Fourth Session, 41st Parliament (2019)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Monday, October 7, 2019
Afternoon Sitting
Issue No. 269
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
Office of the Auditor General, Progress Audit: The Education of
Aboriginal Students in the B.C. Public School System,
| |
Office of the Auditor General, Oversight of Contracted Residential
Services for Children and Youth in Care, | |
Office of the Auditor General, annual report, 2018-19 | |
Office of the Auditor General, financial statements, 2018-19 | |
Office of the Auditor General, B.C. Liquor Distribution Branch Directly Awarded Contracts, July 2019 | |
Office of the Auditor General, Understanding Our Audit Opinion on B.C.’s 2018-19 Summary Financial Statements, July 2019 | |
Office of the Auditor General, The Protection of Drinking Water, independent audit report, July 2019 | |
Office of the Auditor General, The B.C. Government’s Internal Directory
Account Management, independent audit report, | |
Office of the Auditor General, Executive Expenses at School District 36, independent audit report, August 2019 | |
Office of the Auditor General, Expense Policies and Practices in the
Offices of the Speaker, Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms,
| |
Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, annual report, 2018-19, and service plan, 2019-20 to 2021-22 | |
Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, B.C. Adoption and Permanency Options Update, August 2019 | |
Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, financial statements, 2018-19 | |
Office of the Ombudsperson, annual report, 2018-19 | |
Elections B.C., report of the Chief Electoral Officer on the Nanaimo by-election, January 30, 2019 | |
| Orders of the Day | |
MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2019
The House met at 1:35 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Introductions by Members
Hon. B. Ralston: I’d like the chamber to welcome here today the president of the National Association of Japanese Canadians, Lorene Oikawa. The association is the only national body in Canada that represents the Japanese-Canadian community. It strives for equal rights and liberties for all people, particularly racial and ethnic minorities. Would the House please make President Lorene Oikawa welcome.
L. Throness: I have the pleasure of introducing Jim Hart today. I worked with Jim when I was a Reform Party staffer in Ottawa while he was a Reform Member of Parliament, representing the Okanagan from 1993 to 2000. Since then, he has advised Middle Eastern governments on democratic reform. Today he’s here representing the Denturist Association of B.C. as they seek a wider scope of practice. Would the House please welcome Jim Hart.
Hon. C. James: I have a guest in the gallery today who is a constituent. She’s president of the Greater Victoria Teachers Association, and she’s also a teacher extraordinaire. She was the teacher for my granddaughter Hayden when she was at Quadra School, so I know her skills are impeccable from the work that she’d done. Would the House please welcome Winona Waldron to the gallery today.
Hon. H. Bains: Joining us in the House is Laird Cronk, the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour; Sussanne Skidmore, the secretary-treasurer of the B.C. Federation of Labour; and Megan McKinney, the director of organizing with the B.C. Fed. Please help me give them a warm, warm welcome.
I have one more. In the House also joining me is Jasmeet Sangha. This young woman started as my executive assistant and helped me to do my work in my constituency and around, to deliver the services that we have for so many people out there. Please help me welcome Jasmeet Sangha.
Hon. J. Darcy: I have three staff who are in the galleries today: Sarah Gotto, our administrative coordinator, who keeps us all focused and on task; and also two new staff — Nicky Reid, who comes to us as admin assistant from the private sector, and Anne Vavrik, my new executive assistant, who comes to us from the member for Vancouver-Hastings, where she served as his constituency assistant.
We have a wonderful team, and I’d like to welcome them all to the Legislature today.
G. Kyllo: I’m joined in the House today by two friends. First is James Walton of White Rock. He’s a first-year psychology student at UVic. He’s joined by a close friend of mine, Bob de Wit. Bob was from Sicamous. We grew up together, a very close friend. He’s also a mentor at Simon Fraser as well as a mentor for the Cmolik Foundation.
Now, Russ Cmolik, who is a former CFO of Richie Bros, established a foundation with about an initial $50 million fund. They provide about $400,000 annually in contributions helping students across B.C. access education opportunities that shape their career aspirations and possibilities, with the support of dedicated educators, sponsors, volunteers and mentors like my good friend Bob de Wit.
Would the House please make them feel very welcome.
Hon. M. Mark: In the gallery, I have a very special guest. I’d like to introduce my constituent Judy Hanazawa, the president of the Greater Vancouver Japanese Canadian Citizens Association. She is joining my colleague the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology’s guest as well in the gallery.
Judy’s activism for the Japanese-Canadian community in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is helping to lead the way in embracing the diverse legacy of our community. Japanese Canadians have a long history in my riding, and I’m very proud to have the historic Japantown as a part of my community. Would the House please join me in welcoming Judy.
E. Foster: Those of us in the House all realize that we don’t do this job without a significant partner in our lives. I’m very happy to welcome my wife of 35 years, yesterday, Janice, to the House today. Everybody, please behave.
S. Furstenau: I’m really delighted to introduce two people from my riding. Erica Roberts is the president of the Cowichan teachers association, and Chris Rolls is president of the Lake Cowichan Teachers Association. I’m delighted that they’re here today, and I look forward to speaking with them after question period.
Hon. S. Simpson: In the gallery today, we have three people joining us from the Cerebral Palsy Association of British Columbia: executive director Elizabeth Specht, senior coordinator Jeanne Morton and board member Peter Brown. I’m looking forward to their input over the coming months as we pursue the consultation around accessibility legislation for British Columbia. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.
A. Olsen: I’d like to also make some introductions today. I’d like to introduce Jennifer Anderson, the president of the Sooke Teachers Association, along with Robert Feenstra, the executive member of the Sooke Teachers Association.
I’d also like to bring it a little closer to home and introduce Deborah Nostdal, president of the Gulf Islands Teachers Association, and Don Peterson, the president of the Saanich Teachers Association.
Could the members here please make them feel very welcome.
A. Weaver: I may be a little dizzy, but it gives me great pleasure to introduce a new member from Peace River South, who I don’t quite recognize here. I believe he’s sporting a rather large beard.
In all seriousness, it gives me great pleasure to introduce Finley Ballantyne, who’s a new volunteer here in the office. Finley is a third-year student of political science at the University of Victoria, and he’s a former student at Glenlyon Norfolk and a longtime constituent of Oak Bay–Gordon Head. Would the House please make him feel welcome.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 35 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT
(No. 2), 2019
Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019.
Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I’m pleased to introduce Bill 35, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019. This bill amends the following statutes: the Assessment Act, the Carbon Tax Act, the Child, Family and Community Service Act, the Employment and Assistance Act, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Health Care Costs Recovery Act, the Judicial Compensation Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act, the Motor Vehicle Act, the Professional Governance Act, the Provincial Court Act, the Provincial Sales Tax Act, the Public Interest Disclosure Act, the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act, the Tobacco Tax Act and the Trespass Act.
This bill also makes repeals and consequential amendments to other statutes.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 35, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
FIRE PREVENTION WEEK
J. Rice: “Not every hero wears a cape. Plan and practise your escape.” This is the message fire departments are delivering during Fire Prevention Week, which is taking place right now, from October 6 to 12. We can all take the opportunity to learn more about the dangers of fire, how to prevent it and how to keep our loved ones safe and practising an escape plan.
In a typical home fire, you may have as little as one to two minutes to get out safely from the time the smoke alarm sounds. Escape planning and practice can help you make the most of the time you have, giving everyone enough time to get out.
When creating a home escape plan, you should draw a map of each level of your home, showing all the doors and windows. Check each room and identify two possible ways out. Task someone with helping children, older adults and people with disabilities to wake up and get out. Choose a meeting place outside and away from home where everyone can meet. And of course, have properly installed and maintained smoke alarms.
Once you have a plan and everyone knows what to do and where to go, practise it. Have your own drill. Push the test button on your smoke alarm to start the drill, which is a good way to check that it’s also working. Pretend the halls are filled with smoke. Get low and go. Get out fast. Try using different ways out each time, and close the doors behind you as you leave. Always go to your outdoor meeting place.
Unfortunately, here in B.C., we continue to experience devastating house and apartment fires every year. As reported to the office of the fire commissioner, there were 185 injuries due to structure fires last year. Of these, more than 30 percent did not have a working smoke alarm. Also, what’s really troubling is that of the 18 fatalities last year, more than half did not have a working smoke alarm.
We know that working smoke alarms save lives. We know that having and practising a home escape plan saves lives. I encourage everyone in the province to find a Fire Prevention Week event in your community and take part. Plan and practise your escape.
JACK GAREB
E. Foster: On October 1, 2019, a headline in the Vernon Morning Star read: “Vernon Community Pillar Passes Away.”
Jack Gareb had been a manager at the Schubert Centre for over 25 years. He was a tireless advocate for seniors in the area, always looking out for their best interests. Jack was involved in many community events and fundraisers, and many were held at the Schubert seniors centre over the years. Jack always made sure that they were a success.
In 2015, Jack was awarded the Kalamalka Rotary Club Vocational Award for commitment to the community in his tireless efforts to make Vernon and the Schubert Centre a better place.
When Interior Health discontinued Meals on Wheels, Jack stepped up and continued, to the day of his death, this very, very needed program.
Jack helped manage a soup kitchen at the Anglican church and supported the Vernon Public Art Gallery, O’Keefe Ranch, Habitat for Humanity and the Vernon Winter Carnival, just to name a few.
In 2016, Jack received the Order of Jopo from the Vernon Winter Carnival, an award that was given once a year to the volunteer of the year for the community — a high honour in Vernon.
When you went into Jack’s office at the Schubert Centre, the walls were covered with plaques and certificates from organizations thanking Jack for his many contributions.
Throughout his life Jack was an active member of the Roman Catholic faith. He served his parish in a number of capacities and was a fourth-degree member of the Knights of Columbus.
Jack was many things to many people — a gracious host, whether at the Schubert Centre or at his home with his wife Cheryl; a mentor to many young people and staff; a community champion and advocate.
He was a member of my riding association executive for many years. But to me, Jack Gareb was a very dear friend, and I’m a much better person for having known him. He was a remarkable man with an extraordinary legacy to his family, his friends and his community.
Rest in peace, Jack, and may God bless.
FAMILY CAREGIVERS
AND FOSTER
FAMILIES
S. Malcolmson: My friends at Kw’umut Lelum held a ceremonial homecoming for Snuneymuxw children in foster care to recognize and ground them in their place in the land. Mass dancers spun in the smoke. Children were blanketed.
In the midst of all this, Grand Chief Doug Kelly had the great generosity to say to the foster parents: “It’s not your fault our kids were taken from their parents. Thank you for looking after them.”
In Foster Family Month, our government also says thank you to foster parents. We’re grateful for their selfless work. They provide food and shelter. They nurture and guide the lives of British Columbia’s most vulnerable children.
We rely on 2,500 foster care families in B.C. They provide that day-to-day stability, care and support to these young people who need it the most. Without them, our system would be inoperable.
We’re making this vital work a little bit easier. For the first time in a decade, our government has increased monthly caregiver rates. Also for the first time ever, that rate increase also includes families caring for next of kin and addresses a long-standing inequity, particularly for Indigenous families.
The need for foster families is an ever-present and growing reality. Even though there are fewer kids entering the foster care system, many of B.C.’s most experienced foster parents are reaching retirement age.
If you or someone you know is interested in learning more about being a foster caregiver, please visit fosternow.ca or contact the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations. Your need and caregiving would be most welcomed, and we would be grateful for your participation. The need is great.
CLARKE GOURLAY
M. Stilwell: Today I would take a minute to pay tribute to Clarke Gourlay, a director with the regional district of Nanaimo and a local entrepreneur who tragically died in a mountaineering accident in June.
Many here may have heard of Morningstar Farm and Little Qualicum Cheeseworks in French Creek on Vancouver Island. Its cheese is in grocery stores across the province. It made headlines in 2018 because it’s believed to be the first farm in B.C., possibly even Canada, to have a milk-on-tap dispenser.
The farm was founded by Clarke, who pursued the dream with his wife, Nancy, and their three sons — Raymond, John and Kevin. Farming wasn’t a world he expected to land in. Clarke, who was born in Ontario in 1964, graduated from McGill University with a major in political science and a minor in Middle Eastern studies. He and his wife, Nancy, met in Montreal and married in Vancouver before heading overseas to do mission work in Turkey with the Christian agency Operation Mobilisation.
When the Gulf War broke out, he helped coordinate aid efforts for refugees as a field director. Later he and Nancy moved their growing family to Lausanne, Switzerland, to work for the humanitarian organization Medair and then to Kabul in Afghanistan.
Clarke and Nancy moved back to B.C. and, in 2001, started Little Qualicum Cheeseworks on a leased farm in French Creek. Three years later they purchased what would become Morningstar Farm.
I met Clarke at an event on his farm during my inaugural year in office. He immediately made me feel welcome, and his passion for agriculture and the farm were infectious. It was clear that he wanted to include the community in what was happening on the farm.
Clarke was also an avid mountaineer, climbing mountains like Kilimanjaro in Tanzania. In 2017, he completed a double master’s degree and he successfully ran for area G director on the regional district of Nanaimo board.
He was an amazing person, a wonderful advocate, and he’s gone all too soon. My deepest sympathies are with the entire family.
CEREBRAL PALSY
A. Kang: Cerebral palsy is a disorder that affects a person’s speech and ability to move and maintain balance and posture. Over 50,000 Canadians are currently living with cerebral palsy, and it is the most common motor disability amongst children.
The cerebral palsy association of B.C. supports people with CP to participate fully in the community without limits. Yesterday, October 6, was World Cerebral Palsy Day. As part of the global Go Green 4 CP campaign, the B.C. association worked with organizations to light up prominent buildings across British Columbia. From the Sails of Light at Canada Place, the dome of Science World, the city hall building in Port Coquitlam, the Spirit of Sail in Kelowna, Mr. PG in Prince George, the Fitzsimmons Bridge in Whistler to the B.C. Legislature, all of these landmarks were lit up in green yesterday in support and recognition of children and adults who have cerebral palsy.
World CP Day is an opportunity to celebrate, raise awareness and take action to ensure that people with CP have the same rights, access and opportunities as anyone in our community. This year people are being encouraged to get active for 30 minutes a day and move as one. The idea is to promote the benefits of sports, physical activity, and the mental health and quality of life for those living with cerebral palsy.
People across B.C. and across the world are using their imagination in sharing their contributions on social media, using the hashtags #CPMoveAsOne and #WorldCPDay. The hope is that the photos and the videos will travel around the world and expand the community of people supporting those with cerebral palsy.
Every person living with cerebral palsy has the right and should have the opportunity to have as full and complete a life as they would like.
UNITED WE CAN
L. Reid: I visited United We Can in September and was struck by the commitment and vision of Richard, their general manager, and Bing Smith, the director. United We Can is a charitable organization established to support environmental, social and economic improvement in Vancouver. Their mandate is to create economic opportunities for people with multiple barriers living in the Downtown Eastside.
United We Can strives to improve working conditions for binners by ensuring they have access to a safe working environment and receive the full deposit on all their bottles and cans. United We Can’s first major undertaking, the United We Can bottle depot, was created by and for Vancouver’s binners. It opened in 1995, and it continues to thrive today.
This bottle depot is the largest social enterprise project hosted by United We Can. It grew out of a vision of creating green-collar jobs while helping our local community and the people within it. Daily processing of 50,000-plus beverage containers year-round supports the population of 600 to 700 recycling collectors in Vancouver’s inner city.
Through its social enterprise, United We Can has created hundreds of employment opportunities. The organization employs roughly 120 people in a mix of part-time and full-time jobs, and it refunds more than $2 million to its 600 to 700 daily customers. Recycling all returnable containers is one of the easiest ways for your organization or event to demonstrate its environmental commitment. United We Can makes it a cost-effective collection service tailored to your needs.
Lane clearing, also known as needle sweeping, is an additional service provided by United We Can that employs individuals exclusively in the Downtown Eastside who have multiple barriers in attaining traditional employment. The lane-clearing program works with the city of Vancouver, various business improvement associations and movie production companies to provide street and lane micro-cleaning. Teams of workers are dispatched daily to the streets and laneways, and they identify neighbourhoods to collect garbage, syringes and other refuse.
Thank you for the work you’ve done. You and your employees are making an absolutely huge difference every single day.
Oral Questions
POLICE INVESTIGATION OF FORMER
CITIZENS’ SERVICES
MINISTER AND
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS
M. Polak: On March 4, 2019, the Premier was advised in detail of very serious allegations of misconduct by the now former Minister of Citizens’ Services. On May 29, 2019, I wrote to Peter Juk, QC, with the B.C. prosecution service and RCMP E division, with the information this government had received and dismissed.
The minister has now resigned and is the subject of an active police investigation in relation to criminal wrongdoing.
What information is the Premier aware of with respect to the nature of this investigation?
Hon. J. Horgan: On Friday, October 4, I was advised by the Attorney General that a special prosecutor had been appointed to investigate the MLA for Surrey-Panorama. The member for Surrey-Panorama tendered her resignation. I accepted it. And that is all I know about the case.
Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
M. Polak: On March 4, Alex MacLennan, the deputy cabinet secretary, was notified of these serious allegations. On March 7, 2019, he wrote in a memo: “The email was not relevant to the B.C. public service staff. It was printed and delivered to the office of the Deputy Premier on Tuesday, March 5, 2019. After delivery, the email was deleted from my inbox and not further distributed or shared.”
There is now, of course, an active police investigation into criminal wrongdoing involving the former Minister of Citizens’ Services and others.
Will the Premier admit that he and his government were wrong to have dismissed these allegations in the first place?
Hon. J. Horgan: At the time the allegations were brought forward by the B.C. Liberals, we did a review on the allegations of political contributions, found none. We did an investigation of some of the other issues that were raised, found no evidence and, at that time, advised the opposition that if they had more to say, they should talk to the RCMP.
From that point until October 4, I had no further briefings or discussions about the matter until I was advised by the Attorney General of the appointment of the special prosecutor.
Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the Official Opposition on a second supplemental.
M. Polak: On March 7, 2019, Geoff Meggs wrote to Don Wright regarding these serious allegations. I have the email, which says: “After reviewing the email, I have followed up with Roseanne Moran, executive director of the NDP caucus, and the member for Surrey-Panorama, Minister of Citizens’ Services.”
British Columbians really want to know how it was appropriate and sufficient to go to the now former minister and say, “Did you do anything wrong?” and she says: “No.” And they say: “Oh, well, that’s okay then, I guess.” The rest of the email is censored.
I would like to know, Mr. Premier, what is in the rest of that email.
Hon. J. Horgan: Issues were canvassed in the Legislature. They’re on Hansard. They’re available. I’m glad that the member was able to get that off of Hansard.
As I said, I was advised on Friday of the appointment of a special prosecutor. The member tendered her resignation, and we move on from there, anxious for the special prosecution to do its business.
J. Johal: It is quite clear that the Premier really doesn’t want to address this issue. It’s: “Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.” But on May 29 of 2019, he told British Columbians: “An appropriate investigation was done at that time…. My chief of staff did what I directed him to do…. The chief of staff reviewed it. We discussed it.”
What did the Premier direct his chief of staff to do?
Hon. D. Eby: The opposition knows full well that when an investigation like this happens involving the police and a special prosecutor, a special prosecutor is appointed by the public service at arm’s length from government. We don’t know what the investigation is about. We don’t know what the subject matter of it is, and that’s for good reason. It’s set up that way to prevent political interference in the investigation.
The member is asking: what is the investigation about? We don’t know. The police do. They’re doing their business in partnership with a special prosecutor, independent of government, which is the way it should be.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.
J. Johal: That’s not the question I asked. I asked about Mr. Meggs. Mr. Meggs works for the Premier. That’s what I’m focusing on here. The Premier and Geoff Meggs were more than happy to tell British Columbians there was absolutely no wrongdoing by his minister.
We raised countless questions for months about the misconduct of the former minister. The Premier’s response: “Trumped-up charges.” He even had the NDP caucus lawyer write an intimidation letter to the whistleblower threatening legal action, to defend his minister. Yet here we are months later, and the police are now investigating her and others.
Who are the others? Is anyone else in the Premier’s office or government involved, and if yes, have they been removed from their role?
Hon. D. Eby: The member is taking “and others” from the statement that was issued by the independent prosecution service. That’s how he knows that, and that’s how we know that.
He’s asking: who are the others? We do not know that. That is an investigation being done by the police. It’s being done under the supervision of a special prosecutor, independent of government. And as I say, he knows the content of the statement, as do we, and that’s what we know.
GOVERNMENT APPROACH TO
TEACHERS’ COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING
S. Furstenau: This province is no stranger to drawn out contract negotiations between the B.C. Teachers Federation and the government of the day. For as long as I can remember, prolonged and acrimonious negotiations have been the rule rather than the exception. This was taken to the next level by the previous government, who ripped up contracts and played hardball with teachers until the Supreme Court of Canada finally ruled that the B.C. government had to restore class size and composition language that had been summarily revoked.
With this new government, there was a lot of hope placed on seeing funding restored, classrooms resourced appropriately and teachers properly compensated, and some of this has happened. However, what most people also hoped was for a change in the culture and approach taken in negotiations. My colleagues and I have been hearing from teachers every day that negotiating with this government is feeling a lot like negotiating with the previous government.
My question is to the Minister of Education. The minister can’t control how BCTF approaches negotiations, but he can give specific directions to BCPC. When he took over as minister, what specific steps did he take to try to change the culture of negotiations, including any new directions given to how BCPSEA was to approach negotiations?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for her question. If I heard the question correctly, she wasn’t asking directly about bargaining details, and I think that is wise because the mediator has asked that there be a blackout and that the parties be able to work together towards a settlement.
We have a pattern of settlement, under the sustainable services mandate in British Columbia, that is going very well across the public service. So 229,000 public servants have now settled with the government under that mandate, including 30,000 K-to-12 employees, represented primarily by CUPE. We hope that pattern will extend to the B.C. Teachers Federation as well.
The change that was most significant that our government made, as opposed to the actions of the previous government when it came to the composition of the employer bargaining committee, was to restore democracy. It was to restore representation by elected trustees who had been summarily fired from being at the bargaining table under previous — and, I would add, disastrous — rounds of negotiations in this province.
We thought it was a wise move to have the 60 employers, the actual school districts who employ teachers and other support staff, to be able to direct negotiations, to have their direct voice at the table. They form a majority of the B.C. Public School Employers Association — not government appointees, elected trustees from the local level. We hope to be able to conclude an agreement under a model that includes the democratic representation of trustees.
Mr. Speaker: The House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.
S. Furstenau: I appreciate the response, and I actually want to dive a bit deeper.
From my experience, there are very few professions that are expected to provide as much free labour as teachers. They’re in early. They’re out late. I’ve yet to meet a teacher who doesn’t use evenings and weekends to plan and to mark. And they’re often paying for school supplies out of their own pockets. Unfortunately, we see this trend right across predominantly female-dominated, care-based professions.
As B.C. Greens have pointed out in this House numerous times, teaching is the most important profession in our province. Yet when we compare B.C. to other provinces, we rank near the bottom in terms of compensation.
My question, again, is for the Minister of Education. When this government was setting out their public sector negotiating mandate, what consideration was given to whether teachers should be an exception to the 2 percent annual increase, given how far behind we are compared to other provinces?
Hon. R. Fleming: I thank the member, again, for her follow-up question. I absolutely agree with what she has just said in terms of the value and importance of teaching professionals in British Columbia to lift kids up to their full potential. We applaud and recognize the work they do in communities right around British Columbia each and every day with kids in our classrooms. What we hope to be able to do — and we now have the assistance of a mediator — is to get to a place where teachers’ compensation is lifted ahead.
We are proud of our funding record, as a new government just two years into our mandate. We are proud that schools today…. This very month, this very day, students are enjoying classrooms in secondary schools that are 6 percent smaller than they used to be. Kindergarten to grade 3 classes — a 10 percent reduction in class size right across British Columbia. The number of classrooms in British Columbia that have the assistance and service of an educational assistant is up 37 percent.
B.C. classrooms and school systems are enjoying an additional $1 billion annually in funding. This is an unprecedented lift to the resources that was long overdue in the school system. It’s funded 4,000 new additional teachers in British Columbia, including 500 specialist teachers. That means more one-on-one time for kids in B.C. communities, in B.C. classrooms. It will lead to better results for student success in British Columbia, and that’s our record.
We hope that with a collective agreement that supports student success, we’ll be able to do even more.
POLICE INVESTIGATION OF FORMER
CITIZENS’ SERVICES
MINISTER AND
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS
S. Bond: The former Minister of Citizens’ Services has a track record of breaking the very laws that she was actually charged with enforcing. Even when she was caught, the former minister always found a way to blame someone else. It was never her fault.
Now, with the appointment of a special prosecutor into her actions and those of other individuals, the member for Surrey-Panorama tries to casually dismiss a criminal investigation. On one hand, she says she doesn’t know why the RCMP are investigating her but then says there was no credibility to previous public allegations.
A very simple question to the Premier. Is his former minister under investigation for the issues that were raised repeatedly in this House?
Hon. D. Eby: I’m not sure how much clearer we can be about the fact that this is independent of government, and we don’t know what police are investigating.
I do want to clarify one of my answers to the previous member. I said that the other persons may be known to the independent prosecution service within government. In fact, their press release says that the other persons being investigated are unknown even to them. So this is happening at arm’s length from government, with a special prosecutor who is not part of government. Police are doing that investigation. We don’t know what they’re investigating. It’s set up that way, and it is working that way.
Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.
S. Bond: Well, this lands firmly at the feet of the Premier, who supported a minister who continuously broke the very laws that she was responsible for.
Here’s what the Premier said on May 29 of this year: “I’m confident, based on the work that my chief of staff did, that any of the substantive allegations that have been made are not founded, and I’m comfortable with where we are at on that.” I’m not certain that the Premier is quite that comfortable today.
We know this: the Premier investigated serious allegations. We know a special prosecutor has been appointed, and we know the minister resigned.
Will the Premier today release the Meggs report so that British Columbians can understand exactly why the Premier decided that the minister had apparently done absolutely nothing wrong?
Hon. D. Eby: The question of wrongdoing by the former minister is in the hands of police. They’re doing an investigation under the supervision of a special prosecutor independent of government. I can’t think of a more independent setup that would make the opposition happier, frankly. This is being done independent of government. We’ll await the result, and we’ll see what comes back.
P. Milobar: When asked today about the investigation of criminal wrongdoing — his former minister and others — the Premier said this: “I didn’t know then, and I don’t now.”
Well, we know at least half of that statement is wrong, because the Premier told this House something very different on May 29. He said: “My chief of staff did what I directed him to do…. The chief of staff reviewed it. We discussed it.” In fact, that same day the Premier also said: “I am well aware of the allegations that the member raises. My chief of staff received a letter from the secretary to cabinet in March. He reviewed the allegations to the extent that he could.”
The Premier’s own statements to this Legislature contradict the one he has made today. Why should British Columbians trust what the Premier has to say now?
Hon. D. Eby: The Premier spoke to those matters. But I think when the member talks about alleged criminal wrongdoing, that question is squarely in the hands of police right now. There’s a special prosecutor who’s supervising that work. They will be the ones who will determine whether or not there has been any criminal wrongdoing. That is the way that it should be.
Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.
P. Milobar: We do know that the Premier did know about allegations on his former cabinet minister because he directed his chief of staff to look into those allegations. Then the Premier and the chief of staff decided there were no issues with the minister who is now under active police investigation into criminal wrongdoing by her and others. In fact, today the Premier pleads ignorance once again, saying he knows nothing about anything.
This is directly under the Premier’s control, this next question. Will the Premier release the Meggs report that led him to dismiss the serious allegations about the former minister, the same former minister who now faces an active police investigation of criminal wrongdoing by her and others?
Hon. D. Eby: The Premier has already spoken about the earlier allegations in earlier questions. The member conflates these things with the police investigation. We don’t know what the police investigation is about. The Premier doesn’t know it. I don’t know it. Nobody on the government side, to my knowledge, knows what the police are investigating. Only the police know. It’s been set up this way under an independent special prosecutor.
The member may believe it’s the same thing, but that’s just his belief, because nobody knows, except the police, what they’re investigating.
L. Throness: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have a former minister under police investigation for possible criminal behavior. The Premier is more than a bit fuzzy on the details. First he said that he’s unaware of any investigation. Then he claimed it was his idea to investigate, through his chief of staff. He used the Meggs report to let the minister off the hook, but that report was obviously wrong, because there’s now a criminal investigation.
The Premier can answer this, and he ought to. Will he admit that the Meggs report was wrong, and will he make it public today?
Hon. D. Eby: The question is: what are the police investigating? We don’t know. Only the police know. The member is assuming that the police are investigating the same matters raised by the opposition. We don’t know that.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, the Attorney General has the floor. Thank you.
Hon. D. Eby: We don’t know that that’s what the police are investigating, and it’s set up that way. When the Premier says that he doesn’t know what the police are investigating, he’s absolutely right. We do not know what the police are investigating. It’s set up that way intentionally, and the members on the other side know that structure very well.
M. de Jong: The Premier says he can’t or won’t comment. He says he doesn’t know. The Attorney has repeated that numerous times over the course of the last 20 minutes. I’m trying to reconcile that with something the Premier said just a few hours ago in this building. He said to the gathered reporters: “I have every confidence in the member for Surrey-Panorama…. I’m confident that she will be able to clear the air.”
Well, on what possible basis…? Does the Premier know something he’s refusing to share with us?
We know the track record of a former minister who was repeatedly caught breaking the law for the rules that she was charged with enforcing — a former minister who is now the subject of an investigation by police into allegations of criminal wrongdoing — and a Premier who in this House says, “I don’t want to talk about it,” and out in the hall to reporters says: “I have complete confidence in that member.” Well, no one else in British Columbia does.
If the Premier has something that forms the basis of that confidence, the place for him to disclose it is here in this House….
Interjections.
Hon. D. Eby: I didn’t hear a question, Mr. Speaker. I will say that what will clear the air is the conclusion of the police investigation and the finding of the special prosecutor. That process is underway, and I know the member wishes for a prompt and speedy resolution of that, as do all members in this House.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.
M. de Jong: What steps has the Premier taken to secure evidence, documents and records from the office of a former minister in his cabinet with a demonstrated track record for violating the rules and the laws designed to preserve those records and that evidence?
Hon. D. Eby: The member has resigned from her position in cabinet. It’s currently being attended to by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. If we have any requests from law enforcement or a special prosecutor or anyone else for preservation of any documents related to any subject matter, of course we’ll make sure that that happens.
A. Wilkinson: The answer we just heard from the Attorney General of British Columbia is nothing less than an appalling dereliction of his duty. There is an obligation on the Attorney General of British Columbia and every other province in this country to be responsible for the administration of justice over and above political obligations to his elected office.
Former Premier Dosanjh did exactly that in 1999, when he called out the then Premier and in public said: “There’s a criminal investigation underway.” That’s the first time that Glen Clark learned about it. Instead, we have an Attorney General sitting opposite us saying they’ve done nothing to preserve the records in the system.
There was a meeting of the political staff at 4:30 on Friday afternoon. Did they get told specifically: “Do not touch any electronic records. They have to be preserved”? If not, they will be the others being implicated in this criminal activity.
Hon. D. Eby: We don’t know what the police are investigating. There are a huge number of government records involving the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. We don’t even know that the subject matter of the police investigation involves that ministry at all, so the member suggesting that we shut down the Ministry of Citizens’ Services and instruct staff not to touch any electronic records is unusual, to say the least. I don’t recall any precedent for such a suggestion, despite many special prosecutors being appointed over the last 16 years before we formed government.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: Well, it’s apparent the Attorney General needs to do a little brush-up on the law of spoliation of evidence, because it’s an offence in this country. This minister has failed to direct all of the political staff who work for this government to protect that evidence.
We have the former minister sitting over there, staring into her lap — the member for Surrey-Panorama, who had the audacity to say on Friday that there is no credibility to any of these allegations.
What happened to the police investigation? What happened to the senior special prosecutor who has been appointed? What happened to jurisdiction of the British Columbia Supreme Court? Do you believe that former minister, who was forced to resign — that there’s no credibility to this? Lock down the records, Attorney. It’s your job, and when are you going to do it?
Hon. D. Eby: There are many safeguards in place in government, since the former government was in place, to ensure that, for example, emails are preserved, and other records of government. They are fully available for law enforcement if there are any requests made — assuming, of course, that the investigation has anything to do with the Ministry of Citizens’ Services or any other part of core government. We don’t know that. I’m not sure what the member is referring to that we would preserve, when we don’t even know what the police are investigating.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. D. Eby: The people who would be concerned about spoliation of evidence would be the police. They would let the special prosecutor know, who would let us know to preserve records. Aside from the usual processes of government preserving records, which we do quite carefully, following some efforts by previous governments…. We do this very carefully. We preserve records.
In terms of the member’s speculation — and it is just that; it’s speculation — I take my job very seriously, to ensure that we’re able to respond to those concerns from law enforcement, those requests, and we will do that.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition. I don’t….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Member, you’ve had a second supplemental.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a third supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: This chamber is witnessing the first day after which a member of the executive council, the cabinet of British Columbia, was forced to resign under allegations of criminal wrongdoing. We then turn to the Attorney General, who is asleep at the switch and has left the political staff to do whatever they please with their text messages, BBMs, whatever they’re using, because there’s been no effort to lock down the evidence by this dereliction of duty on the part of the Attorney General.
The question goes to the Premier. Is he prepared to stand up in this chamber and say that the member for Surrey-Panorama was dead wrong to say there’s no credibility to any charges when she’s under criminal investigation?
Hon. D. Eby: We’re going to let the police do their work. They’ll do a proper investigation, under the supervision of the special prosecutor. They will have the full cooperation of government with that investigation and any requests they may make, and we’ll see what happens.
J. Thornthwaite: The former minister is now under an active police investigation into criminal wrongdoing, but this is not the first time she’s been found breaching the laws that she is tasked to enforce. The member for Surrey-Panorama has admitted to repeatedly breaking freedom-of-information laws, and the allegations last spring suggest she continues to do so.
My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier confirm that the minister’s government phone or her laptop was taken to prevent destruction of evidence?
Hon. D. Eby: The member has resigned from executive council. She’s no longer the cabinet minister. She no longer has access to that office. The responsibility for her files is with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.
J. Thornthwaite: No, we did not get an answer to my question. Let’s be clear. The former minister has admitted to breaking the law with regard to freedom of information and also by conducting government work on private channels to avoid detection. Now the same minister is facing an active police investigation into criminal wrongdoing, and there might be not just her but others involved.
Can the Premier confirm that the member for Surrey-Panorama’s government laptop or cell phone was seized to ensure that there was no destruction of evidence?
Hon. D. Eby: I’m not aware of what the police have been doing as part of their investigation, so I can’t advise the member about any of that. If the police did make a request in that respect, that request likely would have gone to the public service and would have been dealt with by the public service.
[End of question period.]
Reports from Committees
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT
SERVICES
COMMITTEE
B. D’Eith: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the fourth session of the 41st parliament, entitled Interim Report on Statutory Offices.
I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
B. D’Eith: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
B. D’Eith: In moving the adoption of the report, I would like to make a few brief comments. The Finance Committee is assigned the responsibility of reviewing the budgets of B.C.’s nine statutory officers. As part of this process, the committee meets with statutory officers in the fall to receive budget submissions and again in the spring to receive financial and operation updates.
This interim report summarizes the updates and discussions of the spring 2019 meetings. This is the first time that the committee has presented a dedicated report on the spring meetings.
On behalf of all committee members, I would like to thank the statutory officers for their continued stewardship of public funds and their ongoing commitment and dialogue on opportunities to enhance and strengthen oversight, accountability and reporting.
D. Ashton: Thank you for the opportunity also to speak regarding the statutory officers. These folks come to the committee. What I really appreciate — and what I would hope that all in this House would appreciate — is the openness and dialogue that takes place with all members of the committee and the reporting that takes place to staff.
It’s a nice opportunity to see what transpires outside of the auspices of this House but which, in turn, affects everybody in the province.
Motion approved.
B. D’Eith: I have the honour to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the fourth session of the 41st parliament — that’s a mouthful — on the Budget 2020 consultation.
I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
B. D’Eith: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
B. D’Eith: In moving adoption of the report, I would like to make some brief comments.
The annual budget consultation is an important exercise that allows British Columbians to share their views, ideas and priorities for the upcoming provincial budget with legislators. As members may know, this consultation typically takes place in the fall. This year the committee moved the consultation to the summer to enable committee members to deliver a report and recommendations earlier in the budget process. During the month of June, British Columbians provided thoughtful, informative and passionate input on a range of issues. On behalf of the committee, I would like to express our sincere appreciation to everyone who took the time to participate, particularly with the change to the timeline.
I’d like to also thank the Chair and members of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth who had to actually travel around British Columbia twice, back to back. Thank you very much for your dedication to this.
Your input directly informed the committee’s 106 unanimous recommendations for the budget of 2020. In making these recommendation, the committee highlighted some key areas for action. These include supports for youth formerly in care, water sustainability, invasive species, fish and wildlife conservation and management, climate change and natural disasters. We also recognize the significant challenges currently being experienced by the forest industry and the need to support workers and communities across the province.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the committee members, especially the Deputy Chair, the member for Penticton, for their support and work on this consultation and for their contributions and lively discussions during deliberations. Thank you so much.
On behalf of the committee, I would also like to acknowledge and extend our appreciation to the Legislative Assembly staff for their incredible work on this consultation and all the work that they do for us as MLAs in this House.
From the Parliamentary Committees Office, I’d like to thank Susan Sourial, Mary Newell, Stephanie Raymond, Mariana Novis, Karan Riarh, Katey Stickle, Joseé Couture; and from the Legislative Library, Louise Brittain Boisvert. From Hansard, thank you to Mike Baer, Amanda Heffelfinger, Steve Weisgerber, Simon DeLaat and the entire broadcasting and transcribing and publishing team. We really appreciate all the work you do.
D. Ashton: I would like to echo the words of the member for Maple Ridge–Mission, who did an exemplary job, as the Chair, of bringing us all together. We heard the number — 106 recommendations that were done unanimously. It’s nice to see that in a House that sometimes has shown to the public that we’re a little opposed on a few things. This report and the 13 pages, in the appendix, of the people that presented to the committee through writing, through video transcripts and in person….
This is an incredible committee that gets out and listens and hears what the people of B.C. want of their government. I think it’s imperative that it carry on and continue in the direction that it’s going, because it is that big sponge that absorbs the information that people want to be able get in to this House directly.
I, too, would like to thank all the members of the bipartisan committee that helped put the report together, but especially those of the staff. The Chair mentioned their names. I won’t re-mention them. These individuals worked long and hard to get the report brought forward as quickly as possible, but not counting the numerous hours that take place to assemble and document the information that came in. The staff that we have here in the Legislature and who work outside of the Legislature need a real hand of applause for their incredible work that they do on a day-to-day basis.
Motion approved.
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, ETHICAL
CONDUCT, STANDING ORDERS
AND
PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEE
M. Elmore: I have the honour to present the first report on the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills of the fourth session of the 41st parliament.
On July 25, 2019, pursuant to the Statute Revision Act, the committee undertook the examination of the revision of the Workers Compensation Act and recommended to the Lieutenant-Governor that the revision be approved and brought into force.
I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
Tabling Documents
Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour to present the following reports.
The Office of the Auditor General — Progress Audit: The Education of Aboriginal Students in the B.C. Public School System, June 2019; secondly, Oversight of Contracted Residential Services for Children and Youth in Care, June 2019; third, Annual Report 2018-19; fourth, Financial Statements 2018-19; fifth, B.C. Liquor Distribution Branch Directly Awarded Contracts, July 2019; next, Understanding Our Audit Opinion on B.C.’s 2018-19 Summary Financial Statements, July 2019; next, The Protection of Drinking Water, July 2019; next, The B.C. Government’s Internal Directory Account Management, August 2019; next, Executive Expenses at School District 36; next, Expense Policies and Practices in the Offices of the Speaker, Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, September 2019.
Next, Office of the Representative for Children and Youth — Annual Report 2018-19 and Service Plan 2019-20 to 2021-22; B.C. Adoption and Permanency Options Update, August 2019; and finally, Financial Statements 2018-19.
Again, the 40th Annual Report 2018-2019 from the Office of the Ombudsperson.
Next, Report of the Chief Electoral Officer: 2019 Nanaimo By-election, January 30, 2019, from Elections B.C.
Motions Without Notice
REFERRAL OF AUDITOR GENERAL REPORTS
TO LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:
[That, notwithstanding the order of this House of February 21, 2019, reports of the Auditor General of British Columbia respecting the Legislative Assembly transmitted to the Speaker be deemed referred to the Legislative Assembly Management Committee for consideration, as reports of the Auditor General respecting the Legislative Assembly are prepared under the statutory provisions of the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 258).]
Leave granted.
Motion approved.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage, Bill 13.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 13 — COMMUNITY SAFETY
AMENDMENT ACT,
2019
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 13; J. Isaacs in the chair.
The committee met at 2:43 p.m.
On section 1.
M. Morris: I guess probably just to kind of speed the process up. This bill has been talked about for quite some time in various forms. I go back to 2013, 2012. There are a lot of good things in this particular statute. I recognize a lot of pieces in the amendments — assumption clauses and whatnot — that we’ve included in some of the other legislation that was introduced earlier this year.
I guess I’d like to make a few comments, though, with respect to functionality and the establishment of the director’s office and budgets and how this is going to be carried out. I’m not sure where I could interject that. I don’t have any real opposition to the sections themselves. I just need clarity on how this organization will be set up and how it’ll run.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his opening comments. I would suggest that when it comes to the office of the director, section 3 is probably a good place for us to engage in that discussion on any questions that he’s got. So we can proceed that way if that works for him.
M. Morris: Thank you to the minister. I notice that in the actual bill before us today, there was no reference to that. So I will go to section 3 and talk about the establishment of the director’s position. Has the minister’s office put together a budget as to…? What does this office look like?
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
R. Coleman: To the minister, a couple of questions with regards to the definition of “owner” in relation to properties. Later in the act it refers to this actually superseding the Residential Tenancy Act and new manufactured park owners act, and I’ll get to that later.
The question I had is “…other than a person excluded by regulation, who is any of the following.” We’re talking about the owner of the property under subsection (iii) of that: “a lessee under a registered lease of the property, if the lease has a term longer than 20 years.”
I’m assuming the minister is, for anybody who doesn’t have a lease on their property longer than 20 years, putting the liability back to the owner of the property. Would that be correct?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question. In terms of definition of ownership, there is a degree of flexibility. But for the purposes of this act, the way it is treated…. If the lease is under 20 years, that’s treated under the Residential Tenancy Act. If it’s over 20 years, then it’s treated as an owner.
R. Coleman: Is the minister saying that only residential property is covered under this act?
Hon. M. Farnworth: No, it’s both residential and commercial.
R. Coleman: There is no ability to do a lease of a property under the Residential Tenancy Act anymore. A lease of 20 years can be given to a commercial operator who could manage a residential tenancy property. That is something that’s coming at us from a different direction.
My concern is…. Commercial tenancies are usually five-five or ten-ten leases, regularly renewable leases. The owner of the property has a lease provision with certain provisions underneath it that they have, but in actual fact, the lease is longer term with the business. It actually is usually a triple-net lease with an owner.
If we have illegal activity conducted by a person in a five-five-five-five lease in a commercial aspect, it falls back to the registered owner of the property. It’s not actually technically a 20-year lease, but these are commercial leases that take place, and usually they have automatic renewals or whatever. I’d like to know how you want to treat that.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question. This section is not being amended in this particular piece of legislation. This is, in fact, the section of the act as it was when you were sitting on this side of the aisle and passed the original Community Safety Act. It’s not changed at all.
The intent, of course, with this act…. And the definition of ownership is flexible enough that we believe it would work on commercial operations. As I know the member knows, the intent is to do administrative penalty to deal with issues that work their way up to the director’s. Of course, if there is serious criminal activity, then obviously there’s also the police as well.
R. Coleman: To that, I recognize that, but I had that similar question a year ago — a couple of years ago, actually. But things have changed, particularly with regards to residential tenancy and leases. So that’s changed in the history that’s moved forward to this today.
The minister mentioned penalties. Could the….
Interjection.
R. Coleman: Oh, administrative measures, not penalties. Do we know what those administrative measures are, or are we going to get to that in another section?
Interjection.
R. Coleman: Okay. My concern would be that somebody…. I’ll use an automotive operation, for instance, where somebody is operating in the back part of an automotive operation leased from a commercial tenant — let’s say a chop shop or moving illegal parts — and that the owner of the property, not knowing the business themselves, who often leases the business to somebody that runs the business or sets up a business and invests in it, may not know at all what’s going on in activity.
What are the provisions under these types of definitions for them to be protected from something that is outside their control?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question. The way it will work is if some activity that the member raised is, in fact, taking place that was brought to the attention of the office, then both the owner and the lessee would receive notice that’s there’s an issue. Obviously, the owner is going to look at the lease, where it will say, “No criminal activities allowed,” or other problematic activity that the complaint is made about.
The lessee would be the one that would be approached, as well, at that same time. They would have the responsibility to fix the problem or administrative measures can be taken. But it would work its way up. Ultimately, of course, the owner is the owner of the property, and the ultimate liability would rest with them if it’s not resolved.
The reality is in a case of a leased property, a lease agreement would clearly have sections in it that would deal with illegal activity taking place. Both the lessee and the owner would be notified that there’s an issue that needs to be addressed.
R. Coleman: Following down under this section to where the definition of property comes out, it says: “a building and the land on which the building is located, or (b) land on which no building is located, but does not include property excluded by regulation.” Could the minister give us a sense of what properties would be excluded by regulation?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Probably one of the best examples would be First Nations lands in terms of making the act work to their specific needs. That would be an example of lands that could be excluded by regulation.
R. Coleman: That takes me down to the next section where you do talk about First Nations lands. Basically, it doesn’t apply to the Nisg̱a’a lands. It doesn’t apply to “(b) Sechelt lands as defined in section 2 (1) of the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act (Canada); (c) treaty lands of a treaty first nation; (d) an area over which aboriginal title been established by a declaration of a court of competent jurisdiction or an agreement with the Crown.” Could the minister explain to me why reserve lands are not on that list?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Reserve lands come under federal jurisdiction.
R. Coleman: I know the minister is probably familiar with 99-year leases on First Nations lands and also 99-year leases on what’s referred to as “locatee land” — which really, there’s always been a question about whose jurisdiction comes under locatee land. Could the minister tell me what approach this would take with regards to locatee land?
Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the First Nations lands that are listed, it would be by agreement. So if they want the act to apply, that would be by agreement between both the First Nations and ourselves, in terms how it would apply.
On the second part of your question, on those particular lands — not the 99 but the second group of 99; I think we refer them as locatee — we would have to get legal advice on that, in terms of whether they actually come under provincial or federal jurisdiction.
R. Coleman: It is an interesting question because locatee land is, basically, that a family owns the piece of the property and the rights to the property, within reserve lands or otherwise, and then they can go and do business with it whichever way they want. And it’s not really covered in any clear definitions in here, so I thought that’s why I’d bring it up.
The minister says they can choose to be covered by this act or not. So what happens in the cases where those that don’t want to be covered, if it ever happened, were involved in some kind of illegal activity?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question.
I’ll make a couple of observations. First off, in terms of this legislation, the amendments to the legislation have been developed in a context of our approach around reconciliation, which is nation-to-nation, government-to-government. So it is clear that on the First Nations’ lands, if they wish this act to apply, then it is by agreement.
What we’ve heard so far from First Nations is that many of them are interested in entering into agreements on just that. But if, for example, there was a nation that decided not to, on their lands, then what exists today would currently be in force. If there was an issue, then it would be…. If they felt that it was either First Nations policing or RCMP dealing with a particular situation or the band dealing with a particular situation or band council — however they deal with it currently — that’s what would continue to be in place.
R. Coleman: I move past the piece on firearms because I had it written down here “all registered,” but I think that it comes back under the previous discussion. So “Specified activities involving criminal organizations or gangs,” under 2.4 of that section, and also 2.5, “In respect of gaming or gambling…” [audio interrupted].
The question I have here is, first of all, about the qualifications of the people that would be conducting those investigations to get to where there might be an administrative activity, how that will be integrated with police and also with JIGIT, which is a joint gaming enforcement team….
The Chair: Member, can we just pass section 2, then?
R. Coleman: No. We’re not….
The Chair: We’re still on section 2?
R. Coleman: We’re still on 2.4, 2.5.
We can do whatever you want. I’m still going to have the same questions. Did we move division 2? Is it actually a section? I assumed that we were still under part 1, division 2, which would be under section 2.
Is that not correct? My colleague says that I’m correct. We were looking for section 3 for another discussion, which is further down.
The Chair: Okay. Let’s just clarify.
Okay, Members. We’ve got some clarification there.
Sections 2 and 3 approved.
On section 4.
R. Coleman: I’ll go to section 4, 2.4, which is titled “Specified activities involving criminal organizations or gangs.” What you have in front of you, I suspect, Minister, should be similar.
My questions are really…. This is about how this organization is going to be set up by government, which is another agency of some form of criminal investigation, administrative penalties, whatever, that’s going to be staffed by people who are going to do a job. I know my colleague is going to get into the numbers and qualifications to a level.
My question was under sections 2.4 and 2.5, as we go through this part of section 4. How integrated with police will these organizations be? How integrated would they be? Would they be on something like PRIME as well? How would they be integrated with joint gaming enforcement team and GPEB? What are their legal powers with regards to that and how they can move forward with respect to property obtained by crime that’s different than the civil forfeiture side of the thing? How many people would you need to actually run this operation?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. The act will be enforced by the current community safety unit, which is now fully operational within my ministry. They will have very good relations with the police. It allows for information-sharing, and that will take place. That’s how it will be done.
R. Coleman: Minister, how many people do they have in the community safety unit, and what are their qualifications?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Currently the community safety unit consists of 44. That’s their staff. It is composed of compliance and enforcement officers. It’s composed of, in many cases, former police officers, individuals primarily with a law enforcement background.
R. Coleman: Do they have the powers of peace officers? How much does the unit cost?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, they have status as peace officers. Any incremental cost for the unit associated with the act will be part of the Budget 2020 process.
R. Coleman: So you’re saying that the budget has not been established yet, and it’ll be in the 2020 budget. Then what’s funding it today? Is it contingency access or whatever the case may be?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Currently, because it’s been set up in this budget year, it’s accessing contingencies. But next year, it would be Budget ’20-21, and that would be going through the Treasury Board process, which, as the member knows, is what we are currently going through over the next few months.
R. Coleman: My calculation would be low, I think, because of the police officers in excess of $100,000 per member under the provincial police funding. So this is a cost of about $4.2 million to operate this particular unit, and that’s not taking into account equipment and what have you, benefits above that, and offices and what have you, which…. I’m not going to get into that discussion. That’s probably your budget, around $4 million to $5 million.
However, my question is: is this not, in actual fact, an integrated policing unit? I asked earlier, and you didn’t answer the question. Does it have access to PRIME, which is the police records information management environment, and real-time crime in British Columbia? Does it have access to powers of search and seizures with regards to this, or if it was a criminal activity, would they have to go to another “policing agency” to be able to proceed on some of the more serious matters?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I want to make a couple of points on this. First, they’re not an integrated unit. They have the status of peace officers, but they’re not a police unit. They’re public servants within the ministry. They have the ability as peace officers to do some search and seizure, but only within the scope of the act. If there were, let’s say, serious criminal activity, the police would be involved. So they have the status of peace officers, but they’re not full police officers. They are public servants, and the salaries will be lower than those of police officers.
R. Coleman: Maybe you could ask your staff: how are you going to stop yourself from tripping over each other, then, with regards to integrated investigations? We have seen in the past where people actually start talking about an investigation from one area that had an effect on a major organized crime investigation because somebody had a little piece of it, but that piece actually had an effect on the protection of witnesses and informants and what have you.
What boundaries does this organization have around it with regards to the sharing of information, and how will that integrate with major investigations? The activities that are described in here — drugs, intoxicants, firearms, illegal gaming, illegal drugs, what have you — are all integrated into a larger crime world. To just have us going after administrative penalty in one place could actually have an effect on a more significant investigation. I wonder what the protection is to protect those investigations from that activity.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.
The legislation is based on other provinces, other jurisdictions, that have put in place similar legislation. So there are information-sharing agreements that will be in place. The director always checks with police agencies to ensure that an investigation is not being impeded or impinged on so that there isn’t the stepping on each other’s toes. We’ve modelled this approach on how it’s done in other jurisdictions. The experience there is that it works well, and there’s no reason to expect it not to work just as well here.
M. Morris: A couple comments you made, Minister, with respect to the specified activities under section 4 here with respect to First Nations, said that First Nations can sign an agreement to sign on to this particular legislation or have it applicable to their respective jurisdictions.
What about the other many, numerous small First Nations communities that we have throughout the province here that are vulnerable to organized crime taking advantage of their locations and the so-called island of freedom, I guess, to operate illegal gaming, cannabis operations, gang activity related to that? And if a band council does sign on to this particular legislation, can they opt out at any time? How does the province intend on dealing with those kinds of vulnerable communities that we have scattered throughout the province?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.
I’d like to just make a couple of points. The First Nations lands listed in the act are ones that First Nations can come to an agreement with the government on for the act to apply. That can be done through regulation, and they could change through regulation. Though my expectation is that they will enter into the agreement in first place because they see there’s benefit for them in terms of being able to deal with issues that may occur on those particular lands.
In terms of what the member is talking about for some of those smaller places on existing reserve lands, those, in many cases, are federal reserve lands and come under federal jurisdiction, so this act would not apply on those particular areas. But we would certainly be open to working with First Nations and with the federal government if there was a desire to see the legislation be applicable in those locations.
M. Morris: I guess I need some clarification, if I could. So are you saying that provincial law does not apply to First Nations communities on reserve?
Hon. M. Farnworth: No, not at all. This is primarily a property law, and therefore, it has a different jurisdiction than to suggest that laws of general application would apply to First Nations communities that the member is raising.
M. Morris: So because the housing is reserve housing and the property rights don’t accrue to the individual person on the reserve — that would be about the only reason why — would the band council be able to pass a resolution that would make this applicable for the band themselves?
Hon. M. Farnworth: That’s a very good question. And we would have to work with our federal counterparts to see if what the member is suggesting were possible. At this point, I couldn’t say yea or nay, but it’s certainly one that if parties wanted to look at it, we would certainly be willing to at least pursue that and look at it further.
M. Morris: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.
This is a vulnerable area, and many from my own experience in policing First Nations communities throughout the province here…. It probably would need some closer scrutiny so that these communities can get the help that this particular statute can provide at the end of the day.
I also have some more questions with respect to budgets and how we’re going to fund this particular unit, but I think, probably on section 24, I might be able to interject those questions at that time.
Sections 4 to 22 inclusive approved.
On section 23.
M. Morris: “Request for assistance from police officers.” This is an area, again, that’s near and dear to my heart. I look at our police resources across the province that are already working at capacity and beyond capacity and that the director can ask for assistance from municipal forces, from provincial forces and prescribed police forces.
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
Has the ministry done any projections as to the impact that this will have on municipal forces, on the provincial forces and prescribed forces? And who pays for that at the end of the day? I can see this being a relatively busy unit within a municipality. You know, I look at Prince George, for an example, and some of the files that could come in there and the impact that it will have on provincial resources or the municipal detachment that is already stretched beyond its capacity.
Will the ministry be propping up the budgets for municipal police departments, for provincial police departments, to try and offset some of the costs that they are going to be incurring as a result of this legislation?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I’ll make a couple of points in terms of this question. First off, the key word is “may.” It’s not a “must.” The director may ask for police assistance. The police have full discretion, in terms of their operational decisions, as to whether or not they want to or feel, at this point, that it’s necessary.
Again, this is modelled on similar legislation in other jurisdictions. Just for the member and for the record, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Yukon are the other jurisdictions. And the experience from those jurisdictions is that police assistance has been asked for, on average, about once a month.
M. Morris: Thank you for the answer. You know, we’ve got quite a spread-out province here, and the jurisdictional issues are somewhat different than we have in Manitoba and some of the other areas just because of the size and the population that we have here.
Can the minister advise us where these resources are located currently within the province?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Prince George, Surrey, Kelowna and Victoria.
M. Morris: How many would be in each location?
Hon. M. Farnworth: There are 44 in total. The headquarters is in Surrey, and there’s the ability to move around as needs require, so there are operational decisions that are made at that level. But it’s 44 in total.
M. Morris: Of course, we see that the Lower Mainland consumes a lot of the police resources and public safety resources that we have in the province. We’re still plagued with the different issues surrounding the province here.
I know that we have at least one person in Prince George. Can you confirm whether we have more than one there?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I can’t confirm any more than what the member said. But I can tell you that I do know that there is movement in terms of personnel, because I know that there has been a focus on different areas to deal with the work that they are currently doing. So there is that ability to move around, as I said a moment ago.
M. Morris: I do know. I’ll get into a couple of questions here with respect to funding provincial policing. Does the budget for this fall under your contingency or the contingencies of Public Safety, or is it the overall contingency that the Finance Minister has control over?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Contingencies would come under the Ministry of Finance. But we’re also told that we can access those contingencies, and that’s what we have done to date.
M. Morris: Is there any…? We have 44 positions staffed today. They are travelling around the province to address the different pressures that we see around the province here. I do know, from speaking to different members, RCMP members throughout the province — CFSEU, for an example — that a lot of their travel has been curtailed because of budget issues. The RCMP is over budget on the provincial business line by, probably, the equivalent of the employer health tax.
I’m wondering whether the ability for these individuals, located probably primarily in Surrey and the Lower Mainland, would be hampered by the lack of funding in the province here, the inability to fund their travel and operations outside of wherever their headquarters office is.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to the question would be no. The travel restrictions are for non-essential travel. The work that this body does is considered essential. They do the job that they are required to do, and they do it.
M. Morris: That’s comforting to know, in a sense. However, I’m led to believe that travel for essential services like CFSEU, which tackles our guns and gangs issues right across the province here, has been curtailed to a significant degree, affecting intelligence gathering, affecting some of the investigations out there.
I throw this out there. Is that a priority, then, to fully fund and make sure that this unit has the ability to travel around the province, versus the intelligence gathering and the work that the guns and gangs folks do with CFSEU?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question. Operational decisions, as the member well knows, are made by the RCMP. I don’t tell them to shortchange intelligence gathering or anything of that nature. Those decisions that they make, in terms of their allocation and their priorities in terms of operations, are internal decisions that are made.
Within this ministry, where the community safety unit operates, they have a job to do. We expect them to be doing that job. In fact, they have out been doing the work to date. I have not issued any instructions to them not to continue doing the work because of travel restrictions.
If there’s an issue up in Prince George that they need…. Again, they’ll make those decisions as to who needs to be up there. But if somebody needs to be up in Prince George to deal with an issue, they’ll go to Prince George to deal with that issue.
M. Morris: I guess that I look at the provincial business line for the RCMP, which CFSEU is and other provincial detachments — roughly about 2,000 RCMP personnel under the provincial business line, plus a number of civilian employees as well. Pretty significant payroll attached to that. When we look at the impacts of the employer health tax that is affected with that payroll of 2,000 members, it’s quite significant at the end of the day.
I’m wondering whether the minister has bolstered the provincial business line by the same amount of the employer health tax, or whether the RCMP have to cut their operational costs in order to cover that at the end of the day. That affects what we’re doing here with this public safety unit. It affects the extra workload that the police officers are going to have in every community, which we have as a result of this legislation.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s question. That’s probably a question that’s best for our estimates debate, which I can assure the member we will be doing in the spring budget. I look forward to dealing with those questions with him at that particular time.
R. Coleman: Maybe I could do it a different way. Is the 2,000-member complement to the RCMP fully funded today, or are they operating on vacancies?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, that’s a question that’s more reserved for the estimates debate, which will take next spring…. If there is information, I’m more than happy to get information for the member, but we’re dealing with amendments to Bill 13, the Community Safety Act. I will just leave it at that.
R. Coleman: I get the estimates piece, so let me put it another way. If we’ve got $5 million to spend on a community safety group, but we don’t have as many police officers in the provincial complement of police officers because they are operating by vacancies, which they are today, that means there are not enough police officers out there on a day-to-day basis to do the patrolling of small communities across British Columbia covered by the RCMP contract.
I’m just wondering if the minister is aware whether the 2,000 members, whatever that number is, are fully staffed up in the province. It’s not an estimates question. But relative to this money versus another piece of money, are they suffering, or are they fully funded and this doesn’t have any effect on them?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Again to the member, we are debating Bill 13, committee stage, clause-by-clause. What I’ve explained to the members opposite is that it’s our intention, with the passage of this legislation, that the community safety unit, which is currently up and running, and which is enforcing cannabis legislation that has been passed by this House…. In fact, that work, in many ways, of that unit has been addressing concerns that were raised by local governments, in particular the potential impact on policing resources in those communities.
I can tell the member that one of the areas that UBCM members have been particularly pleased about, particularly as it relates to policing units, is the fact that the community safety unit is undertaking that work so that that is a burden that is not being placed on police in communities across the province but rather is work that is being done by the community safety unit, whose job is to go and deal with the illegal cannabis retail distribution outlets, for example. I’ll add at this point, in the same way, that on the legal industry side, as legal retail stores come on line and come into being, that it’s dealt with in the same way as liquor licensing.
Again, it’s an issue that many communities were concerned about — that it would be, initially, their responsibility — but is, in fact, a responsibility of the province. So those legal stores are regulated in the same way as licensed liquor establishments. The community safety unit is dealing with those cannabis units right now and then will also be able to enforce this particular piece of legislation.
As I had mentioned to a question just earlier, the reality is that the experience in other jurisdictions has been that the director may ask for police assistance, and the experience in other jurisdictions has been that that would be once a month. Again, if the police choose to or choose not to, that’s an operational decision that they would make.
R. Coleman: Hasn’t the liquor control and cannabis group already got their enforcement and regulatory enforcement people outside of this act with regards to legal activities — whether it be bars, hotels, liquor establishments, retail — that are taking place in British Columbia? Why would you have a unit doing the same thing?
Hon. M. Farnworth: No. They are two program areas enforced by one unit.
R. Coleman: So this unit is now enforcing liquor control and licensing and community…? You said there are two enforcements done by one unit, so maybe the member could clarify that.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The community safety unit deals with illegal cannabis units. Okay? In the same way that we have with liquor — how you have liquor inspectors — we also have cannabis inspectors that deal with legal operations.
R. Coleman: Thanks for the clarification, Minister. You had me confused for a second.
I want to go to subsection (3), at the end of this section, where it says that if “an order of possession in favour of an owner or landlord is given in a community safety order, the owner or landlord may request assistance from a police…in obtaining possession of the property in order to vacate it.”
This is sort of like the paper tiger piece of this particular piece of legislation. Orders of possession under the Residential Tenancy Act, which this act now supersedes by earlier…. As I read the act, it now supersedes the residential tenured manufactured homeowners.
A landlord can’t get assistance by police. They actually don’t touch those. In actual fact, they use bailiffs. The challenge here is we now have an order coming from a government agency that says that you must go after these people because we have an administrative order. Now they want to enforce what you’re asking to do, and you’re saying “police may.”
What is the owner of a property supposed to do if they won’t, or they don’t have time or the resources to do it?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The issue the member raises is “may,” not “must.” But the reality is that this legislation, as in this jurisdiction and as in other jurisdictions, is supported by the police.
So if there is a problem property, and the director…. The order is issued for removal. Yes, it doesn’t say that you must, but the reality is that that kind of property is one that police will no doubt be aware of. Every expectation, and the reality in practice in other jurisdictions, is that they will remove whoever or whatever has to be removed.
M. Morris: The minister piqued my interest with a couple of comments he made with respect to the community safety unit looking after the cannabis side of the House now. I recall when we championed this cannabis legislation through the House that there was going to be a public safety unit created to look after the illegal cannabis shops.
How many of these 44 members now are solely focused on cannabis? That was the thrust of this particular unit before this legislation came along. How many of them are engaged with the cannabis issue? How many of them are engaged with looking after the background checks? How long do those background checks…? How occupied are they with cannabis, to the point where they will have any time at all to focus on the duties that are expressed in this legislation?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question. The community safety unit does not do background checks. What they have been doing is going to illegal operations, and they have been doing that now for a number of months. They are continuing in that work. They have been shutting down a number of places. They have not been reopening. They will continue to do that.
As we’ve seen more and more legal stores come on line and the number of illegal stores decline, there will be a transitioning. They will be able to take on the additional duties and responsibilities that have been envisioned under the legislation.
M. Morris: So who does the criminal record checks and background checks for the applicants?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, that’s not quite related to this legislation. It’s the security programs division within the ministry.
Section 23 approved.
On section 24.
M. Morris: Just with respect to closure costs, how is that computed? Where does the money…? It goes to the Minister of Finance, but is that general revenue? Does anything go back to the municipalities where a lot of the work may have taken place and involved municipal police officers?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Once a community safety order has been issued, then the enforcement in that would take place by the unit. Those closing costs would relate to, for example, if fencing was required. That would be done by the province, by the director. So those closing costs would come back through the ministry, and it would, of course, go into general revenue as moneys received by the province.
M. Morris: Then those closing costs basically just pertain to any extraneous or extra costs that the director may have incurred putting up a fence or boarding up a home?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.
Section 24 approved.
On section 25.
R. Coleman: Under this section, in the very last section, it says: “A certificate filed under subsection (6) has the same effect and is enforceable in the same manner as if it were a judgment of the court in favour of the government for the recovery of a debt in the amount specified in the certificate.”
It’s pretty strong wording on the enforcement side of it. But what if, as I go to my previous questioning, the person that actually has the property and wants to enforce your request cannot get the cooperation because the police are too busy? Actually, a bailiff wouldn’t have jurisdiction to go in and do this. Are your people going to be there to help them to vacate those premises?
It’s your act, and it’s their powers to be able to actually address it as it is as if it were a judgment of the court in favour of the government, because it is in favour of the government. So now the landlord, particularly in a landlord’s case, is now saying: “I’ve got to get rid of these folks. I’ve got a judgment here, but I’ve got no ability and support to enforce it.” Will this unit come in to support them?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question. Of course we will assist. We’re not going to leave an innocent property owner hanging.
Sections 25 to 33 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 3:58 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
BILL 13 — COMMUNITY SAFETY
AMENDMENT ACT,
2019
Bill 13, Community Safety Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.
The House adjourned at 4 p.m.
Copyright © 2019: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada