve seen evidence where a case will go to court and, somewhere along the process, the investigation hit a road block or probably contravened some section of law or jurisprudence but is not identified until it goes through the actual trial process itself, and it’s pitched out. Again, we see that.

[1:45 p.m.]

I think this will help us get to the point where we have technically elegant prosecutions, where we have technically elegant investigations relying on the testimony of some of these witnesses that are in these very complex, complicated positions.

We talk about guns and gangs in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. It was a topic, of course, when I was sitting in the chair of the Solicitor General. You’re banging your head against the wall trying to find solutions to what we have out there and providing the police forces with the tools that they need.

One of the stats that I found very problematic when I was being debriefed on a number of these operations, and perhaps the minister’s received similar information…. The police force — the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit is one of them — would apply for a part 6 application. Part 6 is a privacy act application under the Criminal Code, where they work diligently to gather enough information to go before a justice and get the authority to put a wiretap on a phone. The police finally get this wiretap. That only comes after days and weeks and sometimes months of surveillance and solid on-the-ground police work to collect enough evidence to convince the judge that this part 6 application is a necessary tool that the police need.

So part 6 application is granted — you know, wiretap evidence. We have monitors monitoring these phones 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for as long as the investigation takes. During the course of listening to those lines, they will hear a contract being taken out on another target — another bad guy, another gang member. There’s a duty to disclose to that gang member, saying: “Your life is in imminent danger because of information that we’ve received. We can’t disclose where we got the information from, but your life is in imminent danger.” In one year, I think that happened well over 100 times.

You can tell the level of danger that our witnesses have out there in trying to even think about providing source information to an RCMP or to a police investigation. There may be individuals out there…. I know CFSEU and the police in Surrey and other areas have the gang exit strategy. They’ve got a number of things out there that they’re looking at to try and keep people out of gang activity or remove people from gang activity.

They’re under tremendous pressure from these thugs, from these people that take advantage of the vulnerable people. Most of these people get involved in that because they are vulnerable in the first place. The pressure that is on these people…. We do see a number of homicides that have been related to gang activity in British Columbia here. The pressure on them is enormous.

We do need a tool that we can act quickly, is nimble enough — and I think that this does approach that — in order to effectively remove these people from harm’s way and aid in their investigations. This bill before the House, I think, will move us in that direction, but coupled with that, though, are some concerns.

Up until this point in time in British Columbia, there’s been the federal witness protection program that’s been administered by the RCMP. I guess over the years…. I was introduced to it years ago when I was an operations officer. I oversaw a lot of the undercover operations and high-profile, sensitive investigations in my area of responsibility, and we did have to provide a new life for some individuals there.

The complexities associated with that, as a result of jurisprudence and policy changes and privacy act situations, caused an enormous burden on the administration of the witness protection program and magnified the costs of administering that program substantially. Of course, it slows down. As a result of it slowing down, people in British Columbia and other provinces that rely on that program for assistance oftentimes aren’t afforded that assistance, because they don’t have the capacity to deal with it.

Just about everything to do with policing, I think, is underfunded right across this country. That’s one area where it would be nice to see the federal government step up to the plate and provide the level of protection and the level of resourcing in the witness protection program that should be there in the first place. I’m sure the minister has probably had conversations with the federal government and the federal minister on that as well.

[1:50 p.m.]

The security that’s required varies. I think some of the minor issues this legislation addresses very well, where we have a witness who needs immediate protection because of the sensitivity of his or her information that she has to give. But once the trial is over, that level of security might disappear. The individual will be provided a safe environment, of course. But during that process…. Maybe the individual suffers from some addictions or medical issues that this program can help address and put that person in a better position, moving forward, once the particular trial is over.

Then there are the more complex ones that show up. These are the ones where we have an individual who has intimate knowledge of the main players of a crime organization, who has perhaps witnessed homicides, who has perhaps witnessed shakedowns of legitimate people, who has witnessed the distribution of fentanyl and other drugs in the province that have been such a scourge on the vulnerable people we have here.

Those are the people that are key. They’re kept very close. If there’s any kind of a suspicion that they are going to break away from the organization and provide information to the police, their life is in imminent threat, and they require a different level of security. They require total secrecy around the fact that they are being looked after under a witness protection program like this.

Oftentimes they require a new identity. Oftentimes they have to be relocated out of the province or the community that they live in. It doesn’t happen very often, but at times we have to find another country for these individuals to live in under an assumed name and a brand-new identity for the rest of their life. That’s where the expense of maintaining a witness protection program becomes quite expensive. It’s not just a one-year deal; it’s a multi-year deal. It’s a lifetime deal for many of these people.

For that, they’re required to ensure that they abide by all the rules: that they don’t try to make contact with any of their loved ones or family members or anybody that they’ve left behind, that they maintain a criminal-free lifestyle as they move forward. There are a number of factors there. If they don’t abide by that, then the deal is over, they’re on their own, and the government will no longer have the obligation to fund those particular programs.

Most of these people make sure that they stay on the straight and narrow because they know that organized crime is relentless in tracking these people down wherever they may go in the world. They put a lot of money and effort into it. They don’t have to worry about budgets like we have to worry about in British Columbia and Canada. They just pour whatever money is necessary in there to track those individuals down and cause harm to them, either in retribution for the information that they provided or to prevent them from testifying at an upcoming trial.

That’s why we see, a lot of times…. We saw it with the prosecution of some UN gang members in the past while, where we have fortified courthouses to prevent harm to some of these witnesses when they’re brought in from their locations. They have armed guards around them all the time — RCMP members, city police members — in order to protect these people, because the threat level against them is so significantly high that we can’t afford to take those risks.

When I first looked through this, a lot of things, I was happy to see. They were things that I’ve talked about with my ex-colleagues in the police forces across the province here before. But in government, I also have a look at it and think: there’s a dollar attached to this. There’s a dollar attached to this, and we really don’t know what that amount is. So I’m hoping that when we get to the committee stage, the minister will be able to tell me what this magic formula might look like and how we can recoup the losses — or not the losses. That’s a bad word to say, because it’s not a loss. It’s a gain for society when we can successfully prosecute these individuals.

What it is, is a significant dollar burden on the sponsoring agency. The way I read this is, if we have a community that says, “Yes, we need to do this in order to get a successful prosecution and remove these gangsters from our community,” they have to cough up the money. Is this going to be a short term, like a one-year program? Is this going to be a five-year program? Is this going to be a lifetime program at the end of the day? Do we have to provide him or her with a new identity? Do we have to include other family members in the relocation? There are a number of factors that have to be taken into consideration here.

[1:55 p.m.]

In essence, I think what we’re doing is asking a community to give us a blank cheque in order to provide the security for that individual. We might know up front that the majority of cases might be a six-month term, a one-year term. They might be short term. But there are going to be these cases where we don’t know. Hopefully we’ll overcome the hurdles for that particular issue when we do see it.

The metrics that I think we need to have in place and that I’m going to be watching, once we implement this program, are the number of successful charge approvals — hopefully we’re going to see them skyrocket — and the number of successful prosecutions. To spend $1 million on a homicide investigation…. Just anecdotally, off the top of my head, I would say that that would be the average cost of investigating a homicide today. It might be a little higher.

To spend that kind of money on a homicide or a gang-related investigation, to try and extricate those people out of that community, only to be thwarted at the end of the day by some error that was made in the investigation or some witness who refused to testify at the last minute because of fear for their safety — we throw $1 million out the door. So we’ll be spending money, but maybe we’ll be making better use of the money that we spend on the investigations and the prosecutions at the end of the day.

Like I said, some of my colleagues will be speaking on this as well. But I think this is a great initiative. I thank you, Minister, for bringing this to the House. But I’ll be watching with some trepidation as to how we’re going to convince municipalities or different agencies to help fund this program as we move forward here. I wish you luck in lobbying the federal government to throw a little bit more resources into the federal program.

Hon. J. Sims: I’m proud to stand here today as the MLA for Surrey-Panorama and speak to Bill 4, the Witness Security Act. I want to thank and acknowledge the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General for introducing this important legislation. I thank him for the very, very focused way he has been taking on this very, very complex issue of getting a handle on gang-related gun violence.

We all know that there is no sweet pill or simple solution for this problem. We know that it requires a multi-pronged approach, with education, early intervention, law enforcement, rehabilitation and then reintegration back into the community. I’m pleased to say that under this Solicitor General…. He has been paying attention to every aspect of what we need to be doing as a government to get a handle on the growing gun violence related to gangs.

We all know that Surrey is a vibrant and growing community. But Surrey is also a city that has been significantly affected by gun and gang violence over the last number of years. I have to make a point here that Surrey is not the only city. It’s Abbotsford, Vancouver, Burnaby — you name it. It is the Lower Mainland, and it is a very serious issue.

I know, talking to my colleagues on both sides of the House, that this is not a partisan issue. This is an issue every single member in this House wants to see addressed and resolved. I have been working on this issue of violence, guns and gangs for most of my career, starting as a teacher. I know that you teach students how to resolve differences through dialogue, putting programs in place, counselling, dealing with communication skills and self-esteem, and looking at some of the factors that lead to students making choices or being forced into a certain way of life.

As a Member of Parliament for Surrey-Newton and North Delta, I was absolutely aware of the impact that gun violence was having on families in my community, and now as an MLA.

[2:00 p.m.]

I would say that of those who live in Surrey, especially in my riding, many will tell you that one way or another, through friendship circles or relatives or neighbourhoods, they have been impacted by gun violence and gang violence, and if they haven’t been, they live in fear. They live in fear that they could be, that their children could be.

I hear from many parents. We dread it when our children go out, and then we’re on tenterhooks because we want them to come home safe. That, I think, is something every one of us can appreciate — whether you’re a mother, a sister, a grandmother, an aunt, an uncle, a next-door neighbour, a friend. All of us have had those feelings at different times.

We also know it’s an issue that…. Pointing fingers at others is not going to solve the problem. Every time there is a shooting, it is very, very easy to get into that blame mode, to point fingers. If only you had done more. If only the police had done more. If only the parents had done more. If only the community…. It’s very easy to point fingers, but it’s very difficult and challenging to work as a community to get a handle on this and to address this issue.

I think that we, as a community, right across the board, have to take a look at — in Surrey, in Vancouver, wherever it is happening — how do we handle this? Instead of pointing fingers, let’s find a way to engage and give tools to those who need the tools and put resources in place so we can tackle this issue, instead of waiting for the next homicide and then everybody pointing fingers again. That does not get us to the solutions we need to.

That is why I am so pleased with the approach of the Solicitor General. One of the first things he heard, once, of course, he was sworn in and was meeting with the agencies, was…. They pointed out that there was a real need to have a B.C.-based witness security program. Actually, from what the minister has told us, it was one of the first suggestions that RCMP E division commanding officer Brenda Butterworth-Carr made when Minister Farnworth first met with her and asked: what would make a difference?

That’s a very important question to ask. What would make a difference? And the response was absolutely clear that one of the tools that would go a long way to having witnesses feel safe enough to give testimony, to bear witness, would be to have a B.C.-based witness security program. It is because of that reason — the need to give the enforcement agencies the tools they needed — that this legislation is before you.

We are keeping our commitment to take action on gang and gun violence and to increase support for initiatives proven to prevent and reduce crime. This particular piece of legislation will help communities like Surrey because (1) it will complement the federal program — it’s not meant to replace; it’s meant to complement — and (2) it will facilitate the access to difficult-to-obtain evidence against organized crime groups.

J. Thornthwaite: Apologies to the speaker.

I would like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Thornthwaite: I have some special guests here in the Legislature that just walked in. There are some students from Argyle School in my riding, with their teachers Milan Boljuncic, Tom Inkster, Jolie Lambkin and Mike Fox.

The students that are here — I’m going to try to go through: Tyson Bergot, Anya Blajkevitch, Isabella Byrne, Karla Carmona, Elise Commodore, Mia Cornish, Mikayla Duey, Brenaugh Gatzke, Mary Godin, Olivia Green, Talia Harasym, Evan Mitchell-Gash, Riley Navratil-Lee, Amani Powell Santos, Jackson Proud, Lilia Sedlmaier, Alana Spurging, Avi Topiwala, Jonathan Ash-Roberts, Ethan Brauner, Kathryn Brennan, Amanda Day, Gabriel Figueroa, John Kleparchuk, Mackenzie Lake, Evelyn McCammon, Armin Mastour, Callum Mentiply, Poppy Taylor, Adrian Aghazadeh.

[2:05 p.m.]

I’m almost done: Nikita Amini, Kate Carson, Jackson Cochrane, Isaac Dharamsi, Logan Edmonds, Tori Edmonds, Amirhossein Ghaffari, Keane Lighvani, Fraya Lindqvist, Sourena Rezaei, Solana Strandebo, Natasha Uganec, Jonathan Jang, Bjorn Backstrom, Tristan Baigent, Sarah Hrabinsky, Carter Kwan, Drew Schieman and Sam Lee.

Could the House please make them welcome, and apologies for the long list.

Debate Continued

Hon. J. Sims: As I was saying, I’m very proud of this piece of legislation that has been brought forward to take action on gang and gun violence and increase support for initiatives proven to prevent and reduce crime.

As I was saying earlier, this legislation will help communities like Surrey because it will complement the federal program — just to be clear, it’s not meant to replace; it’s meant to augment — and facilitate the access to difficult-to-obtain evidence against organized crime groups.

It will also help advance prosecutions of gang and organized crime members, because we know that fear is often prevalent. Often members of the community who know exactly what happened are very reluctant to come forward because they are scared. They fear for their lives and the lives of their loved ones. Members who might have been witnesses and might actually be able to help to solve a crime are so scared for the safety of their own families that they remain mum.

As I was saying, this particular piece of legislation will actually help to support the work of our enforcement agencies to be able to provide protection to those who will bear witness.

This program, as you know, will be administered by an agency. It will be voluntary. The evidence that’s going to be given has to be substantial. Health and safety have to be proven to be at risk. So it’s not going to be given to just anybody. There are going to be criteria that are going to be quite strict.

At this stage, I do want to acknowledge all the constituents that have met with me over the last number of years on this issue, whether it has been in my office or whether it has been at town hall meetings or whether it has been at yet another funeral that we’ve all attended as a community because of the loss of a life taken too soon and taken under such tragic circumstances.

What we have to remember, whether the person was known to the police or not known to the police, the impact on family and community is absolutely earth-shattering. For a mother, for a father, for grandparents, for brothers, sisters, kids, neighbours — there is nothing more devastating than getting one of those phone calls to say that your loved one has been killed, shot, in an encounter related to gangs and drugs.

It’s a heartbreaking topic. I have so many stories I could share with you: so many families I have cried with, so many families who are crying out for help — families who’ve been impacted, families who know that their children are maybe going down the wrong path and they want to get them back on the right path, but they just don’t know how.

Once again, I want to acknowledge the work done by our Solicitor General to make sure that resources are being put into cities like Surrey to make sure that for those kids who want to leave gangs, there is support. For those with early signs that they are going in the wrong direction, the programs are put into place — programs like the Wrap program in Surrey, which I call sort of a total service program that wraps itself around the kids to make sure they get the supports they need.

[2:10 p.m.]

And yes, this program will cost. It will cost. But we’re proud to support it because it’s here, because the savings that will result from lives saved or from convictions we will get for gang and gun-related activities will be priceless. I don’t see how we can put a price on a life that is taken by guns, by violence and through gang warfare.

I’m proud to be a member of this government. I’m so proud of the work of Public Safety and our Solicitor General, the Premier and all MLAs from Surrey and everywhere else, who know that one of our primary roles here is to look after the safety and security of citizens.

This particular program is not just about getting a conviction. It is about getting people off the streets. It is about making sure that people do not, that another parent does not, receive a phone call that their child has been shot. It is a program that is only one small part of a very comprehensive plan put forward by the Solicitor General to tackle guns and violence head-on. Being in a witness protection program — as my colleague across the way pointed out earlier — will also ensure, for those who need additional help, whether it’s in the area of addictions or mental health, that that support is also provided.

I know, and I will say again, this is not a partisan issue. This is an issue about our kids and about keeping our communities safe.

R. Coleman: I’m glad to rise and speak to the Witness Security Act today and take us down a conversation with regard to what some of the other members have already talked about. I think the challenge, when you talk about this particular program and how important it is, is that there is a program in Canada. If you can make it faster and you can still keep it safe and secure, do so, because it actually helps investigations. It protects investigations.

The context often is…. I’ll give you some of the context that some people may talk about, given their community. The context is that in 2017 — most recent data — B.C. had its highest number of homicides since 2009, at 118. Nearly half of Metro Vancouver victims were killed with firearms. Of those 118 total homicides, 58 were in Metro Vancouver; 44 of those 118 were gang-related. Ontario had 48 gang-related homicides in 2007, we had 44, Quebec had 15, and Alberta had 32.

Most organized crime cases in B.C. hinge on testimony from an accused person’s former accomplices and informants, and a federal witness security program already exists. But, as the NDP say, a multi-pronged approach is needed, and I agree. A B.C. RCMP spokesman, in a government news release, said: “The Witness Security Act will be one more tool that will help us to destabilize gangs and support prosecutions.” This will encourage more people with knowledge of murders, drug trafficking or other gang-related crimes to share details with police and, hopefully, help us do investigations.

It’s not just about gang violence. It’s also about us as legislators having to make sure that we are protectors of information. It’s about making sure the confidentiality of police investigations is protected. It’s about making sure that nobody leaks out something that is going to break the confidence of an informant or a witness to the extent that you could put their names at risk, their lives at risk, or that you could actually kill an investigation because of information that you happen to have spoken about publicly.

That’s an important nuance. I was Solicitor General for four years and often, a couple of times, when I had to step in. I was very fortunate to have a very, very good relationship with law enforcement at all levels, particularly on organized crime and other files. I was briefed on investigations that were going on, briefed at the highest level of detail, yet not once could I answer a question about an investigation.

[2:15 p.m.]

I couldn’t say I knew about that particular investigation of money laundering or that particular investigation about gang-related or something else. When I was interviewed, it was one comment — and one comment it should always be at the mouth of an Attorney General, a Solicitor General, a Premier, any other member of executive council or any member of this House: “I will not comment on an ongoing police investigation.”

The media sometimes think that that’s a copout. But woe be the person that’s elected, or anybody briefed on an investigation — whether it be senior officers, a member of an investigation or another agency of government that touches an investigation — that actually goes beyond that, other than being authorized to do so, and says something that puts someone’s life at risk or actually puts an investigation at risk. I lived this on a number of files. I was always accused of not doing anything on money laundering. I knew about investigations — I still do — and knew what was going on, but I could never, ever, ever comment on it.

So you get demonized as a cabinet minister, sometimes, because of that. That’s part of the job, and don’t get the temptation to say you should do it any differently, because you may hurt someone. When you have investigations that are so complex that they involve organized crime groups from outside our country connected inside our country and that you have cross-jurisdictional — as far as culture and otherwise — investigations, there are people who are unknown heroes on those investigations, who actually come forward or work with police or go undercover and give information that will take care of an investigation on any seizure crime connected or interconnected with organized crime.

Those people, when they do that — believe you me, the rules from organized crime guys aren’t Marquess of Queensberry — are putting their lives at risk. They’re taking a risk that something could happen to them because they want to do something right for society by actually helping to fight crime. Sometimes, they get so far in that the only way you can probably save them, as you go towards trial or to finish the decision and make a prosecution, is that they need to be protected — sometimes completely protected: a whole new identity in the witness protection program, as you might want to call it, where they actually disappear from society and start afresh.

If you can’t do that — if you can’t protect them or give them that sense of security — your investigation falls apart. Your information falls apart. Your stream of evidence falls apart, and then you see millions of dollars spent on an investigation, like you recently saw one federally, on a multi-million-dollar investigation, and hundreds of millions of dollars of money laundering and other activity and organized crime. They had a stay of proceedings.

Sometimes it just takes too long, and people start to figure out who’s there. Sometimes it could be something that somebody just says, and it makes the prosecutor nervous about the fact that he may not be able to hold the lives of those people and protect them. So the reality is, as we do these complex investigations, we need a tool that says: “Joe, there is a contract out on you, and we need to actually protect you and your family and protect your evidentiary stuff. So we need you to agree to come in.” Imagine having to make a voluntary decision to change your identity and move from your community to protect your family. You’re there to try and help the community or solve crime.

It happens, and people have had to do that. As I looked at the act, the first thing that concerned me was a bit of the bureaucracy around a piece of legislation where there is a security committee and a number of people are in a room that would be presented the decision to let this person voluntarily go into witness protection — having been told when their life is at risk — that they get to make the decision.

The first reaction I had was: “We’d better find five absolutely strong-minded, honest people who would never leak a word about any discussion about somebody that came before them and was being looked at” — for someone that might want to go or need to go into some form of witness protection. If we can’t do that, we can’t solve the crime. If we can’t do that, we lose the community support for us to be able to do things, and we really destroy the opportunity for police to do their jobs.

[2:20 p.m.]

The member opposite mentioned, a few minutes ago, gangs and the gang stuff and issues in and around. I talked about them with regard to a number of homicides, but it is important, particularly in some of the gang activity that takes place, to be able to get into the community and get a better understanding of circumstances, information and evidence that may get you to where you’ll be able to solve a gang-related killing.

It’s tough for the police, because they need information from within the community. If the gang is strong in a community, they’ll be concerned that if they’re actually seen to be cooperating in any way whatsoever, they will become a victim of the gang and will not have any protection for themselves and their family should they be found out as someone that’s actually working with police. So it’s important that you have a program like this, but it’s important that you understand just how difficult this is, how dicey it can be but, more importantly, how important it is that everybody understands their role.

I’ve been on both sides of this House. On one side of this House, I could criticize a government, back in the 1990s, about something they weren’t doing on a particular investigation. When I became the Solicitor General, I realized the reason they didn’t say anything, because I couldn’t now. I also had an understanding that I would never put someone’s life at risk, as a minister.

The new government is finding out the same thing. There were comments with regard to different investigations that they thought should be going on or that the government wasn’t doing enough. Probably they got briefed early on — or not. But they found out that there were things being done other than what they’d said in public were being done, because the actual investigations were more critical than the public image of the police or anybody, or of any other official.

Police are in a tough job. They have major investigations on the go. They have serious integrated criminal enforcement and organized crime enforcement investigations going on. They’re dealing with complex, complex files, and they also deal with other aspects of crime, including civil forfeiture and things like that.

We saw, in the courts today, somebody wondering whether the person who heads up civil forfeiture had a bias in pushing too hard to go after a Hells Angels clubhouse in Nanaimo. In the article, it was intimated that they’re really just a motorcycle gang. Well, to anybody who believes that for a second, I’ve got a whole bunch of swampland somewhere that I can sell you. They are organized crime. They are an integrated organization. They may have clubhouses, and they may ride Harleys, but other than that, they’re integrated, organized crime. It’s been determined by many, many court cases that that is the case.

Imagine if you’re getting briefed as a minister, and somebody comes in and says, “With this particular organized crime group, we think we have enough to go after a major investigation. What we need is access to, let’s say, $4 million in contingencies to really go nail this one,” and they give you a briefing on the background of what they know. Then you have to go into your Finance Minister and Treasury Board and say: “I need access to contingencies for an investigation with regard to organized crime, and that’s all I’m going to tell you. I’m not putting anybody at risk in this room or any other room, because I know that this is the only way to go about it.”

You do that, and it goes on going, and somewhere down the road you see the results of that decision. You might get briefed once in a while along the way, but the reality is that you’ll see the results of that decision at the outcome of some pretty complicated investigations. All have to protected, at all costs — by not giving out information about them or making any comment publicly — by anybody that might know about the file or that might comment on the file. It’s important, because the people we’re talking about today need to know, as those investigations are ongoing, and they need to be protected.

Someone’s not going to leak out that so-and-so moved from Langley to some place in Saskatchewan or some place in Alberta or B.C. and that they have a different name, a new identity for their family and children, and a job. That’s because the guys that want to shut them up before it ever gets to trial want to find out that information. They want to make sure that they can get to them and intimidate them so that their case won’t go ahead.

[2:25 p.m.]

It’s tough, because we tend to judge investigative things with police and organized crime and complex investigations as inaction, because they’re not telling you what is going on. They won’t tell you that there’s a wiretap and there’s information that came off a wiretap where someone else would be informed that their life was in danger as a result of information they picked up. They have to do that completely confidentially, because their first job is to protect life and then to protect the integrity of an investigation.

Sometimes it requires that certain people, to protect them and their families, also be put into a program where they’re safe while they’re waiting to help with a significant investigation or conviction — but also to know that they are not being put in danger because they’ve actually stepped up and helped society. That’s what I see this tool as being — another tool with regard to not having the blame game, with not having the issue which is the biggest issue when you’re dealing with informants, undercover people and witnesses. That is the issue of fear. The member from Surrey mentioned that in her remarks a few minutes ago.

If you cannot protect your witness or your informant or the people you have undercover from the fear of what’s going to happen to them if they’re found out, then that fear permeates into every investigation, and you get no help. You get this cone of silence that the police have a terrible time trying to break through. You can’t always do it just with forensic evidence, in spite of what the TV shows might tell you. The reality is that this is complex stuff, and this tool is important so we have that complexity be able to be handled in a way that’s really very important for society.

As we go through this and you take time to think about it, if you get a chance to speak or not, think about the people that are out there somewhere in all kinds of investigations today — they could be undercover police officers — whose lives and information about them needs to be protected. If you ever have a conversation, if you think you’ve ever even met somebody that might be undercover on an investigation in a social aspect, they won’t tell you. But if you blab about it to somebody in some other area, it gets so you can actually put a person’s life at risk.

An informant is a person that’s coming forward to police to give them critical information on a significant investigation, most of the time. If it’s a significant organized crime investigation, that means they’re putting themselves at risk. They have to be completely protected. There cannot be any breakdown in disclosure. If there is, and they’re put in danger, you need a tool like this, and you need it to be quick. The only thing I will probably do in committee stage with the minister is make sure this thing is actually nimble enough to do the job for people that need it when they need it the most.

In addition to that, I’ve also been exposed to some other significant types of investigations: organized crime, obviously; homicides; gang-related things. I’ll never forget the day — it’s now been through the courts and convictions are there — that I got the call that I needed to go get some money from Treasury Board. They thought they had the person, but they needed the money to be able to do it with the warrants, that had killed a number of women missing from the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver.

It was that conversation — I had to take it into a cabinet situation and convince them to fund it — that led to the arrest and conviction and closure for families of women on the Pickton investigation.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

At no time through that, even though I was briefed and toured the site, did I ever discuss one ounce of anything to do with that investigation. That is what’s tough for the Solicitor General; the Attorney General, particularly; and the Premier, usually, if they get briefed. Because they will get public criticism on something, but they can’t say anything. We should always keep that in mind as we go through this, because it’s important that they don’t. They need to protect the integrity of the investigations, the integrity of what’s going on.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s something like money laundering connected to organized crime, whether it’s a homicide, gang-related or whatever the case may be. The police always are trying to do their best, but while they’re trying to do their best, they have to take the public criticism that they’re not doing enough. They can’t say, “Let’s go convince them that we’re doing enough” when actually, they’re doing everything they can do. They cannot disclose because they cannot destroy an investigation or destroy someone’s life. In the cases where it gets to the point where the person is really helping in an investigation, you need this tool.

[2:30 p.m.]

So as you make comment, think about those people, because I can’t imagine…. I did drug cover, which is basically covering people who are doing the buys and collecting the evidence while they were undercover in places on different strips in Alberta and cities. I thought that was pretty hairy work for those guys, but somebody that’s an informant on a major crime investigation, organized crime…. It’s pretty hairy stuff.

I think we have to recognize that and make sure we have tools for those people. They really are pretty special citizens in our society who often step up, in spite of the fact that they have fear, to help police in investigations that could actually save more lives.

I support this piece of legislation, I support the Witness Security Act, and I hope we keep in mind just those people that are silent out there that are actually trying to help us solve major crime in British Columbia.

M. Dean: I’m very proud to stand here today as the MLA for Esquimalt-Metchosin and to speak in favour of Bill 4, the Witness Security Act. I really appreciate the work of the Solicitor General, not only in this area, in working on this particular bill, but also in taking a multi-pronged approach to this issue.

I’ve been working with youth at risk of gang involvement for many, many years — youth in our community who have been traumatized or abused, youth who are targeted for exploitation in any way. So I welcome initiatives that will destabilize gangs and the whole system of gang culture and prevent short- and long-term harm to people in my constituency and across British Columbia.

This is going to be a stronger witness security program that will help destabilize the gang way of life. It will encourage more people with knowledge of crimes — crimes like murder, drug trafficking, gang-led crimes — to share their information with police.

It’s going to build on the federal program, but it’s needed because the federal program can lead to delays. It can also create a low retention rate of witnesses, and that thwarts the processes in British Columbia. That means that here in our province, we don’t get the justice that we need.

This is going to be an important tool in tackling gang-related crime. We all know that gang-related violence is increasing, and it’s related to other crimes, such as drug trafficking and drug use.

Here we are living in the current fentanyl crisis. We have to do something about this. We need this multi-pronged approach and a range of tools. The best tool for tackling these crimes is through the evidence of people who know those who are responsible. Successful convictions using this new tool will send a really strong message to those involved in gang culture, and that will have a massive impact on public safety, not just for individuals and families but for the whole of our communities.

Now, the program is voluntary. Anybody in it can exit at any time, and there will be services and programs provided to people who are participants. Once referred into the program, they’re assessed for their suitability and eligibility. To be eligible, the testimony has to be very valuable. It has to be significant testimony. Their health or security also has to be at risk.

Once approved, then the whole scope of the program is designed — it has to be — around that individual and around the risks that they’re facing. That’s going to include their housing. It might include transportation to and from safe places. It’s going to include their identity and then also support services as well. That might be rehabilitation counselling, recovering from drug addiction.

Of course, confidentiality is really critical to the success of this program, and confidentiality is protected. It’s protected in many means and under many acts. That way, we make sure that we keep the participants safe, and we can reassure them that they’re going to be kept safe as well.

What this system does is it reinforces the notion that there can be a successful way for people who choose to exit from the gang lifestyle. They can do this. This offers a road map. It offers a pathway. It offers support and stability and structure to be able to get out of that lifestyle and to rebuild their lives.

[2:35 p.m.]

Back to the point that we will actually be more successful if we help these people who have the knowledge and they can share the knowledge with us so that we can actually break down the gangs. We need a very robust strategy against gangs. We need it to support existing services and enhance our strategy around gang culture.

We know about, we’ve heard about and we’ve been talking about how, in Surrey, we have the Wraparound service, a comprehensive service that includes prevention strategies and exit strategies. But I’ll tell you that here on south Vancouver Island, we also have a gang issue. Youth in my community and across greater Victoria are recruited deliberately into gangs.

On the south Island, we have only one part-time position in the community of an active outreach counsellor to work with youth to prevent them from being recruited into gangs. That is a fantastic counsellor called Mia Golden who works for the CRED program at Pacific Centre Family Services Association, a local non-profit in my constituency. We know, from her work, that youth as young as 11 are being targeted in our region.

Youth across our region have had such a lack of community services for such a long time. Many, many youth have ended up falling through the cracks in our community. These youth are targeted. They’re offered a tribe, a sense of belonging. They’re offered something valuable, something for free, something they might not otherwise have access to. It might be drugs. It might be some kind of gear. It may be a new gadget, just cash.

They’re building a dependent relationship. These youth are made dependent, and then they’re taken advantage of. They’re made to run errands. They’re made to become even more absorbed into the gang culture, to take some responsibilities, to witness and observe and experience other crimes being committed, to compromise them.

The youth, once in the gangs, are made to do the dirty work. They’re made to go out and deal in drugs or maybe in weapons, maybe get involved in trafficking. They’re sent out to collect the debts. How are they going to do that? It involves assaults. It involves violence. It involves risks of physical harm.

Over the past six years, the CRED program has seen the number of youth in the CRD at risk of gang involvement increase from 30 to 73. That’s over double, and there are more out there who aren’t even seeking support.

There was one gang with over 20 members known to be active in my constituency that was responsible for more than 200 police files in 2013. There are actually several gangs on south Vancouver Island. The names of them I can’t even mention in chambers here because of rules of language — rightly so.

The youth who want to escape these gangs are punished. I’ve seen youth come into our centre with broken fingers. Youth have had their cell phones just taken away from them forever. They’ve had any money or anything valuable on them just taken away from them. They’ve been threatened, and their families have been threatened. They are severely punished if they want to try and escape, and their long-term outlook is harmed and compromised.

We need to dismantle the system that targets these youth, and this new security program offers more success in doing that. Exit is possible. There was a young man on reserve locally who wanted to exit from a local gang. He had support from the CRED program. It took months, but eventually, he was helped with a lifetime deal to leave south Vancouver Island. Now, I can’t say more than that — obviously, these are really high-risk situations — except to say it helped to build local intelligence and helped him rebuild his life.

Thanks again to Mia Golden at CRED and the team at Pacific Centre Family Services Association for all of your work in the community — and with the authorities, the collaborative work that is done locally to prevent youth from getting lured into a gang lifestyle.

[2:40 p.m.]

To summarize, this new witness security program is designed to meet B.C.’s needs that the federal system is unable to do. This is a system that police agencies, judiciary, legal advice and experts have all asked for and all been consulted on. A B.C.-based witness security program was one of the first suggestions the RCMP “E” division commanding officer Brenda Butterworth-Carr made when the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General first met with her and asked what would make a difference.

The legislation will establish the witness security program, which will be administered by the province in the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General through a director of witness security and an assessment panel. It will be run by a designated agency. It will complement the federal program. It will facilitate difficult-to-obtain evidence against organized crime groups. And it will help advance prosecutions of gang and organized crime members. Ultimately, it will enhance our Solicitor General’s gang suppression action plan. That will make the lives of all communities and all British Columbians safer.

B. Stewart: It gives me great honour to be here in the House speaking about Bill 4. I think it’s certainly one of these things that everybody embraces — the whole idea of: how do we end gangs and what they do in our communities, whether it’s the opioid epidemic and how that is fuelling the crime that seems to be taking place in British Columbia, perhaps maybe more noticeably in and around the Lower Mainland?

I want to commend the Solicitor General for his work in terms of bringing this forward. I think that, as the member for Prince George–Mackenzie suggested earlier, this is a tough file. It’s not easy. I know that in his time, we invested an extra $30 million in guns and gangs. That brings us up to about $80 million per year that the government has committed to trying to make certain that we find ways forward to making this happen. There’s also another program called exit gangs. That’s also being funded by the government.

I’m sure that this piece of legislation is going to bring additional costs and budget pressures to the government. That does raise a point that I want to raise a little bit later. But I want to talk about…. We don’t really hear about — and I didn’t hear the Solicitor General talking as much about — how we were trying to work with the federal government to make their witness security program work better. We understand that it isn’t working in other provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario and the city of Montreal. They’ve gone ahead and instigated their own programs where they’re actually doing this.

I think that one of the things that I would like to ask…. I welcome the Solicitor General back to the chamber. I look forward to, in committee, asking some of these questions. But I do want to make certain that….

The concern that we have is: is the federal government paying for its fair share in terms of this issue? I understand that it is a national program. It exists. This is an enhancement to what has already been proposed or is being proposed. I think that that’s one of the things that we do feel: that they control the borders, they control a lot of these items that are causing the access.

Whether it’s Immigration Canada or Border Services, they have an ultimate responsibility to making certain that a province like British Columbia, a coastal province that has more air flights than any other city in North America coming into Vancouver…. Of course it’s going to be under pressure because of access to some of these obvious gang-related activities with many of the Asian areas where these people have come from.

[2:45 p.m.]

I think one of the things that I do specifically have some concerns about in the legislation is the risk of the money that we are spending and how we protect the privacy of the individuals that we are trying to keep under this witness security program. I think that it’s robust in the description in here, but I just know that with this many people…. Whether it’s people helping to reintroduce or whether it’s health care, addictions services, mental health — all of those touchpoints are an added risk in terms of trying to make certain that the people that we want to keep successfully in this program are people that are not…. There are no compromises.

I realize that it’s almost an impossible task. You know how difficult, sometimes, it is to keep a secret. I don’t know how witness protection programs work, but I think that we want to highlight that we want to make certain, as the minister did say earlier, that this is going to be excluded from the disclosure act. But more importantly, what it is…. It’s the people in the background. I’m sure we have no problem with the police services that are involved. It’s the people that are not necessarily part of that.

I would hope that that’s something that the new organization that’s being contemplated or being organized here would address, and I’m sure they will. But I do want to raise that because, of course…. I mean, in government, we have privacy breaches that are unintended, not because we want to. We have all sorts of rules and regulations. This is going to take an extra-special amount of effort to make certain that those are protected so that we can get the convictions and put gangs out of business.

I don’t know how you define success in that, in terms of the act, in terms of…. I look at the number of homicides in British Columbia. Certainly the number, compared to the rest of the country, and certainly they are…. It is a high number, and we hear about it most days or weeks in the news, etc. We do want to make certain that people who are regular, everyday British Columbians are protected.

That doesn’t mean that the communities that they come from have an unlimited amount of resources to be able to fund and pay for this. As Bill 4 suggests, the level of cost is unknown — how long it goes on for. And the communities that subscribe to whether the RCMP — or whether they have individual policing in their communities — are going to be the ones that bring this forward when a known informant or somebody that requires this type of service comes forward….

The financial obligation goes on to…. Many small communities…. I wouldn’t say that the community that I represent, both the cities of West Kelowna and the city of Kelowna… Their policing budget is just over $30 million. It’s my understanding, in just a brief discussion with some of the people that serve or have served in this area, that this witness protection program could run into, for an individual witness, the neighbourhood of $1 million or more, depending on where they’re relocated to, the costs, the services that are provided. To have that put onto the backs of….

Take a small community next door to where I live — Peachland. It’s got just under 6,000 residents. They’re now paying their percentage of policing in terms of their community, but the reality is that if the RCMP that covers that area was to decide that that was the responsibility of that municipality, which is incorporated, it would be a completely unfair situation and literally bankrupt a small municipality.

I think that that isn’t addressed in terms of…. It does say who is going to be responsible in the bill, and I think that the question really is: how do we protect the communities that are not Vancouvers or other large cities from this burden in terms of…? Not necessarily through any fault of their own, they’re all of a sudden where gangs have congregated. The members are there.

The situation is that these people have now taken on that responsibility, and I think that the province, as well as the federal government, have an obligation. If we’re going to put something like this in place, then I think that the federal government should be expected to contribute to this as well. Maybe that’s something that the Solicitor General has in mind to ask for.

[2:50 p.m.]

I think that the important thing I’d just like to highlight is that, clearly, we need to know if this is working. If we’re going to spend whatever the amount is…. It’s undefined. But let’s use the number…. It’s millions or tens of millions of dollars to run the protection program. We’ve got the numbers. Obviously, we’re not satisfied with the federal program.

There needs to be some sort of metric as to what is considered to be success. Is it prosecutions? Successful prosecutions? I don’t know. I think that probably it’s important for government to be able to have some certainty or a review of this at some point in time so that the people in Surrey feel like they’re getting some benefit from the millions that are going to be spent on this.

I mentioned, also, the security issue. I think that we need to ensure that we don’t spend all of that money and then have it compromised because of somebody that’s providing a service that’s contemplated in here. So we provide the wraparound services to make certain that we rehabilitate and get these people that are informants out of the system or where they’ve been in the past, not just move them along to some other country with a name change.

The last part is that the individual communities need protection. They can’t just have a blank cheque in terms of taking on the responsibility. What consultation has happened with communities or UBCM to help address this concern? I think that that would be an interesting conversation, maybe after this bill is finished being debated and going through committee stage. I think it is important, certainly, that it is up for discussion with municipalities, perhaps this year at UBCM, because they do all need to be informed that this is coming down the pipe.

With that, I just want to thank, again, the Solicitor General for taking what is a very tough file and trying to make a difference. I’d like to see…. If it is possible to find it within all of the resources that are being dedicated to fighting crime in the province, perhaps we could do more in terms of some of the on-the-ground supports for other detachments and the municipalities across the province to help fight this in their front yards and to make certain that it doesn’t get to the stage where we have to have an expensive program like this in place that’s going to add an unnecessary burden to the taxpayers in those communities.

J. Brar: I’m really pleased to stand up in this House to support this bill, the Witness Security Act, introduced in this House by our government to help take down gangs and make our communities a safe place for everyone.

I support this bill because people in Surrey — I’m going to talk about Surrey — are really concerned with the ongoing gang-led crimes taking place almost on a daily basis. I must say here that this is not a Surrey problem. It’s a problem of the people of the province of British Columbia. I know there are some focus points, whether it’s Abbotsford, Vancouver or some other communities. But this is a problem faced by the people of the province everywhere.

Sometimes it seems like this is unstoppable. The gang crimes, the way it’s going on — it looks like it’s unstoppable. That’s one of the questions we hear when we go out in public among the people.

Let me tell you that a friend of mine has lost two sons. He lost two sons — a decent human being, very well educated, who came to this country to make life better for his kids. He did everything possible, as any parent does, to help support the kids. But he lost, at the end of the day, two of his sons. He knocked on every door, I know, to find help so he could pull his sons out of gang life.

[2:55 p.m.]

That’s almost impossible. It’s almost impossible, the way it is going on at this point in time. One of the reasons that it’s impossible is exactly because we don’t have witnesses to come forward to actually have successful prosecutions.

I also have a relative who is right now struggling to deal with his kids who have become part of the gangs. He has said to me and many other people that he knocked on every door at all levels of government to find support to bring his kids out of gang life but was unsuccessful, and it happened.

The impact on the community is huge. It’s big. Young men, for right or wrong reasons…. Many of them don’t know what they’re going to enter when they enter into gang life. What they don’t know at that time is that once you are in, you are in. There’s no exit. The reason, again, behind that is that the witness program is not working at this point in time.

Many of these crimes, to the best of my knowledge, take place during the daylight in the presence of not one person but many people — gang members. A murder takes place during the day, but nobody — the people who were there that witnessed that murder taking place — is ready to become a witness. That’s the challenge.

That’s a big challenge in the system. The key reason for that is that the people are really scared to come forward and to provide the witness, because they’re scared. They’re scared of the gang members because they can eliminate not only them; they can eliminate their whole family.

People feel that the system has failed to successfully prosecute the gang members. That’s the feeling among the people out there. That was the reason that the public safety issue became the number one issue during the last civic election in Surrey. It would not be an understatement that crime, particularly gang-led crime, was the number one issue during the last civic election, and it still remains the number one issue in the city of Surrey and some other parts of the province as well.

People have the right to feel safe. We must take action to take down the gangs. One of the key questions that people raise when I go in the community is: why is it so difficult to successfully prosecute the gang members? That’s the key question people ask. People think there is something wrong with this system. There’s something that’s not working.

People are right. There is something wrong with this system. One of the challenges police face is to find credible witnesses — that’s what we know — for a successful prosecution, because people, as I said earlier, are scared to come forward to provide witness against a gang member. That’s a big threat when you come forward. That’s the issue that we face, and that’s the issue this particular act actually addresses.

We need to fix that. This bill, in my view, is an action in the right direction. We are proposing this strong witness security management and support program to encourage more people with knowledge of murders, drug trafficking and other gang-led crimes to share details with police.

That’s the purpose of this bill. The majority of the organized crime in B.C. depends on evidence of former friends, informants, and it’s challenging to manage criminally involved witnesses. The proposed legislation will establish the witness security program that will, in fact, encourage witnesses to come forward without any fear. That’s the purpose of the program.

[3:00 p.m.]

This program will be managed by the province in the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, through a director of witness security and assessment panel. It will be run by a designated agency to make sure that it is effective and its working, and it will complement the federal program.

The member made a kind of a point there that there’s a federal program. Yes, there’s a federal program. This particular act will complement that federal program to make it better and to give police more tools so that they can make good, successful prosecutions.

It will also facilitate difficult-to-obtain evidence against organized crime groups. That’s what it will do. It will help advance prosecutions of gangs and organized crime members. The Witness Security Act will be one more tool that will help us destabilize gangs and support prosecutions. That’s the key purpose of this bill, and that’s why I’m here to support this bill.

I understand and the members probably on both sides of this House…. I see some consensus there. This is a very deep, difficult and complex problem. This particular program is not a full-package solution to the whole thing, but this is another tool. This is another very important tool, at least when it comes to the successful prosecutions of gangs. This will certainly strengthen the police making the right case in the justice system.

This is also a volunteer program. People who have the information can come forward themselves, and they can volunteer that information. This program provides full privacy when it comes to privacy and confidentiality. There will be complete confidentiality provided under the program. So that’s there. Without confidentiality, it would be hard for people to come forward and support this program.

I hope — probably we all, members from both sides — hope that there will be a day that B.C. will be gang-free. We are trying our best to move forward into that situation. This particular bill is one good step, in my view, that will make B.C. a safer place.

With that, I support the bill, and I will take my seat.

S. Cadieux: I’m here today to speak to Bill 4, the Witness Security Act. I am in favour of doing everything we can to combat gang crime and criminal activity in our province. And the way that I understand witness security has worked in this province has presented our police services with some real challenges, especially in the fight against gang violence and organized crime. Currently the only option in British Columbia is the federally-run witness security program. That program has been slow and underfunded. That situation puts lives at risk.

Every day that there’s another delay, there’s another day that criminal members, gang members, are on the streets, and that creates a risk to public safety. You don’t have to be a police officer to know that. The lives of potential witnesses are also often at risk during the delays that exist with the federal witness system.

The fact of the matter is that most of the cases targeting organized crime in B.C. can only move forward and go to trial when they’ve had the opportunity to rely on testimony from former accomplices of the accused. The reliance on informants makes witness security critical. Who’s going to come forward if they don’t feel they’re going to be safe?

The impact of gang violence can’t be underestimated. Certainly, some communities feel that more deeply than others. Certainly, in the Lower Mainland, our communities feel it deeply. Of the 118 homicides in British Columbia in 2017, more than a third were gang related.

[3:05 p.m.]

Of those 44 gang-related homicides, as we know, a great number were in Surrey. So I can see how the Witness Security Act can be a useful tool for police in our province to tackle gang violence and organized crime.

On its surface, the provincial Witness Security Act promises to be more nimble and easier and quicker to apply properly so that we can move these things forward, and that would be a good thing. As well, I think there are good approaches in this bill — helping witnesses transition to a new life, facilitating treatment for mental health or addictions or helping with the more significant name or identity changes where necessary, and certainly helping with access to job training.

I think it’s about taking public safety beyond prosecuting the criminals and toward helping criminals leave their old life behind, which I believe is what we would all hope they would do. That’s very supportable. That said, I do have some concerns with the bill, but really, only as the concern relates to potential costs. Not that those costs aren’t something we should bear, but in the legislation, as I read it, it’s expected that law enforcement will be applying to the program on behalf of the witness and that law enforcement agency will pay for the services. That is concerning, given the real financial challenges that police forces all over B.C. are facing right now.

We know, and we just saw a week or so ago, that right here in Victoria, the city council was unable to provide, in its budget, new funds for police — now, mostly because that went to paying new costs imposed by government. But the reality in Surrey is similar. The council didn’t approve the hiring of additional police officers for this year, although we all know, and certainly all of the members of this House from Surrey know, the need for additional officers is very real.

Also, we know with the proposed move now by the mayor and council to move to a new city police force, away from the RCMP, the city will also be challenged and the police service challenged, financially, with the cost of that transition.

While I believe that there’s a need for this act and this service, I am concerned about approving this without understanding what those costs are likely to be and how the agencies will cover those costs. If we make a choice to suggest that here, this great new service is available, and it will help us to combat gang violence…. If, then, the agencies don’t use the service because they can’t afford to pay for it, that is also going to be a problem. If that service, then, is used, but the costs of paying for that take away from existing services like police officers on the ground, that, too, would not be a welcome outcome.

The reality is that we all, I believe, support the idea of tackling gang violence and doing everything we can. I do believe that our government took all the steps we could and made good efforts. I believe this government is taking good steps and making best efforts. We all care about the safety of our families, our communities and our streets. None of us want to see young people enter a life of crime. There are huge costs associated with dealing with that after the fact as well.

[3:10 p.m.]

We know that in order to prosecute crime, in order to get at the root of this gang violence, we need for people to step forward. We need them to know that they’re going to be safe when they do that, and we need them to know that we have their backs in doing so. If they have the strength to come forward, we need to provide services to them to make sure that they’re safe. That’s important.

Certainly, I will be in support of the act, and I hope that the questions around the costs and how those will be managed by the province and the agencies will be forthcoming in the committee stage of the bill.

R. Singh: It gives me pleasure to stand in support of this Bill 4 and the stronger witness security program. I really want to thank our Minister of Public Safety for his commitment to deal with this issue. Being a member from Surrey, where we are experiencing a high number of deaths related to gang violence, I am really pleased that we have a minister who’s committed.

I remember that when we formed the government, one of the first meetings that the Minister of Public Safety had was a meeting with the stakeholders in Surrey, talking about this issue. Being a mother myself, and having a teenage child, I’m always very disturbed whenever I hear any such news as when a young life is taken just so soon. I totally understand that this is a very, very complex matter. It’s non-partisan. It is not something that can be dealt with, with just one single recipe.

There are all kinds of collaborative approaches that we need to resolve this issue. One of the first announcements that the minister made — he made it in Surrey also — was in the field of prevention, like the funding that he committed to the Wraparound program. That was one step to prevent our kids who are vulnerable, kids who are prone to getting into this kind of life, from getting into gang violence. That’s because there’s nothing like prevention. I believe that.

Also, we were hearing from a lot of families and also from the stakeholders that once charges are laid after a crime has occurred, then there is definitely more need for a stronger witness security program. I’m very glad with this tailored-to-B.C. approach that the minister is bringing with Bill 4. That will help more people to come forward and to testify.

I know it is so hard to lose a loved one, but once the person is gone, the family needs the support, and we as a society have to give it to them. I am really hoping that with this bill coming into force, more and more people will feel faith in one thing: it will make the process less cumbersome and easier to navigate but also give the most vulnerable people who are affected by these crimes more security so that they can testify without any fear or any threat.

I think this will be one step that will curtail the gang violence, because the whole purpose of these things is that we don’t want these young lives to be lost. We want to put a stop to this. With a more strict or more rigid program coming in, I think that when we get more results out of it, it will hinder it, and our youth can see the results. That is something. If they are into this kind of life, there is an end to it, and there are consequences related to that. That’s very important to emphasize.

[3:15 p.m.]

I’m really thankful to the Minister of Public Safety and to our government for taking this matter so seriously, and with compassion also. I really want to thank them. I would like to close, but I totally stand in support of this bill.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and stand in support of Bill 4, the Witness Security Act, 2019. This bill takes the important and necessary step of establishing a provincial witness security program.

As you know, hon. Speaker, witnesses are essential to justice in our province. They come forward, often at great personal risk, to help us ensure a safe and a just society. The least we can do is to protect them in return. Although the federal witness program does its best to protect these individuals, delays and strict program requirements have resulted in low witness retention. This, in turn, has hampered the administration of justice in British Columbia. By establishing a provincial program now, we are following the same path that other provinces, such as Alberta and Saskatchewan, at least temporarily, as well as Manitoba have followed.

As members are aware, public trust in British Columbia’s government has been rather shaken of late. Money-laundering and its connection to the crises involving real estate and opioids have abounded in the newspapers. There have been serious allegations made in our own Legislature that point to a culture of entitlement and abuse of power. In light of these events, it’s more important than ever that we restore the public trust by improving our justice system. British Columbians must trust our judicial system, not only to hold people accountable for their actions but to protect the people who do an immense public service by coming forward as witnesses.

I’m pleased to see this legislation before us today, as it, in my view and the view of my caucus colleagues, marks another step forward in restoring public trust in British Columbia.

With that, I thank you for your attention and take my place in the debate.

G. Begg: It is my pleasure today, too, to rise in support of this much-needed legislation which, at its base, is another tool in the toolbox of law enforcement. It’s designed to encourage more people with knowledge of murders, drug trafficking and other gang-involved crimes to share the information that they have with the police.

The world we live in today is constantly changing. Advancements are made every day. We read daily of advancements in medical science, in space exploration and climate change, in the very way that we live our lives. What we don’t hear about often are the advancements that are being made and have been made in criminal activity, particularly organized criminal activity involving highly motivated, highly educated and sophisticated young men and women who, for whatever reason, find themselves involved in crime.

Most of what we know about crime has been glorified and magnified by what we see on television and in the movies and read in the paper. But the days of what we used to refer to as traditional organized crime…. It is and has for many years now been obsolete. The mobster of yesterday and yesteryear is long gone. Cell phones, clone phones, international syndicates, online banking, money laundering and offshore banks are now the new face of what we face in combatting crime in British Columbia.

As a young person growing up in Ontario, organized crime was what was then referred to as “traditional organized crime,” largely related around ethnic groups and very silent. You very rarely heard of the criminal activity that they were involved in. Today, of course, organized crime and gang violence has reached a level that we would not have thought about 20 years ago.

[3:20 p.m.]

I was around in this province as a policeman for the birth of the UN gang, the United Nations gang. It was formed in Abbotsford in the late 1990s by a group of high school friends from across the Fraser Valley. Yes, you heard that right: a group of high school friends from across the Fraser Valley. They began as a loose-knit group of Abbotsford young people linked to Asian organized crime, and they grew very quickly.

I can remember attending briefings as a police officer of many years’ experience at that time and being amazed at the sophistication of this group. As we watched and observed, they began a profitable drug-running enterprise involving helicopters flying across the U.S.-Canada border, trading what was then much-sought-after British Columbia cannabis and bringing back cocaine to be sold in Canada.

As a new criminal organization, the UN gang fought a number of turf wars against other gangs — most notably in this province, the Red Scorpions. They also led a turf war against the Independent Soldiers gang, as it sought to establish itself. Always lurking in the background was one of the biggest rival gangs in this province, the Hell’s Angels.

As one might suspect, what began as a war became an agreement to work together for the common good — not the common good that you and I expect, but the common no good. They realized, as part of their tactical operations, that they could be more effective in their trade if they worked together. So alliances were formed all across this province. Former enemies became friends and compatriots. They were no longer rivals in the drug trade; they facilitated the activities of each other. That, I think, was the start in this province. That organizational shift, that change in the way they do business, began the gang wars.

Persons with information became threatened by those who feared that the release of that information could lead to the interruption of their illegal commerce. These young high school kids from the Fraser Valley began to see that their lives could be in danger, that the information they had, if revealed, could threaten their lives. As a result of that, I think, today we have found ourselves in the midst of unprecedented murders here in British Columbia.

I think it’s nice to have a historical perspective on how we got to where we are. It’s also helpful, I think, to think of these issues in non-partisan terms. I believe that every member of this Legislature should do as I do, which is to embrace this new legislation, which will help the police to deal, at its core, with the cause of this crime.

Although this crime issue is new and in an unprecedented form today, the witness protection program in this country is not new. It is something that was proclaimed, probably, in 1996. I remember then Governor General Roméo LeBlanc proclaiming it as the law of the land. It was, at that time, a program that was totally administered by the RCMP. I, of course, was part of the RCMP. The process that was involved then, under certain circumstances, allowed witnesses who were in a position to help police in combatting organized crime to be given a new name. That was the new start. They could be relocated anywhere in the country after they had given information to the police.

[3:25 p.m.]

In today’s world, those persons with information that could help the police find themselves in danger. Those people who have been witnesses to crime find themselves in potential danger. That danger starts, usually, when they’re called as witnesses in criminal proceedings.

We have courthouses in British Columbia today, as a result of all of this activity, that are called high-security courtrooms. They are designed to thwart an attempt on the life of witnesses to criminal proceedings. So if you are involved in today’s crime, if you’re involved in a gang and you fear for your life, what is the opportunity that you have to share that information with the police? Chances are that you will share that information with no one, because you will have witnessed violence in your group or outside your group that causes you to fear.

What has happened in British Columbia is that our criminal justice system has become paralyzed by the lack of our ability to properly insulate individuals from repercussions as a result of gang activity. The steps that are being taken today are bold. There are other provinces in Canada who have made this step and, as a result, have decreased, in measurable terms, the number of gang-related incidents and increased the number of convictions — as a result of their ability to protect witnesses.

The program that is being contemplated here today by the legislation that we are advancing will do much to encourage more people with knowledge of crime. When we talk of crime, we’re not talking of petty crime. We’re talking of major crime. We’re talking of murders; we’re talking about other gang-related activity. There must be an incentive for those people with that knowledge to share it with the police, to share it with the Crown, with the assurance that the police and other enforcement agencies will do whatever is required to ensure that no harm comes to them as a result of their involvement in the judicial system.

Think of that for a moment. What kind of country would countenance an arrangement whereby if you gave witness to a crime in a court, your life could be in danger? Certainly not an advanced civilization in the 21st century. Certainly not British Columbia, with an unprecedented rate of violent crime. There are people with intimate details of very serious crime who, today, are forced to not acknowledge their knowledge for that fear. The legislation that is being contemplated today is a major step forward in reducing the overall crime rate in this province. It is a major step forward in ensuring that, without fear, persons can step forward and say: “I saw” or “I did” or “I heard” or “I was there.”

I spent many years policing in Surrey — now, unfortunately, the locale of many crimes. Too often I was frustrated by the lack of witnesses. I knew they were witnesses, but they would not speak of what they had seen for legitimate fear of what would happen to them if they did.

This legislation allows us to protect, with integrity, those people who bravely step forward and offer to help the police. That is the responsibility of every citizen. We always say: “If you see something, say something.” If you don’t, our society is degraded, and all of us are in danger. That is not a society that I would choose to live in. That is not a society that we should choose to live in.

[3:30 p.m.]

This is, I know, a non-partisan issue. I know that everyone in this House will support this legislation, and I commend the Solicitor General for being brave enough to make this an important item for us. We will be the beneficiaries. British Columbia will be safer. Crime will be decreased as a result of this legislation.

I welcome the chance to speak to it, and I urge everyone in this House to support it.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Hon. H. Bains: It is a pleasure to stand again and speak on legislation that is very, very close to me. I know many people in this House who would look at improving our system, where we could have a successful prosecution of those who are involved in gangs and gun violence. Too many families have been left with their loved ones taken away from them. The success of prosecution isn’t what it should be, especially here in British Columbia.

Safety and security of one’s family and one’s self is the basic foundation of who we are as a society. If we don’t feel safe in our own homes, if we don’t feel safe walking our children in our neighbourhoods and neighbourhood parks or using public facilities, nothing else matters. Nothing else matters.

That’s why there are key pillars in solving crime. I’m not an expert, but I have listened to many experts such as the speaker before me, who spent all of his life dealing with crime and preventing crime and prosecuting those who were involved in crime — the member for Surrey-Guildford. But I know what some of the key pillars are. Prevention is number one where we need to be spending a lot of our resources, then enforcement and then deterrence. We can look at each one of them. How are we going to do this?

This bill, Bill 4, Witness Security Act, goes a long way towards that. If witnesses who have seen the crime — who would like to come out and help police and help our society to put those people behind bars — don’t fear for their life or their loved ones, chances are they will come forward. That’s where the prevention could also come. If they know something is about to happen, if they know there are people who they know are involved or are planning to harm somebody, then they could come forward and prevent that from happening.

Then again, if the crime has occurred and they know they have the information and they know that they will be protected, that their families will be protected, chances are they will come forward and provide that expert advice and witness to what they have seen so that we are successful in putting those people behind bars who are causing harm in our neighbourhoods. Once we do that, once we are successful in putting those people behind bars, then you know that is a strong deterrent as well.

I think it goes a long way to deal with solving crime — first of all, preventing and then solving crime, if it happens. I want to thank our Solicitor General for coming forward and putting this legislation in place.

We have seen that in British Columbia, in 2017, the numbers are staggering. We have seen the largest provincial increase and highest proportion of gang-related homicides in 2017 in all of Canada, and it’s the only province in which gang-related homicides represent a third or more of the total homicides two years running, in 2016 and 2017.

[3:35 p.m.]

There are other studies out there. Our current Speaker of the House, the member for Abbotsford South, was involved in a study that looked at all of the different jurisdictions in the country. That report is about two years old now. At that particular time, that report told us and the research was clear that for solving homicide crime in British Columbia compared to the rest of the country, we had the lowest solving ratio of all the provinces. They reported a number of reasons behind that.

They also talked about not only just the gang-related or the gun violence, but they also related non-gang-related. They made a comparison. In each of those categories, our success rate was not even in the middle of where our country is, compared to the rest of the jurisdictions. We were one of the lowest.

I think these are the steps that are needed to take. These maybe look like small steps, but without witnesses, you know that the success of prosecution usually isn’t as we would like it to be when it comes to the success of putting those people behind bars.

The issue is…. What we’re trying to achieve here is that successful prosecution will send a clear message to those involved in organized crime that the province is taking firm and strong actions to deal with gang violence and that our overall goal is to increase our public safety.

This legislation empowers enforcement agencies to apply to a program on behalf of a witness or a person associated with a witness, such as a family member who is also under threat. It is going a ways to tell those who have information about crime that if they come forward, they will be protected. Right now that is not the case. That’s why this bill is timely, and it is very, very important, I think.

Police have a number of different methods — using surveillance, using wiretap, undercover. Many of those can be quite dangerous for the police force themselves, especially being undercover, if you are to go and work with those who are really dangerous people. If we have witnesses who also worry about their safety and the safety of their families, chances are they will be reluctant to come forward.

I think we owe it to all those families who have lost their loved ones and no one is held accountable. We owe it to those who maybe were innocent bystanders. They were taken away from their families. We owe it to those who were simply doing their work, their job, and a stray bullet hit them. Many people may have information about the people behind that gun, but they don’t want to come forward because they are worried about their safety.

This legislation is to deal with that. My understanding is that British Columbia lags way behind in this area. Other jurisdictions are way ahead of us. That’s why we are not only just catching up but sending a clear message that we mean business, that we are coming after you if you are to pick up a gun and cause harm to anybody.

I’m really proud to stand here to support this bill. We were involved in Surrey even when we were on the opposition benches, because crime had become a real issue for people in that region.

I want to make it clear here that criminals have no boundaries. They don’t have any different area or one particular area where they want to commit crime. You see people. They’re living in Surrey, but they’re committing crime in Vancouver, or vice versa. Those who are living in Delta are committing crime in Abbotsford. Those living in Abbotsford commit a crime in Kelowna.

[3:40 p.m.]

They are moving to do their business wherever their business takes them. They’re creating havoc in the neighbourhoods, in the communities and especially for those families who are worried, when their children are out, whether their children are going to come home or not.

Many people take the attitude that these gang members are killing each other, so who cares. But that’s not who we are as a society, number one. Number two, we have had incidences with people sitting in their own homes where the bullet came flying through the window, and they were very lucky to survive. Other times you’ve seen the bullets flying through and hitting the schools in different areas. I think those people who are bad people have bad intentions. They don’t really care as long as they get their target. Who else is getting hit is not their worry.

I think the issue is that we have allowed crime to get out of hand, especially south of the Fraser and in Abbotsford. It started in Vancouver. Like I said, every community has its share. We need to take an overall approach, and this bill goes towards that. It’s not just area-specific. It’s not to deal with one particular kind of crime. It is about encouraging those who may have information about a crime to come forward, and they will be looked after.

I think that’s the only way we could ask witnesses to come forward. You cannot put witnesses at risk of losing their life or putting their family in harm’s way. I think this is the least we can do. It is not just for those families who have lost their loved ones. As a society, I think we need to send a clear message that we mean business. We’re serious about cutting crime and dealing with crime in this province.

I want to thank the minister responsible, who has taken this issue very seriously. He has come out to Surrey and met with many stakeholders. He has provided resources that are needed on the prevention side, for example. When I was talking to Rob Rai, who runs the Wraparound program in our high schools, before we were elected, even, I said: “Rob, what is going on? How do we help you?” He said: “Look, we have a very successful program. It is so successful that we have 40 to 50 youth always on the waiting list.”

I said: “There’s something wrong with that.” That child is coming, that youth is coming for help because he’s moving in the wrong direction. He’s pushed into a wrong direction. Finally, he or she made a decision. “I need help. I want to get away. I want to get back on the right track.” And we’re saying: “We can’t help you. Just get in the lineup.” Something’s wrong with that. How are we going to help the children? That youth is going to go away, because there are other forces pushing and pulling him.

I checked with the minister after we got elected. He told me that he needed about $500,000 to eliminate the wait-list. I spoke to our minister. The minister said that that made sense. Before I knew it, he was in Surrey making an announcement that they will get $500,000 on an ongoing basis. Not just ad hoc, the way the program was funded before. It will be on an ongoing basis. Every year they will get $500,000. Rob Rai is very, very happy that he’s now able to help those youth who need help at that particular time rather than telling them to go and wait.

Those are the types of steps we are taking. I’m so happy and proud to be part of a government which is taking these issues that are so important to our community, so important to our families, and that we are moving in the right direction. This bill, the Witness Security Act, is one of the areas that I think was long overdue, and we are moving in that direction. I hope that we will get the support from both sides of the House, all three parties.

[3:45 p.m.]

I can tell you that when I go out there and door-knock…. I do it between elections just to see where my constituents are and what their issues are so that I understand, when I stand up here, that the issues I’m speaking about here are the issues that they gave to me.

One of the things that they would tell you all the time…. They’ve got jobs. They live in a nice neighbourhood. Then I ask them: “What are the issues in this neighbourhood? Are there any issues or concerns that you want to share with me?” At first, they are shocked to see that somebody is there, talking to them, asking about their issues.

When I ask about different issues — about education, health care, crime — then they just open up. They say: “Well, we can hardly take our children to school without walking by someone who is selling drugs on our street.” And I say: “Why don’t you call the police?” “We try. We call them, but we have given up because the police say they don’t have enough resources.” They don’t come, and these drug dealers know that as well — that they are going to get away with it.

One of the neighbours told me…. When I asked, “Why are you doing it in our neighbourhood?” this drug dealer said, “Well, call the police if you don’t like it,” knowing that the police are not going to show up.

I think we owe it to our families. We owe it to our neighbourhoods. We owe it to our communities. They must feel safe when they are walking in their neighbourhood. They must have confidence that their children are safe when they are walking by that kind of an environment in their neighbourhood.

They must feel safe inside their homes — that stray bullets aren’t going to fly through the window and hit someone in that house. They should feel confident that when their children are in school, they are safe, that bullets aren’t flying through the windows of the school. That has happened. We have seen innocent bystanders getting killed. We have seen mistaken identities and somebody getting killed.

Where is the accountability? I think that’s, basically, what we are talking about here. How many of them have been thrown behind bars, who have committed a crime in our neighbourhoods?

I think the report by our Speaker is very clear — that our success rate in solving homicides, especially gang-related, is the lowest in the country. There has to be a reason behind it. They’re comparing apples to apples, not just gang-related versus non-gang-related. They have divided up those two areas all across the country. When B.C. fell way behind…. I’m talking about this study that was conducted about two years ago.

I think action was needed many years ago. Nonetheless, we are here now. I’m so happy that our minister has taken this thing seriously. This bill goes a long way in dealing with the area of solving crime by encouraging witnesses to come forward with the information that they may have and be a Crown witness so that we can put those people behind bars and end gang violence and gun violence.

I’m happy to share my views on that. I have a lot more to say. I think, for now, I would say that those are my comments on this issue. I’m happy to stand here and support Bill 4.

Deputy Speaker: When the minister rises, it shall close debate.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to rise to close debate and to take a little bit of time to respond to the thoughtful comments from both sides of the House on this important piece of legislation.

I’ve listened with great care. I know that when we get to committee stage, there will be an opportunity to address questions that I know members of the opposition have put forward. My critic from Prince George–Mackenzie has raised issues around costs again, very important questions. We will have that ability to explore those issues during the stage-by-stage debate, during committee stage.

I want to talk a little bit about why I think this bill is important and to give some comfort to members that it’s not a piece of legislation that has been developed in isolation.

[3:50 p.m.]

As all of us know, the issue of gang crime and gang violence in this province has been one that has been evolving. It has been evolving for a number of reasons. My colleague the former RCMP inspector who has had more experience with this matter than, I think, the rest of us combined in this House, has outlined changes — societal changes, changes in technology — that have made it easier for non-traditional organized crime to develop and to take hold in a way that law enforcement probably never imagined or that society or the general public ever imagined.

For many years, organized crime, as has been pointed out, was very much often family based, in major urban centres that were dominated by some very traditional organized crime structures, which all of us know were quite often the basis for films or TV shows. Every once in a while, there would be an eruption of violence. The details would be splashed across the papers, quite often south of the border, and they would make their way up here. You would have TV shows that were developed on that kind of approach. The Eliot Ness one in the late ’50s and early ’60s was very much the public’s view of organized crime. It was carried out in secret, behind closed doors. I guess a more recent show would be The Sopranos. But that’s often very much the public’s view.

The world has changed because of the changes in technology, because of the changes in communications, because of the changes in cell phones. The ability to get a cell phone and to dispose of it, because it is so inexpensive and so cheap…. It is, in essence, the cost of doing business. Whereas before, being able to tap a land line, getting the authorization to do that, allowed the police to be able to build and develop a case, using Revenue Canada and their ability to use tax records. In terms of the fight against organized crime, often the first breakthroughs in the traditional, sort of, structures were to follow the money. You know, follow the money, and that’s how those successes were taking place.

Witness protection programs were a part of that. They were done at the national level, at the federal level. But what we have seen, especially in this province, has been a complete change over the last few decades of how the development has taken place in organized crime. We saw it in small groups that were starting out, the drug lines, the links to offshore emerging markets in emerging countries.

Quite often, in terms of the drug trade, initially it was coming out of South America, and it was coming out of Mexico, for example, and the drug cartels down there. What we’ve seen is the growth coming out of Asia, in particular, China, when it comes to fentanyl and the challenges that that places on our national authorities, on our border agencies, on our federal resources to be able to deal with organized crime.

On top of that were changes that were made at the federal level in terms of priorities. We’ve seen that in terms of the rise of terrorism over the last 20 years and how that has impacted even here, and the changing and the reallocation of resources at the federal level, from organized crime to dealing with terrorism issues.

All of these things, and the challenges that government faces…. And the fact that government, and rightly so, is governed by laws, our Charter of Rights, court decisions. All of those things that are the underpinnings of a democratic society — that rule of law that we abide by — organized criminals and those engaged in that kind of criminal activity don’t care about. That’s not part of who they are. It’s not part of how they operate. So they are constantly evolving.

[3:55 p.m.]

New technology, social media and the ability to communicate faster than ever before, using apps that are meant to assist people to engage with each other, but have a dark side, a flip side which allows that disposability, that ability to use technology to create very silent ways of communicating, very silent ways of transferring money. The emergence of cryptocurrencies, for example.

I mean, one of the biggest…. It gets a lot of press, and you see the things. You know, “If you’d invested this much, you’d be worth this much,” and then two weeks later, it’s down, and people go: “Wow, isn’t this neat?” It is fascinating. But at the same time, who is paying attention to that? Who is looking at those kinds of things? Organized crime. Criminals. Gangs. All of those things are a way to hide assets, to continue to do what they do in a way that was never dreamt of.

We have seen that, and that structure, come down to people who are younger than ever before — getting involved because they see some sort of glamour. They see some sort of easy money. They see some sort of fast approach to a lifestyle that we all know has only two outcomes: behind bars or a toe tag.

One of the things that we need to do and one of the things that government has recognized and that parents have recognized and that educators have recognized is the need and importance to have a multi-pronged approach when it comes to dealing with crime. The education part is critical. The resources to school systems, to communities such as Surrey, to communities such as Abbotsford, to communities such as Williams Lake, to have programs in place, to educate kids at a very early age to be able to start to get them if they’re showing signs of the wrong kind of behavior, if they’re showing signs that could lead them down into a gang lifestyle or that wrong criminal track, to be able to put them back onto the right track.

It means the family supports. It means the educational supports. All of those things are important, and all of those are things that government has been doing and will continue to do.

At the same time, on the consequence side, there is the need to be able to say and the need to be able to put in place that you know what? You will get caught. You will go to jail, if you don’t get killed. And you will lose those things. So we have seen the development of legislation, which has seen, for example, civil forfeiture, which has allowed us to confiscate assets. To be able to say: “You know what? That Lamborghini that was obtained with the proceeds of criminal activity — sorry, it’s not yours anymore. You can walk, if you’re not going to jail. But you’re losing it.” And that fancy house obtained with criminal proceeds? That’s gone too.

We have a number of court cases underway with criminal organizations, the Hell’s Angels being one, where civil forfeiture is currently being used. That’s one aspect that government has put in place. There’s other legislation that has been introduced that will assist in that. But again, it’s an example of that multi-pronged approach that has to be taken.

Then there is the challenge of getting the evidence, the challenge of putting together a case, the challenge of being able to, with all the changes that have taken place — all the case law that has happened, all the changes in law at the federal level in terms of developing the rules and the guidelines and those cases that set precedents by which law enforcement must operate and which governments must take into account…. There then becomes that ability to be able to put together a case.

As we know, the most effective way to do that is having evidence that will stand up in court, whether it is DNA evidence, whether it is records or witnesses — people who have been involved firsthand in the kind of criminal activity that we have seen, the kind of criminal activity that everybody who has spoken in this House has recognized.

[4:00 p.m.]

There are people who have seen things, who have participated in things, who know things that need to come forward. And there are many who know that they do need to come forward, but they don’t know how. They fear for their own safety, or they fear for the safety of their friends and their family, and they want do the right thing because, at some point, they have become sickened by what they have seen. Or they have become scared for their own safety by what they have seen and what they know, and they want to be able to assist the police and do the right thing.

We have the federal program in place, and that will continue to be in place. But what we need in this province, and what other provinces have recognized, is something that is B.C.-based that allows us to deal with the situations that we find here in British Columbia and that is flexible and adaptable and can be put into place quickly. That’s what this legislation is about.

It will give us a unique flexibility that will assist the police and law enforcement agencies in this province to be able to do just that, to be able to say to someone: “There is another path. We can protect you if you testify. We can help. There is legislation that will allow us to do this.”

I can tell you, upon becoming Solicitor General and having my first meeting with E division…. We talked about: “What are the kinds of things that you would like to see happen?” This was at the top of their list. They viewed this as a significant advance that would assist them in terms of dealing with gang violence and organized crime in the province of British Columbia.

When I talk with community groups, when I talk with local councils about the kind of support they need, it’s not just on the education front, not just in terms of putting more boots on the ground but the kinds of things that would assist police in being able to do a better job, not only in bringing individuals to justice but to have more successful prosecutions.

This has been the experience in Alberta. This has been the experience in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Ontario and Quebec also have a different kind of program, but they’ve all gone down this route of recognizing that they need something that meets the needs of their individual provinces and their individual demographics and their individual, unique circumstances.

That’s what this legislation is about, and that’s why I am so pleased to be able to stand and have this before the House — and very pleased with the support that it has received so far. As I said, there will be plenty of time to deal with the questions at committee stage. I look forward to doing just that.

With that, I will take my place, as the final speaker on this particular piece of legislation.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 4, Witness Security Act.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 4, Witness Security 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. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage, Bill 9, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2019.

Deputy Speaker: The House will recess for two minutes.

The House recessed from 4:04 p.m. to 4:05 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 9 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 9; J. Isaacs in the chair.

The committee met at 4:08 p.m.

On section 1.

The Chair: Do you have an opening comment?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, hon. Chair.

I’m joined by staff member Darryl Hrenyk, legal counsel, Ministry of Attorney General. Then staff will be switching, and we should expect Russell Getz and Tyler Nyvall, as well, to join us as we go through the statute.

I look forward to the members’ questions.

M. Lee: As we were discussing this on second reading, I would appreciate if the Attorney General could give us an update as to the status of the Provincial Court family rules reform project in terms of understanding the status of those rules and the protocol that is being worked upon, to get a better context in which these particular amendments are being brought forward for the Family Law Act.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member rightly notes that a significant portion of the bill relates to creating changes to the Family Law Act to accommodate new family court rules, yet the bill itself doesn’t contain those rules.

I can tell the member that I have prescient staff that provided me with some details that I can share. I can’t provide the specifics of the rules themselves, because they’re currently in approvals with a working group that has representation from the Provincial Court, which made recommendations — and those recommendations themselves are in approvals. What I can say is that the amendments in Bill 9 support some of the general concepts of the model that’s being contemplated.

First of all, the model is expected to offer families some early resolution processes designed to assist parties to resolve matters without a court hearing — which is, obviously, something that we would all seek in these family disputes and at the end of a marriage relationship. It’s expected that these processes will include, first of all, an early assessment by a family justice counsellor to determine a family’s legal and non-legal needs and make appropriate referrals; the completion, potentially, of parenting education; as well as, potentially, participation in consensual dispute resolution, such as mediation, if appropriate.

The other pieces of the model that the working group has been exploring are options around the use of judicial officers and more efficient use of judicial resources. One of the particular concepts currently being developed is around a new judicial officer role that could perform some case management functions, creating more capacity for judges to hear more substantive matters. This is planned for future implementation, pending the results of a prototype in Victoria.

M. Lee: Thank you for that overview; I appreciate that. Let me just say: in terms of the details, what are the remaining steps to be taken to finalize those rules of court and the protocol itself?

Hon. D. Eby: The technical requirement is that the rules are regulations. So they go through the order-in-council process. Beyond that, I’m not sure how much I can say about the various approvals processes, but they are in those approvals processes with the aim of ending up in order-in-council approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

M. Lee: Will there be any consultation, beyond the working group, as to these rules?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that there have been some consultations that have taken place already in relation to the prototype in Victoria. These were generally Victoria-based organizations that have interactions with family law and family disputes that end up in court. In addition to that, there were consultations with bar associations and other public stakeholders.

The member can expect, once the prototype system is live in Victoria, a much broader public consultation that will take place in relation to the broader rules and the prototype system as we go forward.

M. Lee: On that rollout of the prototype, is it intended that it would go…? How far would it go out, in terms of the implementation, beyond Victoria?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, our hope is that the Victoria prototype will be very successful and that we’ll roll it out quite widely. But right now the reason for doing this is to make sure that we deal with any unexpected hiccups or unexpected outcomes in Victoria, in just one jurisdiction and one registry, rather than provincewide.

[4:15 p.m.]

It allows us to get it right before it gets rolled out anywhere else and to make sure that it’s doing what we intended it to do.

M. Lee: That’s helpful context, then, to consider the proposed amendment in section 1 of this bill. If I could ask the Attorney General…. We talk about the ability that this provision would provide to a family justice counsellor to provide an exemption to a person from a requirement to participate in all or part of a prescribed process. First of all, let me confirm that what the Attorney General ran through in terms of some of the components which the new rules might look at, in terms of early assessment as well as dispute resolution, completion of certain parental education components…. Are those the requirements that we’re speaking of? What’s the list of requirements that will be set out in this prescribed process?

Hon. D. Eby: Generally, the thinking is, in terms of examples of what processes the family justice counsellor would require somebody to attend…. I think he has an early assessment around determining what legal and non-legal needs are, completion of parenting education and participation in consensual dispute resolution such as mediation.

The idea behind the amendment here is that whatever the rules do require as these mandatory pieces that someone has to complete in order to move forward in the court process, there might be a situation where it would just be inappropriate to require someone to complete parenting education or where it would be inappropriate to compel someone to attend mediation that just doesn’t respond to the situation that they face. This amendment would allow a family justice counsellor to exempt an individual from having to complete that requirement.

There is thinking, for example, that there might be a requirement to participate in at least one consensual dispute resolution session, because our hope is that people start talking and then they realize they might not need to go to court. They could actually agree on a custody arrangement or on support or something like that. This is an example of what the family justice counsellor could exempt them from having to attend.

This provision would allow the family justice counsellor to do that so that they wouldn’t have to appear in front of a judge to be exempted from their requirement. That could just be done at the same time as the early assessment.

M. Lee: Just in terms of the family justice counsellor, would there be any change in the training or the requirements or the responsibilities for this counsellor in light of these rule changes?

Hon. D. Eby: The existing family justice counsellors already do very similar work here. Our expectation is that the existing training does cover this, and we’re confident in their ability to do that.

I refer the member to the section that is proposed to be amended here, section 10, which relates to family justice counsellors. Section 10(2) talks about the kind of assistance that family justice counsellors currently provide to individuals, which includes information about guardianship, parenting arrangements, contact with children, child and spousal support, referral to agencies and information respecting family law disputes. So they’re already doing a lot of this kind of work.

Certainly, there will be a need, likely, for additional family justice counsellors with the additional workload, additional capacity. But the training that they already go through we expect should be sufficient for what they’re being asked to do here.

M. Lee: Just looking at that existing section, 10(2), in the Family Law Act and recognizing that we don’t have the rules in front of us that are changing with the family court rules.

[4:20 p.m.]

Is there any change, then, to the framework, in the sense that the family justice counsellors’ roles are set out in this section, that there are not any new responsibilities that will be set out in the family court rules? Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: The critical piece here, in terms of the amendment, is to recognize that in some situations, for example, mediation is simply not appropriate. An example would be if there is family violence, or for some other reason. It’s important to be able to give these counsellors the ability to exempt somebody from having to participate in a mandatory process.

We anticipate that the new rules will have, potentially, some mandatory processes that you must do before you move on to the next step in the family court process. These family justice counsellors are trained mediators. They are experienced with doing these needs assessments. They do referrals.

What we need them to do is to make an assessment, as part of their needs assessment, about whether the required processes under the new rules, whatever they may be, are appropriate and, where they’re inappropriate, to exempt individuals from having to participate in them. That’s the significance of this amendment.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

M. Lee: In respect to this section, again, effectively, the subsection that’s being amended, 198(5)(b), “a prescribed process” is referred to again. I appreciate that we’ve had the discussion regarding the rules of court that are reviewed and revised. Can the Attorney General please just provide some further description of the use of prescribed process in this instance, when we’re talking about running of time limits? Is that the same prescribed process that we’re referring to in the previous section that we just discussed in, effectively, 10(2.1)?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, it is.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

M. Lee: In respect to this particular section, with the addition, if the Attorney General could please provide the objectives as to why this section is being added in terms of new potential abilities as to what a Provincial Court may order.

Hon. D. Eby: The member asked me about where the family rule amendments were going. As part of that answer, I advised him that the working group has been looking at options around the use of judicial officers to reduce the burden on judges. We expect that the rules will have increased use of judicial officers dealing with preliminary matters.

Before someone appears in front of a judge, if you’re in front of a judicial officer, then there are various aspects of their case that would be dealt with by the judicial officer, and the judicial officer might make decisions about preliminary matters.

What we need is an ability for the Provincial Court to be able to review the decision made by a judicial officer, who is not a judge, but a judge has oversight. So if, for whatever reason, a judicial officer makes a decision that is unfair, inappropriate, doesn’t fit or no longer fits the renewed circumstances, there is somebody — namely, a judge — who can look at that decision and change it, suspend it, terminate it — that is made by one of these judicial officers.

[4:25 p.m.]

That’s what clauses (3) and (4) are really about. This provides a formalized review process for decisions made by these judicial officers who are not judges, who are doing initial assessments and maybe making initial decisions like a judge would today. But instead of tying up judges to do it, a judicial officer would do it — these amendments allowing for review of those decisions made by these judicial officers.

M. Lee: I appreciate, when we are referring to judicial officers, that would be equivalent to the use of the term “decision-maker appointed under the Provincial Court Act,” presumably, and “in a class of decision makers prescribed under this Act,” as I look at this particular provision. Is that the case? When the Attorney General is describing judicial officers, is it intended that that fits within the decision-maker category, and if so, where are those rules and responsibilities for that decision-maker set out?

Hon. D. Eby: The answer to the member’s question is yes. The scope of the decisions that will be made by those judicial officers and the areas of authority will be set out in the rules. It’s important to note…. Under subsection 215(3)(b), under the proposed amendment here, it requires, the member will note, the conjunction “and” between (a) and (b) — that both of these pieces need to be met: “(a) appointed under the Provincial Court Act, and (b) in a class of decision makers prescribed under this Act.” They will be set out in regulation to complement the rules amendments.

You will see a regulation that establishes who these decision-makers are, these judicial officers that are entitled to make these decisions. That will map up with the amended rules that will talk about what areas of authority, what areas of jurisdiction the judicial officers will have to make decisions here.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

Hon. D. Eby: If I might just have an opportunity to switch staff. It’s a miscellaneous bill, so I have different staff for different sections. Just one second.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

M. Lee: This particular addition to section 130 of the act…. If the Attorney General could just walk us through the objective, certainly in terms of the additional wording that’s being provided here, in section (e.1).

Hon. D. Eby: This is a priority list. When somebody dies without a will, somebody needs to administer the estate. There needs to be a personal representative to deal with the estate and to deal with the business of the estate. Section 130 is a priority list of who the administrator should be.

[4:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

It starts with the spouse of the deceased person or a person nominated by the spouse. Then there’s the child of the deceased person or, the next section down, a person nominated by the child. And then it goes on, and it sets out additional requirements. What this does is it adds, when it’s not a spouse, when it’s not a child…. When you move down to an intestate successor other than the spouse or child of the deceased person, that is someone who could be the administrator, as long as they have the consent of the other intestate successors if there are other people who have a claim on the estate, and they all agree: “Yeah, this person should be the representative.”

As long as all those people who agree represent a majority of the interest of the estate, then that intestate successor can be the administrator, but sometimes they don’t want to deal with the estate themselves. They might want to appoint someone else — just like a spouse could appoint someone else, just like the child could appoint someone else, under the existing act.

Unfortunately, the act omitted, for some reason, the intestate successor being able to appoint someone else. It could be a trust company, for example. It could be a trusted friend who has a background in the area. It could be a lawyer. In any event, this section (e.1) allows for a person other than the spouse or the child of the deceased person, but allows for a person nominated by that intestate successor that has the confidence of the majority of the successors in the estate to appoint, to nominate someone else.

This is something that comes to us recommended by people who work in this area, as an amendment that would make life easier for people who find themselves beneficiaries of someone who died without a will and who want to appoint somebody to be their representative to deal with the administration of the estate. They don’t want to do it themselves. This allows for them to do that, if they’re not the spouse or the child.

Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

M. Lee: On section 10, there is the provision here that provides for some advance distribution of the proceeds of the estate without necessarily the full consent, provided that there are sufficient amounts left over in the estate to deal with the balance. Now, can I ask the Attorney General, in his view, what safeguards there are set out in these provisions that will ensure that the personal representative does not overdistribute the proceeds of the estate?

Hon. D. Eby: This section — it’s not immediately obvious — replicates a lot of what is in subsection 155(1) right now. It just breaks it out into more detail and does create some additional safeguards, as well as some additional opportunities to distribute an estate earlier in the process. The member is right to ask about that.

Subsection 155(1) under the amendments is basically a replication of the old subsection (1)(b). There’s not a change between that…. There’s a shifting of the wording, but there’s not a change on that. Section (1.1) talks about when someone might distribute an estate within the 210-day limit, earlier than the 210 days. It says that they need the consent of all of the following: “(a) all beneficiaries who have an interest in the estate.” The member will see that under the old section as well: “with the consent of all beneficiaries….” That would include the intestate successors entitled to the estate.

[4:35 p.m.]

Pardon me; strike that. It’s with the consent of all beneficiaries of the estate, and — this is new — subsection (b), “all persons who may commence a proceeding” under the variation of wills act in relation to the estate.

You need to get the consent of all those people before proceeding. Obviously, that’s going to be challenging, but it is possible. That safeguard, first of all, is that you have to get consent of all the beneficiaries, as well as anyone who might potentially sue. They might not be listed in the will, but they might have a right to sue under the variation of wills act, and they might be a potential beneficiary. You have to get their consent as well. That’s one safeguard.

Now, in the event that there’s someone who dies without a will, (1.2) in these amendments…. That’s the intestate successors. I jumped the gun a little bit on in (1.1). In (1.2), if someone dies without a will, you can distribute it earlier than the 210-day limit, as long as you have the consent of all the intestate successors that are entitled to a share of the estate under law. The member is right to recognize that there’s a risk. Anytime you’re distributing inside that 210-day limit, there is a risk in doing so that someone is going to come forward with a claim. Then you’ve given away the estate, you can’t get it back, and you’ve put the estate at risk.

This section (1.3) asks that the personal representative set aside all of the following: “(a) all the specific gifts to beneficiaries who have not been located; (b) a sum equal to the share of the residue of all beneficiaries who (i) have an interest in the residue, and (ii) have not been located; (c) a sum equal to the share of the estate of all intestate successors who (i) have an interest in the estate, and (ii) have not been located; (d) a sum equal to an amount sufficient to satisfy any claim under Division 6 [Variation of Wills] of Part 4 [Wills] in relation to the estate.” They’ve got to set aside that money or those specific gifts and make sure that they’re protected if they’re going to go ahead and do this distribution.

Then finally, there’s an additional liability that anyone who distributes inside those 210 days, any personal representative, is “liable for loss or damage to any person arising from distribution of the estate of the deceased person”, unless they demonstrate that they’ve done all of the following: that they’ve set aside all the specific gifts, that they’ve set aside the sum equal to the shares referenced above and that they’ve determined and set aside a sum equal to the total amount sufficient to satisfy all claims.

The key here is that, as a personal representative, you can distribute earlier, but you need to understand that if you haven’t set aside these amounts, if you haven’t followed these specific steps, you are liable for loss and damage to any person. That should provide some significant caution. Overlapping all of this is the concept of fiduciary duty that binds a personal representative, as well. That also creates liability for them and, potentially, additional damages. When you put that all together, it creates the ability for early distribution, but personal representatives do it at their own risk, if they’re not following the safeguards that the act sets out.

M. Lee: I appreciate the Attorney General walking us through that.

I have one more question, which is of a general nature, before we proceed with the rest of the approvals of the sections on this bill, on the transitional provisions. Just a general question. I understand and I appreciate, again, the briefing that the Attorney General’s office arranged for me a few days ago on this bill. My understanding from that briefing is that many of the amendments that have been included in this bill to this act have been coming forward from a variety of sources, including those who have been administering the act — whether through court registries or through the legal bar.

I would just like to ask the Attorney General as to whether there was consideration of other amendments to the sections of this act. Certainly, I know in terms of my role here as the critic, I’ve become aware of at least, for example, a question that was raised around section 10 of this act, regarding the five-day rule — in terms of individuals who pass within a short time period of each other. Were there any considerations of other sections of this act for revision?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Staff advise me that there were other sections that have been identified by members of the bar or other people involved in the act, that they evaluated those proposals and that the amendments that the member sees in front of him are the ones that staff recommended bringing forward.

I certainly know that staff maintain ongoing dialogue with the bar, the public trustee and members of the public about this kind of thing. So if the member has specific suggestions about sections of the act that he feels he’s hearing, in his role as critic, should be looked at, this is a continually evolving piece of legislation.

The wills and estates practice is a very active bar, and there are lots of unexpected situations that can come up. So if the member has suggestions, or if members of the public do, they should certainly let our office know so that they can be evaluated for a future miscellaneous statutes amendment.

Sections 10 to 13 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:41 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Bill 9, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Eby: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 3, Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 2019.

[4:45 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 3 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND
HOUSING STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 3; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 4:46 p.m.

On section 1.

Hon. S. Robinson: I have a number of staff with me that will be rotating through for various parts of this bill. For the Building Act amendments, which is I think where we’ll start, I’ve got Greg Steves, the assistant deputy minister, office of housing and construction standards; I have Tracy Olsen on my left, senior policy analyst, building and safety standards branch; and I have Kaye Krishna, who is the new deputy minister for the ministry.

L. Throness: Are we beginning questions on the bill?

The Chair: On section 1.

L. Throness: I do support sections 1 to 3. I just have one question about it. I’m going to be speaking today simply in relation to Cultus Lake. So I support the intention of the government in these first two sections because they establish flexibility to subdelegate certain decisions to local government. It makes the business of regulating more effective and efficient, and it shares regulatory tasks where it makes sense for local government to rule on a certain matter, rather than the minister. So I support them.

My question is: would these sections, as they amend the Building Act, apply to the Cultus Lake Park Act, as amended?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes.

L. Throness: We’re still on section 1, right? Okay. No more questions.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

L. Throness: I note that the title of the act is repealed and replaced. But this section says nothing about the rather long preamble that is in the current act, prior to this first section. What happens to the preamble? And if it’s taken out, where, in the bill before us, is that done?

Hon. S. Robinson: We’ve moved on to another part of this act, so I’d like to change out my staff, if that’s possible, so that the member can ask his question again. I want to thank my staff on the Building Act for their hard work to help us to get this through.

I’m going to be joined by Tara Faganello, assistant deputy minister, local government division; Kara Woodward, director, policy research and legislation branch; and Lydia Zucconi, senior policy analyst, policy research and legislation branch.

If the member would repeat his question, that would be very helpful now that I have the right staff in the room.

L. Throness: Sure. Section 5 repeals the title and replaces it. But the section says nothing about the rather long preamble that is in the current act, prior to its first section. What happens to the preamble? And if it’s taken out, where, in the bill before us, is that done?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The preamble stays.

L. Throness: The original intention of the current act, as it’s stated in the preamble, is that the powers of commissioners need to be greater than that provided for in the Municipal Act or in the provincial Park Act. Could the minister talk for just a moment about that statement. What did it mean in its historical context, and what is its applicability today?

Hon. S. Robinson: I just got a little history lesson. As the member knows, Cultus Lake was formed in 1932. But I bet he didn’t know that the Municipal Act was also new at that time.

[4:55 p.m.]

When we took a look at making some very targeted changes in this act, the decision was made to not do a wholesale change of all components of it and to update the parts that were most critical. We recognize, however, that Cultus Lake is not just a park anymore. It’s really a community. But it really wasn’t the time to change substantial parts of the act, given that we were just doing some targeted changes.

L. Throness: So that phrase, then, or sentence, is no longer applicable.

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I got a little bit of a history lesson. This is old-fashioned drafting, and current drafting actually is moving away from preambles. The concern was that it was too wholesale to actually do any significant changes in this preamble, so it was thought best to just leave it as is.

L. Throness: I have a small item. I’m wondering about the word “park,” which is used throughout the act and is never capitalized, although it is a proper name. I’m wondering if it should not be capitalized throughout the act.

Hon. S. Robinson: This is a drafting convention.

L. Throness: Under section 7, under “Cultus Lake Park Board continued”, the board of commissioners…. The word “commissioners” appears once in the act. The word “representatives” appears many times. I just want to confirm that commissioners are still to be known as commissioners and not representatives.

Hon. S. Robinson: There are representatives from Cultus Lake, and there are representatives from Chilliwack. They’re all commissioners.

L. Throness: Moving along to the qualifications of board members, as the minister knows, I represent Chilliwack as well as Cultus Lake. The city of Chilliwack does have some interest in Cultus Lake, given that it owns the land in trust. The mayor of Chilliwack pointed out to me once that there could be some legal liability incurred by the city if it were sued because of a decision by the board, so its interests need to be represented. When I appeared before the city council to ask for their support for the change to the election of members, they said yes, because they would still be represented.

My question is this. According to the bill before us, the representatives of Cultus Lake must live in Cultus Lake, but the representatives of the city of Chilliwack don’t have to live in the city of Chilliwack. Why is that?

Hon. S. Robinson: Can the member just tell us what section he’s on? Are we still on the same section?

L. Throness: Section 7, I thought.

The Chair: Okay, hold it, then.

L. Throness: I have been talking on section 7 for a long time.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m wondering if the member can repeat his question. We were looking madly to figure out where he was and didn’t really quite get all the details of his question.

L. Throness: According to the bill before us, the representatives of Cultus Lake must live in Cultus Lake, but there’s no companion requirement for the representatives elected by the city of Chilliwack. So I’m simply wondering why there is no companion requirement.

Hon. S. Robinson: The folks from Chilliwack, the representatives from Chilliwack, are elected under Local Government Act rules.

L. Throness: Moving on to the election of the board. Under the section “Election of board,” we see that in sub 5….

[5:00 p.m.]

I note that there are two different ways to elect representatives. Chilliwack representatives are elected as a city councillor is elected, but the park board representatives, who are now in the majority, are elected as trustees are elected. Could the minister explain the difference between the two and tell the committee why this distinction is necessary? Could they not all be elected as city councillors are elected?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member will be aware that Chilliwack actually holds the park in trust. I know he’s well aware of this precious park in his constituency.

All commissioners, at one point, were elected in Chilliwack. It was an entire Chilliwack contingent. Then in 2014, it was changed to have representatives who made their homes in Cultus Lake to three, and then there’d be two from Chilliwack. This, again, continues to reflect the fact that Chilliwack continues to have the lease — the responsibility, the trustees of the park.

L. Throness: Moving on to the section entitled “Filling vacancies,” sub 7. I have contacted the city of Chilliwack about this, and they’re happy with that. In fact, this happened about a year ago, but the same section doesn’t appear to deal with the vacancy on the park board of a commissioner elected by the residents of the park. Would a vacancy here require a by-election?

On the face of it, it appears that the city of Chilliwack would be able to appoint a successor to a commissioner elected by residents of the park and not by electors of the city of Chilliwack. I don’t quite understand how that works.

Hon. S. Robinson: Yeah, because the city is the trustee, they can have a representative from the city just fill the vacancy, and that way, it doesn’t require a by-election.

L. Throness: But what if someone elected by the Cultus Lake residents passes away, or something like that, and there’s a vacancy? What happens in that case? Can the city of Chilliwack nominate someone to fill a position elected by Cultus Lake residents?

Hon. S. Robinson: Now I understand what the member was getting at. It wasn’t as clear to me. The rationale for this is that Cultus Lake, the park, doesn’t have the capacity to run elections. It would have to be another city that would have to do it on their behalf. So this way, the city has the capacity to appoint someone that’s appropriate to represent the interests, whether it’s the Cultus Lake side of the commissioners or the city side of commissioners.

L. Throness: Perhaps that’s something that can be changed sometime in the future as the park grows.

I want to move on to the section entitled “Disqualification,” which is sub 8. I can see the possibility of a disagreement on the board in the future and the majority of the board taking advantage of a person’s three-month illness or other misfortune to disqualify that person and declare a vacancy. Has the government considered this possibility?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s not automatic. The individual can seek leave, and it’s the same process that we have for local government.

L. Throness: Under subsection (c) of the same section, if a member contravenes part 6 of part 4 of the Community Charter, he or she can be disqualified as a member. Is that exactly the same as any municipal councillor in B.C.?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, we’ve adopted the Community Charter provisions.

L. Throness: Under “Procedures of board,” which is 9.1, there are a whole lot of changes.

The Chair: Just a second, Member.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

On section 9.

L. Throness: There are a lot of changes here made to the act instead of the Community Charter. Is it necessary? Wouldn’t it be easier to put one reference into the Community Charter, instead of a lot of references into this act?

Hon. S. Robinson: This approach ensures that if there are future amendments to the Community Charter, the relevant amended provisions will automatically apply to the park board. If provisions were replicated in the act, the act would require separate amendments to continue to be consistent with the Community Charter. We’d have to open it up every single time. In this way, the act can evolve the relevant rules, and the Community Charter will not require frequent amendments.

L. Throness: Moving on to the section entitled “Enforcement of by-laws.” That’s 9.2 in the same section. Is that okay?

The Chair: You are still on section 9?

L. Throness: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, carry on.

L. Throness: The same section but “Enforcement of by-laws.” What’s the mechanism now, for enforcing its own bylaws, for Cultus Lake? Is there any difference between the board and a municipality under this bill?

Hon. S. Robinson: They have all the tools that a municipality has.

L. Throness: Moving on to “Authority to enter on property,” I received an inquiry from a constituent named Mr. Campbell on this. So I thought I would ask for him. There’s no reference to any other municipal act in this section. I’m wondering: does this mean that it’s a unique power? Could the minister explain how it differs from the power of any other municipality in B.C.?

Hon. S. Robinson: This gives the park board the entry authority required to meaningfully enforce its bylaws. It gives the park board similar entry authority to that held by other local governance and decision-making bodies like municipalities and regional districts. It applies the same safeguards that are applicable to other local governance and decision-making bodies. It provides tailored authority that is appropriate for the park board’s scope of authority so that the park board can enter on property but not into property and only within the park.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

On section 11.

[5:10 p.m.]

L. Throness: On section 11, entitled “By-laws,” does this bill empower the board to create bylaws related to buildings and plans for buildings?

Hon. S. Robinson: This section aligns the park board’s regulatory authority with its mandate, as provided under the proposed section of the Cultus Lake Park Act. It gives the park board the same flexibility to establish variations, terms and conditions in its bylaws that are available to other decision-making and governance bodies, like municipalities and regional districts.

It is consequential to applying division 3, the bylaw procedures, and division 7, other matters, of part 5 of the Community Charter to the park board. It redrafts the provision to provide modern, clear and concise language.

L. Throness: Does the section, then, also empower the board to do building inspections in its own right?

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s the FVRD that does the inspections.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

On section 13.

L. Throness: In subsection (b)…. This has become a matter of some small controversy in Cultus Lake in recent days. It appears to me that a concession or a licence is the same thing as a commercial lease. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Robinson: Just to reiterate, we haven’t made any changes. It’s how this act has always been. They have the power to grant leases for private and public use. Concessions and licences are under two separate revisions.

L. Throness: There’s an issue here that hinders economic development at Cultus Lake in that no commercial operator can be sure of having more than a five-year tenure renewed four times. Would the government consider a friendly amendment that offers the possibility of a ten-year lease renewable twice so that there could be more security of tenure but no greater total impact in terms of time?

Hon. S. Robinson: The park board has the power to grant leases for private or public use up to 21 years. Five years is within the 21, so it’s really up to the park board.

L. Throness: Under subsection (e), in that same section, it’s talking about water services. It’s allowing the park board to dispose of a waterworks system to the Fraser Valley regional district. Is that “can” or “must”? Does the passage of this bill mark the disposition of the water system to the Fraser Valley regional district?

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you for the question. This gives them the corporate power to do so, should they choose to. We know that this is well underway.

[5:15 p.m.]

L. Throness: Would that apply also to wastewater systems or just drinking water?

Hon. S. Robinson: Historically, they’ve had the ability to do that with wastewater. We’ve just given them this additional ability.

Sections 13 to 17 inclusive approved.

L. Throness: Under “Expenditure limited,” sub 18, it talks about loans from a person. Excuse my ignorance. That doesn’t mean a private person, right? It means a person in the sense of a corporate person, like a bank.

Hon. S. Robinson: Can the member please confirm which section he’s on?

L. Throness: It’s under the section entitled “Expenditure limited.” It’s under section 14. It’s subsection 18 right under the heading “Expenditure limited,” and it’s sub (3) under that heading.

The Chair: Members, we thought we completed section 14. If the committee permits, we can go back and open section 14.

Is that okay with the committee? All right.

On section 14.

The Chair: On section 14, Member, you have a question.

L. Throness: I asked my question, I thought. I will ask it again.

The Chair: What subsection are you on, Member?

L. Throness: It’s under the heading “Expenditure limited,” and that’s subsection 18 in the changed act. And then subsection (3) under that: “The board may, by by-law, authorize loans to the board and borrow from a person an amount of money….” Is that talking of a corporate person, and does it exclude a private person?

Hon. S. Robinson: Corporate.

L. Throness: The borrowing limit under this section is $50,000, which for a 1,500- or 1,600-member community is really a small amount of money. I wonder whether the government would consider some more reasonable amount that is more akin to the borrowing powers of a small municipality.

Hon. S. Robinson: When we started doing these amendments some time ago, it was outside the suite of amendments that were being asked by the park board. I understand that since then, they’ve asked, and we’ll consider that, going forward, for future amendments.

The Chair: Shall section 14 pass? Member on 14.

L. Throness: This is confusing. Under “Business activities within the park” — can we see that?

The Chair: Subsection 19?

L. Throness: Yes, subsection 19. That’s right. Under the section entitled “Chair and vice chair” — I may be confused here.

The Chair: That is subsection 17, Member.

L. Throness: Ah. Sorry, could I go back to that? It’s in the same section.

The Chair: Go back to 17. Yes.

[5:20 p.m.]

L. Throness: Just for clarification, can a nominated chair vote for him or herself, and can a nominated vice-chair do the same? I say that because on a five-member board, the majority is decided by one vote. Therefore, to prevent deadlock, all members have to be able to vote.

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, they can vote.

Sections 14 to 20 inclusive approved.

The Chair: Member, you are on what section?

L. Throness: I’m just looking here. The Cultus Lake business association had an issue, and I thought it was with section 19. It is in section 19 but of section 14. I apologize. I thought it was in section 19.

Could I beg the indulgence of the committee to go back once more to that so that I can discuss this issue brought to me by the Cultus Lake Park Board?

The Chair: Okay. Member, you are seeking leave to go back to subsection 19 of section 14.

L. Throness: Exactly.

Leave granted.

On section 14.

L. Throness: There’s subsection (4) of that section, “Business activities within the park.”

The Chair: This is section 14, subsection 19.

L. Throness: Right, and then subsection (4) of that section. It says: “Despite this Act and the by-laws of the board, the board may, by unanimous vote of all the members present at any meeting, refuse in any particular case to grant a permission.”

That business has met with me and said that they feel uncomfortable about this section. They hadn’t realized it before. It was in the old act, but they feel that the board may…. Not even a full board but a quorum of three members, if they vote unanimously, can cancel the licence of any business at Cultus Lake. They’re concerned that this might threaten their business, and they’re wondering if that can be removed.

Hon. S. Robinson: I apologize if I’m starting to get testy. It’s helpful when we all know where we’re at when we pass sections. We all agreed on section 14 and the subsection.

I just want to remind the member that this is not a change. It’s been in the act since 1939. There were no significant changes to that. So none of the work that would be required to do that has been undertaken, and we’re going to keep it the same as it’s been since 1939.

The Chair: Now, we have already passed section 15. We have passed sections 16, 17, 18, 19. They were all passed. Section 20 was passed as well. Section 21?

What section are you on, Member?

L. Throness: Nineteen, Chair. I said yes to that without realizing I was there.

The Chair: Section 19, on page 12.

L. Throness: The power to make regulations.

The Chair: By leave, we’re going back to section 19.

Leave granted.

On section 19.

L. Throness: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your indulgence.

This is a new power, and it allows the provincial cabinet to make regulations that apply to the Cultus Lake Park Board. How does this power compare with other municipalities? Can the province make regulations of any municipality in this same way?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This enables Community Charter authorities applied under the Cultus Lake Park Act to be fully and effectively utilized by the park board. Some of the Community Charter authorities applied to the park board have a regulation component necessary for proper implementation. This regulation authority ensures that the regulations under the Community Charter can be directly applied to the park board and modified as required.

L. Throness: Usually, when a bill includes a power to make regulations, it also provides for limitations on regulation by listing the subjects about which regulations can be made. But there’s no list here. Why is that?

Hon. S. Robinson: There is a list; (a) and (b) are the list.

L. Throness: Could the minister share with the committee some idea of what regulations they might be thinking about making with respect to Cultus Lake? This is perhaps our only chance to find out, so I’ll ask now.

Hon. S. Robinson: For example, the Community Charter bylaw enforcement ticket regulation is an essential component of the municipal ticketing process, as it provides authority to appoint bylaw enforcement officers and prescribes ticket forms. This regulation must apply to the park board for it to use the municipal ticketing authority. It could also apply to the Community Charter bylaw enforcement ticket regulation to the park board. It could modify the Community Charter bylaw enforcement ticket regulation as required to effectively apply it to the park board.

L. Throness: I have just a few other general questions to ask. Would this be an appropriate place and time to do that?

The Chair: Let’s pass section 19 first, okay?

Sections 19 to 21 inclusive approved.

On section 22.

L. Throness: I’m just wondering when I will be able to ask my questions. Is there an appropriate place?

The Chair: What section are you going to be asking those…?

L. Throness: It’s not about a particular section.

The Chair: Member, maybe you can ask the questions. Then we’ll see the relevance, if they’re related to the remaining sections or not.

L. Throness: Has the government consulted with the Soowahlie First Nation on the changes to the bill? They certainly have an interest in what goes on at Cultus Lake, and they’re my constituents as well.

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes.

L. Throness: Does the bill allow the board to become a member of UBCM? Could we include the board on a schedule, perhaps in some other act, that would enable them to appear legitimately at UBCM?

Hon. S. Robinson: No. They’re not a local government.

L. Throness: Finally, does the bill empower the board to apply directly for provincial government grants rather than through the FVRD?

Hon. S. Robinson: No. They’re not a local government.

L. Throness: No more questions, Chair.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister and your staff for being here. I also thank you for bringing forward this particular piece of change to the legislation. I do have a couple of questions about it.

Specifically, this does remove the requirement of the minister to approve OCPs, specifically for the RMOW. In a general way, do other resort municipalities have the same requirement in terms of a ministerial approval of OCPs?

[5:30 p.m.]

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Sun Peaks resort municipality does.

J. Sturdy: Was there any consideration of providing the same authority to Sun Peaks to approve its own OCP and remove ministerial requirements?

Hon. S. Robinson: Sun Peaks is a newer resort municipality. They haven’t asked for this.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister for that.

With regard to section 10(1)(e) and the removal of “amending an official community plan,” there’s…. So (a) through (f) would remain, with (e) removed. Do these subs reflect the Community Charter or otherwise would be the same in other jurisdictions?

This would be under “Power to make regulations,” 10(1). The proposition is to remove “(e) enacting or amending an official community plan under section 9,” but (a) through (f) remain. Would that be similar regulation to other jurisdictions or the Community Charter?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, they remain.

J. Sturdy: What is the effect of this change, and when does it take effect? In other words, once we’re through all readings and this is proclaimed, would the RMOW be able to enact its draft OCP?

Hon. S. Robinson: It comes into force by regulation, but that won’t happen until all the negotiations are complete.

J. Sturdy: What form would the regulation take, and do we have any sense of timing on this?

Hon. S. Robinson: I know the member can appreciate that the negotiations are happening right now. Bringing in this legislation is about good faith in terms of moving forward on this. But the regulation would just be like a regular regulation that would get deposited, and then it would come into force.

We need to wait until the negotiations are complete. I’m hoping that it will happen as quickly as possible.

J. Sturdy: Where would the regulation be published, under what section or what area? Where would it be published?

Hon. S. Robinson: It will be available in the B.C. Gazette once it’s deposited.

J. Sturdy: The negotiations that the minister is referring to — could the minister clarify who those negotiations are with?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Squamish, Lillooet, Whistler-Blackcomb, RMOW and the province are doing these negotiations.

Sections 22 to 26 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:36 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND
HOUSING STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Bill 3, Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until Monday, March 25, at 10 a.m.

The House adjourned at 5:37 p.m.