Committee of Supply

Proceedings in Section C

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

(continued)

On Vote 39: ministry operations, $800,352,000 (continued).

The Chair: Good afternoon, committee members.

I want to recognize that we are meeting on the traditional territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, the Esquimalt and Songhees. I thank them for their stewardship. We are honoured to be working here.

I’m Sheila Malcolmson, the member for Nanaimo. I’m chairing this afternoon. I am here in the legislative precinct. Almost everybody else that members of the public may be seeing on the call are working from their own home offices all across the province of B.C.

We are meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

E. Ross: It’s been quite the year, in terms of civil unrest and protest, which actually originated on the LNG Canada pipeline and spread all across Canada, in terms of protest.

I don’t want to get into details of how or who or when. But I do want to get an understanding of future interventions, in terms of blockades on the LNG pipeline, specifically the blockade that was actually cleared out, in terms of Wet’suwet’en.

My question is to the Solicitor General. Is your ministry being kept apprised of the activities there? And is your ministry budgeting and planning for future events where the government may have to go in and help enforce the injunction?

[1:35 p.m.]

M. Morris: Chair, I think probably what we will do…. We will carry on with the member for Skeena, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson and the member for Prince George–Valemount. The Greens can probably slip in once they have finished their line of questioning.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. He’s right. It has been a very interesting and challenging year in this regard.

I can tell him that we are kept aware of events. When there are protests, we are made aware of that. We are not told about operational decisions. That is up to the police. I do not, as I have said on a number of occasions publicly, direct the RCMP. And when it comes to costs, we don’t specifically budget for costs. We are aware that whenever there are events of this nature, there will be costs. We track those costs, and we will continue to do so.

E. Ross: Thank you, Minister. Specifically, I was talking about the redeployment of the RCMP and the government’s offer to cover the costs of that redeployment under the police service agreement. That’s the line of questioning that I’m trying to pursue.

To my understanding, there’s still activity at that same location, but there’s some question on whether or not that activity can be defined as a protest or impeding the blockade. Specifically, what I was talking about is: is the government planning, or keeping in mind, to budget to redeploy the RCMP and to cover the RCMP’s cost in the same fashion as outlined in the letter that was sent on January 27, 2020?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, Member, for the question.

The court order is still in force. The operational decisions around that court order are decided by the local RCMP in that area. If they feel that they were to require additional resources — so under the police contract, the redeployment from a municipal detachment — then they would request the authority to do that, in the same way that they did in January. That letter would come to me as minister.

E. Ross: The government did redeploy the RCMP and did cover the costs, I’m assuming, based on the January 2020 letter. I’m aware of future activities on the pipeline. The protest hasn’t stopped, the blockading hasn’t stopped, and the fundraising to actually help with the protests hasn’t stopped.

In terms of the Solicitor General’s budget and upcoming plans, can we get a ballpark figure on what it will cost to redeploy the RCMP again and what that cost will entail?

Hon. M. Farnworth: A couple of points. First, the decision on what resources would be required would be made by the RCMP. They would decide what it is that they need. That request would come to me as minister.

Obviously, we don’t budget specifically, because we’re not aware of what those costs are. That would be determined by the RCMP. Obviously, we do try and track, but we don’t budget specifically. Having said that, the costs that are incurred would be paid for by the province.

E. Ross: I understand it’s hard to predict what future interventions will cost, but I do want to get an understanding of how much an intervention like this costs.

In that same respect, then, can we have an idea of what it did cost the government to redeploy the RCMP in the last intervention it did? I’ve no other word for it other than “intervention,” apart from “enforcement injunction.” Do we have a ballpark figure on what the last cost was to government to enforce the injunction?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thanks to the member for that question. I don’t have the ability right now to give you, let’s say, from January to March. But the entire fiscal year — which, for the RCMP, runs from April 1 to March 31 — was $5.27 million.

E. Ross: Thank you, Minister.

Was the $5.2 million the cost associated with the Solicitor General redeploying the RCMP? I mean, the RCMP had costs already. I understand that. But in the letter dated January 20, it said that for redeployment of the RCMP, the government would cover costs. Is that the government’s end, the $5.2 million to enforce the injunction?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That’s for the whole fiscal year. So from that January period the member wants, we will have to get that broken out for you. That means we will have to get that specific from the RCMP. We also have not received that, as of this point. That number was for the entire fiscal year. Once we get that, I’d be happy to share it with you.

E. Ross: Thank you for that, Minister. By the way, I really appreciate the answers. I haven’t been able to get answers to any of these questions regarding this issue. I really appreciate your direct answers.

In terms of future activities, I keep an eye on what’s happening up there. It causes a lot of anxiety for all the First Nations that actually signed on to the LNG Canada agreement in the first place — the 20 First Nations. It causes anxiety for Kitimat and Terrace and my band. In terms of the activities out there, I’m sure your ministry is kept aware of what’s happening out there.

I talked to another minister previously about this issue. I actually asked about the smokehouse that was built on the right-of-way and whether or not that would be subject to the province intervening again, redeploying the RCMP and covering the costs under the provincial police service agreement. The minister inferred that it was not actually a blockade. It was not an impediment, and there was really no issue with the smokehouse being built where it is.

Is that the take that the Solicitor General has as well?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The way it works, Member, is that the court order directed that there be an access made available. The nature of that, or the exact parameters of that, is decided by the RCMP. I do not make a decision on that, nor do I have an opinion on that. That is an operational decision that they make, in terms of regards to the enforcement of that court order.

E. Ross: Minister, thank you for that. I understand. It won’t become an issue until the RCMP report it to you as an issue, and then you can decide on next steps on redeployment and covering costs and whatnot. I understand that part. Thank you for that.

In terms of trying to get answers for my riding, in terms of what’s going to happen next, I had a tough time talking to the minister associated with this file. One minister kind of gave a vague answer on how it was not his area, and the other minister actually denied that the government had any involvement whatsoever.

[1:50 p.m.]

They gave the answer, of course: “Oh, we don’t direct the activities. It’s an operation plan. We don’t do any of that.”

Actually, I read the interview of Premier Horgan saying the exact same thing. But that was a play on words. The redeployment was actually covered off in an official letter that was under the heading of the provincial police service agreement, article 9, “Emergencies and events.”

The redeployment of the RCMP and invoking the provincial police service agreement, article 9, “Emergencies and events….” Was this intervention of the redeployment of the RCMP to enforce the injunction characterized as an emergency or a special event?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Technically, under the police service agreement, this was an emergency. They have to request the ability to redeploy. That’s not something I, as minister, initiate. They are the ones who make that request for me to authorize the additional resources. How they redeploy them, when they redeploy them, if they redeploy them is entirely up to them. I have no role in that whatsoever.

E. Ross: Thank you for that, Minister.

If it’s not a special event, then it’s not expected to be a short duration type of issue. This could be something that could be kept open, regardless of the back-and-forth between the RCMP and the government. It all flows back to the authority of the Solicitor General, in terms of keeping the peace and protecting the safety of people and property and communities. That was the real pump behind that. I appreciate that answer.

What we were talking about…. I’m going to assume that everybody has to keep an eye on this for the long term.

My last question to the minister is…. In trying to get an answer from different ministers, it was my understanding that ministers didn’t know this happened. They couldn’t really answer it. One minister kind of inferred that it didn’t even happen at all — that the government had no involvement here whatsoever.

I do understand the Solicitor General’s power and authority here under the provincial police service review, especially in terms of emergencies and events. Is there any obligation on the Solicitor General’s office to, at the very least, notify, not consult — I’m not talking about consulting — cabinet and government of its intention to invoke this intervention again?

The Chair: For the benefit of the public, what we are doing here is reviewing the budget estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. This is the opposition’s opportunity to ask questions about budget spending and program priorities.

[1:55 p.m.]

What explains the long pauses between things is the minister talking with his ministerial staff, just to make sure we get the most accurate answers to the members of the opposition. Some would say it’s not gripping viewing, but it is important.

Thanks for tuning in.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thanks, Member, for the question. The decision is a statutory decision of the Solicitor General.

P. Milobar: Thanks to the minister for the quick turnaround on the answers today. It’s refreshing to see, compared to some of the other estimates.

Along the same lines, and I’m sure this won’t surprise the minister, I have some questions around Blue River and the Tiny House Warriors situation. I fully recognize, on the front end, that the minister does not direct RCMP resources. So we can dispense with that. They do ap­prove resources, and they do have the ability, especially in unincorporated areas, to make sure what the policing levels are.

I will recognize that over the last couple of years, when­ever I’ve had quick side conversations with the minister about potential flare-ups or other resources maybe being needed up there, he has been attentive. Frankly, I think he has been about the only person within government that has actually attempted to at least provide some resources to that area. To that end, it really does start to feel like we are playing a game of Whac-a-Mole with these estimates right now, in terms of what’s going on in Blue River and the North Thompson Valley with the protests that have been going on for 2½ years now.

We have the Attorney General essentially saying it’s not up to them. They have no knowledge of any potential charges coming forward, being rejected. They seemed more concerned about an Amnesty International letter that arrived on the last day, which has been countered by the Chief of the area, than in anything going on with residents for the last 2½ years. Those worries fell on deaf ears with the Attorney General’s office.

We have the Indigenous Relations Minister, who has taken zero action in 2½ years, while spending a quarter of a million dollars on consultants in the last eight months on a pipeline they would like to see move forward.

I guess my question to the Solicitor General is…. Given that the Attorney General…. The word, talking to locals and law enforcement in the area, is that there have been attempts to try to advance charges, to try to advance things to make sure that people feel like they’re being protected. Is there any conversation at all happening, either at the high levels within the Crown and the RCMP or minister to minister, about trying to find some sort of resolution, where police and residents in the area will actually start to feel like they are being supported by other aspects of the judicial system?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. A couple of points.

In terms of resources for the RCMP, I know that they have been mobilizing resources as they feel are required. They have not written to me to ask for the mobilization of additional resources. In terms of charges, what I can tell you is — and remembering that the AG’s and Crown are…. The prosecution, sorry, is separate from my ministry. But at least seven charges have been advanced by police in the Blue River situation. That has been taking place.

I can also tell you that we are aware of the seriousness of this issue. I think I answered in QP the other day that the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation was going to be meeting with the Indigenous nations involved there, up in Kamloops. I am familiar with the correspondence from the Tk’emlúps, as well as the letter from central Canada.

We are working to try and find a solution to this and remain engaged. That’s what I can answer in terms of the questions you’ve put forward.

P. Milobar: Well, thank you for that, to the minister.

Frankly, again, this minister seems to be the only one in the last 2½ years that has shown any interest whatsoever in trying to advance anything in this area. Frankly, I hope the minister can talk with the Attorney General, because the Attorney General’s answer to me was that the Crown was unaware of any charges being advanced — and being rejected to move forward, let alone being advanced.

It’s interesting. Now here we are a week later, and the Solicitor General is aware of seven instances that that has happened — and the Attorney General telling me nothing a week earlier.

Again, I guess, to the Solicitor General, given that he seems to be the only minister that’s taking any form of interest whatsoever in this file: is there any way, is there any inclination, and can the minister commit to coordinating with the Attorney General and the Indigenous Relations Minister, both of which seem to be oblivious to what’s going on over the last 2½ years in an area that directly impacts their files, and make sure that all three ministries actually have some sort of cohesive plan to move forward?

Not just about the protesters. The protesters are worried for their safety as well. Town residents are worried about their safety. Indigenous leaders in the area…. There are some that now require security when they travel in their own traditional territory and to phone local police detachments to inform them of what their travel plans are because they feel unsafe. This has become completely and wholly unacceptable.

What the residents are hearing, from minister after minister — albeit except for this minister — is a game of pass the buck. There needs to be somebody within government willing to try to coordinate a cohesive plan for all of the various ministries that actually do have impact. The Attorney General’s advice was for the town to get an injunction. Well, it’s not an official town. It’s on Crown land. Last I checked, the Crown could very easily go and get their own injunction for Crown land.

[2:05 p.m.]

Will the Solicitor General commit today to being the point minister to coordinate with the other relevant ministries, like the Attorney General, like the Indigenous Relations Minister, and start to bring some relief to the North Thompson Valley, all the way from Valemount down to Barriere and Clearwater?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I’ll make a couple of points.

First, there are three different ministries involved with this. You have the Attorney General’s ministry, and in particular, the Crown prosecution service, which is independent of the Attorney General. They will make their deci­sions. They don’t consult with the AG on that. They make those decisions.

My ministry will respond to requests from the RCMP — in particular, around resources. I have had conversations with the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, and I will continue to do that. I know that in his ministry, they have been reaching out and wanting to engage in finding a solution to this.

I will continue to ensure that this is on the radar and work to find a solution to this particular problem, which I know the member is extremely concerned about — and the communities that he represents — and rightly so. I am more than happy to commit to continue doing that.

S. Bond: Thank you very much to the critic for the opportunity to ask some questions today. I’ll be asking some other questions later in the afternoon. But I do appreciate….

I wanted to speak today to support the efforts of my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson. I want to join him today and urge the minister to be the leader of the ministers that need to step up here. As the minister would well know, my riding is contiguous with the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. The issues that he has expressed, related to the Tiny House Warriors, are significant.

[2:10 p.m.]

In fact, just recently I wanted to…. I know that the minister has likely seen the letter. I have prepped for estimates in my life as well. But the village of Valemount, mayor and council, recently sent a letter to Premier Horgan — and the minister was copied on it — that expresses deep concern about the potential for escalating violence related to this situation. So it is long overdue that there be some significant attention paid to this matter.

I know the minister has received correspondence, as has my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson. We are talking about verbal and non-verbal tactics, harassment. Businesses are suffering.

In the letter to the Premier from the mayor of Vale­mount and council: “They have blockaded a public road, forwarded racial slurs and taunts — anyone they can come into contact with — all of which is well documented.” The letter basically asks the minister “to support the community of Blue River, the Simpcw First Nation and the Thompson-Nicola regional district before this situation escalates to violence.”

Again to the minister, could he at least provide my colleague and me with the assurance that he will bring together the relevant ministers and ask them exactly what the plan is to deal with this situation which is causing significant concern and distress for my constituents and those in Kamloops–North Thompson?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for her question. I want to reassure her and her colleagues that we take this issue very seriously.

I have had discussions with my colleague the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. He understands the seriousness of the situation. We want to ensure that it does not escalate. It’s also one of the reasons why he has reached out, and if he has not already, he is going to be meeting with the First Nations in the area on whose territory this situation is taking place.

I will continue to work with him and the Attorney General’s ministry, when it is appropriate to do so with that ministry, to ensure that we are able to do everything we can to bring a resolution to this issue. It is…. The things that I have heard, some of the stuff that’s taking place, are very disturbing and are, in my view, unacceptable.

S. Bond: I thank the minister for his answer. I concur with my colleague that…. I know this minister takes this seriously. As he points out, the behaviours are unacceptable. They’re frightening and illegal. Blocking public roads to a provincial park — the list goes on.

In order to be respectful to my critic and the other members of our team and others that need to speak, I’ll leave my comments there.

I do want to, in this section related to policing…. I know that this matters a great deal to my colleague and the critic for the file. There has been some discussion about this, this morning, but I did also want to raise the issue. I want to be sure that I am on the record supporting the city of Prince George as they put forward a motion about the expansion of the Car 60 program. It was passed unanimously this week at council. It was brought to council by Coun. Kyle Sampson.

The minister, I’m sure, is very familiar with the success of this model. Prince George has seen an increase of well over 100 percent of calls associated with mental health over the past five years.

[2:15 p.m.]

I know the minister knows that the Car 60 program allows for a focused and effective use of what are scarce resources. I know that he’s hearing about Car 60 and Car 40 and all kinds of other programs. I think it’s time that we recognize that these kinds of unique and innovative programs are the ones that are going to make a difference on the ground. They are making a difference.

My question is a simple one. I believe that it’s an investment in a program that works. Is the minister prepared to work with the Ministers of Health and Mental Health and Addictions to support communities like Prince George in seeking an expanded Car 60 program?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for her question. There’s no question that the mental health programs and Car 60 and Car 40 and the other programs are extremely important. We are seeing more of them. Many communities have the ability and the capacity to put those in place.

I can also tell you that my ministry has been working with and will continue to work with Mental Health and Addictions on these initiatives. That’s one of the reasons why we’ve got the three pilot projects currently in place in Vancouver, Vernon and Abbotsford that include the provision of mental health services.

It’s also one of the key areas which the new committee that we’ve struck in terms of looking at the Police Act has been asked to look at — that issue of mental health services. I’m not speaking for the committee, obviously, but I would fully expect that recommendations would be coming forward on this particular subject.

I can tell you that I am very supportive of these programs in general and will continue to work with ministries, both Health and Mental Health and Addictions, on them.

A. Olsen: Thank you to my colleagues in the official opposition for this opportunity. I appreciate the opportunity.

I have a few questions to ask the minister. I’m just going to start. Again, thank you to the minister for all of the previous answers.

Just going to start with the question around our municipal and RCMP forces in the province. We’ve got a mixture of both: local police forces and RCMP detachments. We know that municipal police are governed by local police boards. The chain of command, however, for the RCMP goes to Ottawa — or maybe regionally. But definitely the chain of command goes all the way to the top in Ottawa.

Just a question about the policing done by the RCMP. How much does that cost us? And how much does the province contribute to that in both the amount of money that we spend and the percentage that we cover of that contract?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thanks to the member for the question. The provincial share of what we pay, not for municipal but for the provincial RCMP, is $422,094,583.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Minister. Do we cover 100 percent of the cost of that contract, or does the federal government cover some of that? What is the percentage?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The simplest answer on this is that it is a 70-30 split, and we’re paying 70 percent. That is our contribution; that’s our 70 percent. That is the full cost.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Minister. Thank you for that clarification.

Just with respect to the contract that we have with the RCMP and in highlighting the chain of command or in highlighting the accountability measures that people have who have a municipal force. In Central Saanich, where we’ve got a municipal force, you can walk into the municipal hall and schedule a meeting with the local police board chair or with the local police chief and have that conversation.

I’m just wondering if the minister maybe could provide a little bit of insight into what kind of accountability measures are in place for British Columbia. We’re contributing a considerable amount of money to that, with the chain of command leaving our province and going to another jurisdiction. I’m just wondering if the minister can highlight the accountability measures that we have, to ensure that we’re receiving the level of service that we are paying for and that we expect in our province.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I will give the member two examples of accountability. Through the commanding officer at E division and myself as minister, I outline priorities and expectations in a letter each year. So I have accountability from the commanding officer through me as minister. That’s one avenue.

[2:25 p.m.]

At the local level, at the individual detachment level — while RCMP are different than the local municipal detachment, where you have a municipal police board — in the case of all communities that have an RCMP detachment, that accountability goes through the local council. I know from my time, for example, when I served as a city councillor in Port Coquitlam that there was a policing committee. The commanding officer in that local detachment would meet on a regular basis with the mayor and council.

That is that local ground level, I think, of how accountability, both locally and then provincewide, manifests itself.

A. Olsen: In balancing the priorities of the province and the national priorities of the RCMP, the RCMP has a much broader mandate than community policing. It’s got some national priorities as well.

I’m just wondering. With respect to staffing measures and ensuring that the detachments are staffed up, how has the RCMP been performing — in keeping detachments staffed and the full complement of officers that we should be expecting, based on the amount that we’re contributing to the contract — and being able to deliver on that and balancing their national priorities with the, in some cases, very isolated communities they are policing here in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you to the member for the question. I can tell you that my police services branch remains in constant dialogue with E division, which is responsible for policing here in British Columbia, to ensure that that key priority, of ensuring that communities are staffed, is maintained. We have had good cooperation from them on that front.

It’s one of the reasons why — as in earlier discussion this morning with the opposition critic — when we received additional resources, they went to those priority areas: northern communities, northern Vancouver Island and smaller detachments.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for that answer, which I didn’t quite hear the whole of. I’ll go back to Hansard and read it through. Certainly, on some of these concerns, I’ve raised them with the minister in the past. I wanted to ask these questions on the record as well, just to honour some of the concerns that have been raised in my community. So I appreciate the response.

Shifting gears here a little bit, with respect to the nature of some of the calls in the province. I recognize that it’s a very large and diverse province, but it’s been estimated that between 50 to 80 percent of the calls that police respond to in our province are non-criminal in nature — noting, of course, that some of those calls may turn into criminal in nature. They include incidents such as alarms, disturbances, domestic disputes, traffic accidents, sick or injured persons, overdoses and mental health crisis calls.

[2:30 p.m.]

Can the minister please provide an update on some of the statistics relevant to the number of non-criminal calls, maybe just at a high level, the percentage and the most recent numbers that you’ve got? Just highlight, on average, how much of an annual police budget could be expensed on police responding to non-criminal calls.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That’s not information that we have. But what I can do is commit to see what statistics we do have or would be able to access to see if that would help the member with that question.

A. Olsen: Understandable. Thank you for that. I look forward to continuing to engage the minister on that.

Just with respect to the type of training, and maybe in the context of the first question that I asked…. In the context of the number of hours that a police officer may receive conflict intervention and de-escalation training as they’re going through, prior to becoming a police officer, then, are there requirements for police officers to update and refresh that training over a period of time?

I’m going to add a little bit to this, as well, because I think, in the context of the recent discussions that have been happening here and elsewhere, just around cultural safety training and…. I guess maybe the minister can just provide some context about the level of training that our police officers have as they start to work in police forces across the province.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes. To answer that question, there are provincewide standards that apply to all police in the province, whether municipal or RCMP.

Those standards ensure that every officer must undertake critical incident and de-escalation training. That consists of four hours of online plus one day in-person training. It is required. Along with that, then, officers are required to have a refresher course every three years.

[2:35 p.m.]

A. Olsen: With that, is there any requirement for there to be cultural safety training? I think the obvious place that the minister might suspect I land here is with Indigenous cultural safety training. We have got a very diverse province, and we’ve got very unique cultures here in the province — a diversity of Indigenous cultures. We’ve also got a vast array of other cultural heritage in the province.

I’m wondering if there’s any requirement for that cultural sensitivity training of our police officers.

Hon. M. Farnworth: To answer the question, hon. Member, yes, there most certainly is cultural sensitivity training, and we have provincewide standards for that as well.

A. Olsen: There are recent events in the United States…. I’m going to be careful not to conflate what’s happening in the United States with what’s happening here, although there have been some lines drawn, I think, and certainly some sentiment within the British Columbia public about police militarization.

I think the most dramatic images of that were with the policing that was involved in the Wet’suwet’en territory, the very, very heavy police presence there, the use of fully automatic rifles, helicopters. You know, it was pretty dramatic.

Is the minister concerned about the militarization of police? Is this happening in British Columbia? Is there any concern from the minister — maybe, I guess, in some context to the questions that were asked by my colleagues in the official opposition — about the treatment of Indigenous Peoples as seen in the Wet’suwet’en territory?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I’m glad that the member prefaced his question by saying that we have to be careful with the United States. I do think that one of the challenges we face right now is that what you see south of the border is automatically conflated here in Canada.

The reality is this. We ask the police to do a very difficult job in circumstances that they often do not know the full nature of, and we invest heavily in training. The focus and the first line is de-escalation. It is prevention. At the same time, we have to balance that with ensuring that they have the capabilities and the resources to do what we ask them to do. It is often dangerous, and every situation is different.

[2:40 p.m.]

We have seen situations and circumstances and what happens when the police are under-resourced — in New Brunswick, for example. What we want to make sure is that we have police who are trained to the highest possible standards and that we have the accountability mechanisms in place so that police are accountable for their actions, and at the same time, the public has confidence in the standards that police are required to adhere to.

That’s one of the reasons why, for example, we have taken unbiased policing as seriously as we have and put in place standards that came into being earlier this year. I want to make sure that we are doing everything possible to ensure that we’ve got well-trained police, accountability, but that they also have the resources that they need to do what is often a very difficult job.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I’ve been trying to navigate that in these questions and honour the fact that I’ve got way more questions than time.

The accountability piece and, then, the tools — making sure that the police are equipped with both the training that’s necessary to be able to make the right decisions and, as well, the weapons and the armour that they need to be able to protect themselves. That is the area that I’m trying to navigate here.

I’m just going to switch gears one last time. I recognize my time is evaporating in front of me, but just wanting to talk about the decriminalization that we started to raise in question period. It’s not lost on anybody here that June 2020 was the deadliest month in B.C., in our history, for illicit drug poisonings. Seven hundred and twenty-eight people died, largely due to increased drug toxicity, as the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions has raised quite appropriately.

Our provincial health officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry, says that there’s widespread global recognition about the failed war on drugs and the resulting criminalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs. Dr. Henry released a report in 2019 called Stopping the Harm. Again, these are questions that I did raise in question period earlier, but I would just like to canvass these questions with you, Minister, from a Public Safety and Solicitor General perspective.

Does the minister agree that the criminalization of drug users fails to address the health crisis that has been highlighted by the provincial health officer and other ministers in government? Does the minister agree that…? Yeah, I’ll leave it at that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.

As the member knows, it has been the position of the government that this is a public health issue; that the chiefs of police have written to the Prime Minister outlining their desire to see decriminalization for small amounts, for possession. The government has written to the Prime Minister saying that we support that direction. I have spoken with Minister Blair outlining our government’s position, and we will continue to pursue that.

[2:45 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Does the minister agree with the recommendations in the public health officer’s report that in addition to the actions that could be taken by the prime minister and the federal government…?

Certainly, those are not to be diminished, but also, the provincial government has tools in its tool box, as well, to effect maybe not a perfect outcome but a similar outcome that might assist now, rather than simply waiting for the federal government to make the changes they have under their jurisdiction and authority.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.

What I’ve said is that we have viewed this as a federal matter that needs change at the federal level, and we have supported that. Having said that, I’ve also made it clear, through my expectation letter, that the focus needs to be, as much as possible, on reducing stigma. The focus is on the high-level interdiction of narcotics, and our government’s focus has been on harm reduction.

It’s also why we have put in place and supported the pilot projects in Vancouver, Vernon and Abbotsford, which is to move people away from and out of that criminal justice system and get them into the treatment and the supports that we need.

The reality is, on the ground in places like Vancouver, for example, and other communities, that’s exactly what the police are doing. Their focus is not on the low-level, small user.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for the answers to my questions today. I’m just going to make a brief comment here, and then I’ll cede the floor back to my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie.

I probably should have started my comments with this, Minister, but I’ll end them with it. I want to just raise my hands to you and to your staff for the work that has been done over the past five months — tireless, or probably very tiring, work that has been done over the last number of months from your ministry.

It’s been largely recognized that in British Columbia, the guidance that we’ve had from our provincial health officer has been good guidance. It’s also been acted on in a very good way from your ministry in this public health emergency, but also in the emergency that we’ve been facing as a province.

I just want to raise my hands up to you and lift you up and thank you for the incredible work of your ministry. Thank you for answering. These are not easy questions. This is not an easy ministry to be the minister of.

[2:50 p.m.]

I thank you for your forthright answers. I’m going to cede the floor to my colleague from Prince George–Mac­kenzie.

HÍSW̱ḴE. Thank you.

L. Throness: I just have one question for the minister today.

Last October 30, a number of local mayors and MLAs from the upper Fraser Valley met with the minister in the Rattenbury Room in the Legislature and pointed out that the Chilliwack area has one of the highest crime rates in the valley. Yet we’ve not seen any new policing resources in the last 20 years. That’s particularly true in rural areas. Of late, police resources have been pulled out of rural areas like Agassiz and Harrison Hot Springs to work on traffic control on the Trans-Canada Highway, which leaves those communities really vulnerable.

The minister received our delegation warmly in the Legislature last year. So far nothing tangible has come of it. He was waiting for the budget.

Will the minister inform us as to whether our communities can expect policing resources in this budget — in proportion to our need, that is — given our high rates of crime?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for that question. I remember the meeting very well.

A couple of points. In terms of deployment decisions, those are made by the RCMP themselves. We are aware of the situation in the upper Fraser. Earlier in the discussion, I commented about the additional resources that are being placed within the province, and those discussions continue with the RCMP.

I can tell you that in your particular area, they should be benefiting from the recent securing of funding for the First Nations policing program, which I believe impacts the Stó:lō in your community. We have secured the full complement of federal funding, so that should potentially benefit your area when it comes to policing, certainly on the First Nations communities and in the rural parts of your communities.

J. Thornthwaite: I’ve got a question that has actually been canvassed a little bit previously by my other colleagues. It is to do with mental health supports for police.

[2:55 p.m.]

I recognize just with media reports, and also listening to answers here, that there are different programs depending on which city you live in: the PACT program in Kelowna, Car 87 in Vancouver, Car 67 in Surrey, the Victoria ACT teams. All kind of based on what Oregon had been doing for years, called the CAHOOTS program, crisis assistance helping out on the streets. But that program is dispatched through local emergency services. That doesn’t necessarily mean that police actually attend — depending on it.

The success, I understand, from a group that is called Pathways Serious Mental Illness Society…. They represent people with serious mental illness and their family here on the North Shore and other places. But I understand that the police — if they are attending successful programs with social workers, a psychiatric nurse — only attend without uniforms, because the presence of uniforms can actually exacerbate agitation and the scaling up of the disputes.

The psychiatric nurse can also sign a first certificate, so they can be admitted directly into a hospital, which absolutely frees up time for police. I’ve actually been on ride-alongs with police, both the RCMP in North Van as well as the Vancouver police, and they can spend a lot of time in an emergency ward waiting for the patient to be assessed by a doctor. But again, the successful ones do not have uniforms.

I’ll just finish off with my question. I’m quoting what Pathways says. “It is wonderful that RCMP or municipal police receive specialized training; however, it is not a substitute for the preventative measures and crisis interventions that are led by people who are experienced in mental health challenges, homelessness or substance use.”

My question to the minister. Given the fact that we’ve heard this a lot on the news…. I know that there’s going to be a Police Act review, and you’ve expressed your support of that, obviously. Given that this is a serious issue and that the number of mental health calls police have to deal with is going up exponentially, will this minister mandate that these types of partnerships, either with health authorities or others, will be indicated in all police forces in the province? And bump up the funding, obviously. They’re not funded 24-7, and they’re just pilots. They will be able to deal adequately with those with severe mental illness and substance use that police…. And free up time, obviously, for police.

My question is: will this be mandated, and is this a priority for this government?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for her question.

Look, this is a very complex issue, and I think we understand that. We know that there are considerable supports in many parts of the province, and the member’s outlined a number of them.

There are also issues in our health care facilities in terms of, for example, the amount of time that police officers spend because they have to be able to turn an individual over to somebody. We know that that is a complex problem, but we are working with the Ministry of Health and we’re working with the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions on these issues.

It’s also one of the reasons why the Police Act review committee was set up, with one of its specific foci on that issue of mental health. As I said, I don’t intend to speak for the committee, but I fully expect that they will be coming back with recommendations that will deal with some of the challenges that we currently face in terms of dealing with the issues that the member has just raised.

One area, for example, is the issue around special constables and that ability to hand over to someone who has that designation, for example, in the health care system so that police aren’t waiting in facilities.

There’s a significant amount of work, but we recognize it’s important, and that work is underway.

The Chair: Member for North Vancouver–Seymour, do you still have questions in the queue?

J. Thornthwaite: Sorry, no. I thought my colleague from Kelowna was going.

B. Stewart: To the minister: I want to talk to you about RoadSafetyBC. I just want to talk to you about a particular constituent issue that has gone on well before COVID and was in front of RoadSafetyBC, with a particular constituent. This matter has now gone on with a series of, probably, at least a dozen emails with your staff and your office to deal with a constituent named Marlene Lalonde, who lives in my riding in Kelowna.

Miss Lalonde lost her driver’s licence based on a medical condition back in October and was subsequently given that she had to essentially get a health certificate from her doctor to be able to get back and be recertified as a driver in British Columbia. This matter was submitted, and the constituent confirmed back in January that this certificate was received by RoadSafetyBC from her doctor.

There’s a long string of dates. But I guess, with the delay in terms of getting this, then COVID, and now she is being given…. Just as of a few days ago, we got a message from Andrew Douglas, who I spoke with today in your office to try to see if we could get this resolved. But we’re still waiting for a constituent, who is a senior, who is riding on public transit and who is unable to get through the process of getting her driver’s licence back. And now the doctor is calling RoadSafetyBC.

Minister, what’s the problem here? You’ve given them a 30 percent increase in RoadSafetyBC funding. Why is it taking so long to get to the bottom of this?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.

No, there’s no doubt that there has been a real delay because of COVID and that an additional six new adjudicators have been hired to deal with the backlog. Now, as the member is aware that this is a public…. I can’t deal with the details on the specific case, but what I can tell you is that I will look into and see what is going on with this specific situation for the member.

B. Stewart: Well, frankly, if you could look into that and get back to…. I would like to hear back. Can we get an idea as to how soon we can expect a response, Minister?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I will do it as quickly…. I will try and get back to you next week.

M. Hunt: My questions are going to be related to Surrey and the transition that is currently happening in Surrey. My first question is: what are the costs to date related to the committee that is headed up by Wally Oppal, including his fee for service?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thanks for the question. Every­thing, all in, $429,000.

M. Hunt: Has the province provided any funds to the city of Surrey to assist them with their transition plans?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thanks to the member for the question. The answer to that question is no.

M. Hunt: What would the number of officers be that the province would consider to be an “adequate level of policing” for Surrey?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thanks to the member for that question.

For the member, the transition plan that was developed that is in place — the Oppal committee report, which was put together by former Justice Oppal, along with the members of that committee who are police officers with significant careers in policing — based that transition report on the existing detachment strength that is in Surrey today. So it was based on the number of members at the time they did their report.

The decisions about the number of police officers is something that is determined by the police board along with the chief of police and would be based on a deployment model that would be determined by the chief of police who, obviously, would be an expert and would understand how policing needs to be configured.

M. Hunt: The provincial legislation says that the minister is responsible to make sure that there’s an adequate level of policing. Are you suggesting that you, in fact, don’t have a model that you work from or that you simply take the advice of such committees and determine whether that’s reasonable or unreasonable?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It is the police board and the police chief that determine the configuration and the organizational structure of a policing organization. It is not something that the minister determines.

M. Hunt: I recognize that. But right now the police board has just been established. There is no chief of police. So all of what you’re saying can’t apply.

Are you suggesting, then, that you will only come to that determination once we get to an end result? So there is nothing at this point in time that you can deal with to say: “Yes, the plan looks adequate or inadequate.” Or do you simply wait until that moment? And once it’s there, you deal with it.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I’d just like to explain how the transition plan works, for the member, because I want to make sure that he understands the primary focus is to ensure there is safe and effective policing in Surrey. That is what exists today; that is what will exist through the entire implementation of the transition plan.

[3:15 p.m.]

The plan that was presented and is publicly available online is more than 150 pages long. It indicates all of the different components that have to be implemented and have to be managed in order for a successful transition to take place. Each one of those components…. The police board has the responsibility for implementing them and putting them together, along with the police chief, once a police chief is hired. They are superintended by my director of police services, who’s the former head of E division.

It’s not something that just happens. Each one of those steps has to be put in place. It has to be put in place by the police board. It has to be done to the satisfaction of the director of police services within my ministry. Then and only then do things proceed. So if those standards are not met, if those steps are not implemented, then things do not progress.

The current police component that we have right now is the RCMP, and that is not changing any time soon.

M. Hunt: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for that answer. These are the questions that the people are asking here, and I really appreciate the clarity of your answer.

Next question. Under the current policing agreements, the RCMP provides all costs associated to civil action. How many cases are currently active, and what are the potential liabilities?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is a question that we would have to ask the RCMP.

M. Hunt: Then, if and when a transition occurs, will the city of Surrey assume all the existing liabilities that are on the books as of the date of transition — or not?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. No, what was the RCMP’s liability would remain the RCMP’s liability.

M. Hunt: Upon transition to its own police force, the city of Surrey will be responsible for 100 percent of its policing costs. Will the province be covering any other costs associated to policing after the transition, such as ERT, police service dogs, air services — that sort of thing?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to that question is that the city of Surrey has agreed to stay in the current integrated services under their current formulation.

[3:20 p.m.]

M. Hunt: Would that mean that there will be no financial impacts on any of the other RCMP services within the communities? There are a lot of shared services that we have here in the Lower Mainland, and we’re wondering: is there going to be any impact to other RCMP detachments as a result of Surrey withdrawing?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The costs we expect to stay the same for the integrated services. We are doing analysis to see if there will be any changes. If there are, they’re more likely to be at an administrative level than they are an operational level.

M. Hunt: That leads precisely into the next question, which is dealing with E division and the administrative costs that are there. With Surrey withdrawing from those, does the minister know what the regional impact of the shared costs will be to the other municipalities, and will the province be at all involved in helping to share that extra burden?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. It’s a bit premature to tell what the impact, if any, would be. We are, as I said, working through that. But any impact, if there is any, we expect to be minimal.

M. Hunt: Obviously, there are going to be a bunch of labour negotiations between the NPF and the new police union. Will the provincial government be paying any of the legal costs in those negotiations?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to that question is no. That’s something that takes place at the federal level in Ottawa.

Hon. Chair, if we could just have a five-minute recess. Apparently, there is something I am needing to attend to.

The Chair: Very reasonable. By consent, this committee is recessed for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:25 p.m. to 3:28 p.m.

[S. Malcolmson in the chair.]

The Chair: We’re currently considering the budget of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

I’ll return to the member for Surrey-Cloverdale to continue your questions.

M. Hunt: One question before I turn the chair over to the member for Surrey–White Rock. That is: how will First Nations communities be consulted through this transition? Is it the responsibility of the provincial government, the federal government or the city to in fact negotiate this transition with First Nations?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. Those discussions take place with the province. The province has had discussions with the affected First Nations. It’s also why the Chief of the Semiahmoo has in fact been appointed to the police board, in the same way that in Delta, the Chief of the Tsawwassen is on the Delta police board.

T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for the opportunity to ask a few questions on the Surrey police transition.

I think all MLAs in Surrey are being inundated with calls from constituents who are very concerned about this police transition. My constituents are very concerned that once a transition takes place, their taxes will be rising, that their services will be less than what they have today. They are also concerned that there will be insufficient police on the roads to keep them safe. This is a very important issue. I think the minister is aware that the Keep the RCMP in Surrey group now has about 50,000 signatures on their petition.

I guess my question, Minister, is: given all of this level of concern, notwithstanding that you articulated a process, why are you not intervening and pressing the municipality for a referendum on this issue?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.

My role as Solicitor General is to ensure that the Police Act is followed, as well as the contract which the city of Surrey is a party to. The Police Act lays out very clearly that policing is a local government responsibility. A municipality is required to have a police force. They can either have their own police force, contract with the RCMP or contract with another police force to provide police services.

The city of Surrey has the RCMP. It is governed by the RCMP contract. That contract was negotiated by your government — I know you weren’t a member of the government at that time — back in 2012, when the B.C. Liberals sat on this side of the House. That contract lays out very clearly the process by which a municipality can choose to change its police force.

The city of Surrey is required, under the terms of that contract, to provide two years’ notice. They unanimously passed that motion at a council meeting of a duly elected council. I understand that there is a considerable diversity of opinion in the city of Surrey. But that is the responsibility of the city of Surrey. They provided the province with the due notice as required by that contract. It’s on that basis that the transition moves forward to ensure that safe and effective policing takes place.

The contract did not call and does not call for a referendum. The terms of that contract are very clear about what has to take place. That is why I, as Solicitor General, am ensuring that we are following the letter of the law in terms of the Police Act and in terms of the RCMP contract that is in place.

T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for your comprehensive answer. I appreciate that this is in legislation, etc. But the challenge for the everyday citizen on the streets in Surrey…. They feel like both the provincial and the municipal governments have abandoned them and are not listening to their concerns.

[3:35 p.m.]

You know, it’s interesting. As we’ve seen, government changes legislation all the time. From their perspective — and I can understand this — they feel that the government is hiding behind the legislation instead of addressing their needs. I think this is a real issue for people in the city of Surrey. They feel, again, that the governments are not listening to them.

What do you say to those people who feel that government has abandoned them?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I appreciate the concerns that she’s raising.

I’ve said publicly that I understand that this decision is not without controversy. Whenever there is change or a move to make a change, people feel very strongly on both sides of the issue. I want to make a couple of things extremely clear. First off, this is not happening just on the basis of: “Oh, let’s just do this.” There is a proper, comprehensive plan in place. It was put together by the committee chaired by a former justice, Wally Oppal.

The members of that committee include individuals from both the RCMP and municipal police forces, whose careers have been spent in policing. They fully understand what’s required in terms of having a safe, effective and functioning police department — individuals such as Doug LePard, Fraser MacRae, Tonia Enger out of my ministry, Bob Rolls from the VPD, just to name a few. They have laid out, in a 150-plus-page report, all the steps that have to be followed.

Those decisions are not made by the council of Surrey. They are made and they have to be implemented by the police board of Surrey. We put together a police board which comprises individuals with considerable expertise in a whole range of areas, such as human resources, finance — all the skill sets required. Each one of those police board members went through an extensive vetting process. They were interviewed on at least two occasions, and the final interviews were done by my director of police services, who is the former head of E division of the RCMP.

It will be the responsibility of the police board, not the council, to hire a new chief of police. There will need to be agreements with Public Service of Canada. In terms of that transition, that will be part of their responsibility.

Each of the steps in that plan not only has to be implemented to the satisfaction of the police board but superintended by my director of police services — again, so that it is done in a very comprehensive, transparent manner. The other thing I would say is that this is not going to happen overnight. This is going to take some time. If those steps are not implemented to the satisfaction of the director of police services, within my ministry, then it does not proceed.

This is a transitional process that was seen and developed, by individuals who have spent an entire career in policing, as the best way to make this happen. It is not done on a basis of: “We want to reduce services.” The plan was developed on the basis of the existing strength of the detachment, as it is today, in the city of Surrey. I fully expect, particularly with unionization, that you are going to see demands for increased service, not reduced service.

T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for another comprehensive answer.

[3:40 p.m.]

Certainly, I was very appreciative of the fact that Chief Harley Chappell of the Semiahmoo Nation was put onto the police board. I’d just like to pursue this a little bit more because, again, people are so concerned with this.

You’ve mentioned many steps. I’m sorry I don’t have the plan in front of me. In those steps, is there any opportunity for consultation with the public with respect to the decisions?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for her question.

In terms of the decision itself to move to a municipal police force, that decision has been made by the city of Surrey. The structure of the police force is now to be determined by the police board and the police chief.

In terms of issues with a new police force that the city of Surrey or the citizens of Surrey might wish it to address, then absolutely a police board would have the ability to consult with the public on that. That is, of course, up to them. But it is entirely within their mandate to be able to do that.

T. Redies: Thank you for that answer.

To the minister, could you give us some examples of how…? You mentioned that, ultimately, your ministry does have some say in the final crafting of the structure of the organization and the 150 items that have to be looked at. Can you give us an example of some of the criteria that might lead your ministry to basically ixnay the transition, ultimately?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Member, to the question, I would say it would not be one single issue per se, but rather…. The transition is an iterative process, and it could be a series of different things. Let’s say, for example, they said that they were going to withdraw from the integrated teams and that they had no plan to replace that. That would clearly be a serious problem in terms of a transition continuing, for example.

The key in this whole thing is ensuring that there is safe and effective policing in place. That means following the plan, that framework that’s been laid out. As I said, that’s not implemented just by the police force, but it’s superintended by my director of police services.

T. Redies: Just pursuing this a little bit further. Say, for example, a significant reduction in the number of the police officers that were going to be available under this transition or a significant increase in costs over and above what the city is currently paying for the RCMP. Would those be issues that could potentially negate the transition going forward, from the perspective of your office?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In regards to those two specific issues, the costs are the responsibility of the city of Surrey.

The city of Surrey has made that decision to transition to a municipal police force. So the issue of cost is something that they have to deal with, in the same way as municipal police forces in other communities, whether it’s Vancouver or Port Moody or Nelson or New West or West Vancouver. That would not be a reason for the province to say no.

In regards to the other, if we felt that safe and effective policing was compromised, then obviously that would be something that we would take action on. But the reality is that that is not going to happen, because in order for a transition to proceed, they have to maintain safe and effective policing. The transition will not happen unless that, in fact, is what is taking place — that safe and effective policing.

T. Redies: Thank you for that answer, Minister. I think that answer will concern a lot of my residents and many residents in Surrey. Of course, we all know that if the costs go up significantly, the municipality will have to turn to property owners and business owners in order to pay for those increased costs, or drastically cut services. This is something that they’re very, very concerned about.

[3:50 p.m.]

This is my final question. I thank the minister for the time and his candour with respect to the answers. I guess one question that I should have followed up a little bit earlier. With respect to the police board being able to reach out and consult with residents of Surrey, does the minister think that that would be a good idea, given the level of frustration and concern in the community?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think it’s important for all police boards throughout the province to be able to engage with citizens on their community, on policies or issues that the community feels important. I think that’s very important. I would encourage all of them to do that.

I also want to address, because I understand your comments and your concerns around…. Residents do have issues and are concerned about costs, as are communities right across the province. This is one of the things that I think has been lost sometimes in the discussion. Many people seem to think or feel that the status quo means no increase in costs. The reality is that significant changes are coming, in terms of RCMP costs, to every community in this province through unionization, and the federal government is currently engaged on that work.

UBCM has identified this as a significant issue for communities with RCMP detachments in them. I just want to make sure that your constituents understand that status quo does not mean that there are not going to be significant RCMP costs, because that is simply not going to be the case. I think it’s important that people know that.

Having said that, I appreciate the question. I want to reassure the member and her constituents that this transition process that I am responsible for is guided by the Police Act, the contract and ensuring that that framework, that plan, is implemented in a proper way, superintended by my director of police services in accordance to ensure safe and effective policing in Surrey.

S. Cadieux: In the initial report on the proposed transition that was provided for the city of Surrey and for government, it mentioned the need for a feasibility study to fully understand the costs for Surrey and for the province. Has that feasibility study been completed?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In answer to that question, that initial document was the first iteration for the city of Surrey in terms of their desire to transition. That formed part of the documentation and the process that the Oppal committee looked at.

[3:55 p.m.]

The Oppal committee, as the member is very much aware, as I have stated in previous answers, was composed of individuals whose entire careers have been spent in policing both at the municipal level and at the RCMP level.

That is the plan that is being followed. That is the plan that was being laid out. That is the framework that is required to be followed by the police board in order to have a proper transition that ensures safe and effective policing from the RCMP to a municipal police force.

The city of Surrey put in place what they felt was going to be their budget required. Over and above that, in terms of the implementation of the framework, it will be the police board and the police chief that will determine the structure of policing in the community. Then, they will be the ones who will be making the decisions in regard to what’s required and to meet those implementation standards.

S. Cadieux: Thanks for the answer about what’s entailed in the Wally Oppal report. I’ve read everything that wasn’t blacked out. Same with the city report. I’ve read everything that wasn’t redacted.

That doesn’t answer the question as to whether or not a feasibility study on the cost has been provided to or prepared by the province in relation to the province’s cost. So thanks for that non-answer.

However, let’s just move on. The Wally Oppal report, which is now the plan that’s being implemented…. On page 70, it gives a graph, the schematic of recruitment phases. It associates timelines, according to that, to meet the one-year time frame that Surrey would like to have this process up and running under.

According to that, board appointment is in phase 1, which has already happened. That should put us…. There are 13 weeks that it would’ve taken to get that up and done, and now we’re at the second 13-week phase.

Is that correct? Where are we in that 13-week phase? Minister, if you could…?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I just want to address something she said.

Feasibility study is not a non-answer. The city of Surrey made a decision — a unanimous decision of the city of Surrey — to move to a municipal police force. It’s not about whether that is feasible or not. That is about following the contract — the B.C. Liberal contract, which you were part of as government — that put in place and that says, with two years’ notice, the city of Surrey can move to a municipal police department.

You did not put in that contract that there has to be a referendum. What you said was two years’ notice is required. They have given that. The feasibility is the framework — that here are the things that have to take place in order to ensure that you have safe and effective policing.

Each one of those steps in that report from the Oppal committee has to be implemented. It has to be implemented by the police board, and it is superintended by my director of police services to her satisfaction. I would remind you that she is a former head of E division. So it is going to be done properly.

[4:00 p.m.]

With regards to the timeline, again, those timelines…. The report makes it clear that flexibility is key. The decisions will not be made by the Surrey council. They’re made by the police board. It’s not a question of being in 13 block 1 weeks or whatever. It is: when are those things completed to the satisfaction of the director of police services and the police board has implemented them?

We have only just put the police board in place. They are undergoing their training. They will have to hire a police chief. They will have to conclude agreements with public service Canada. All of those things will take the time that is required to have them done properly. It is not going to be done on the basis of, “Oh, it is now November 2020, and this needs to be completed by November 2020,” and, “Oh, sorry. We’re not quite there yet, but we’ll do it anyway.” No.

Things will be completed by the police board and to the satisfaction of the director of police services. This is not something that is just going to happen. It is going to take the time that is required for it to be done properly.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. We will now take a five-minute recess while we switch Chairs and undergo safety and cleaning protocols.

Thanks for your service this afternoon, Members. It’s been a pleasure working with you. We are recessed for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:01 p.m. to 4:07 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

S. Cadieux: I’m just going to go back for a second. I asked a question about a timeline that was proposed to meet a schedule. I understand that there’s going to be variation to that. It says in there that there will need to be variation to that. That’s not the problem.

What I was asking was just to get a sense of where we are in the timeline according to the minister. But the minister went off in a whole bunch of different directions that had absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked and made a bunch of assumptions about what I think and what I understand. I think that’s unfortunate because it could have been a pretty quick answer.

The reason I was asking the question will be evident from the next number of questions I want to ask. I’m going to ask them all. I’m going to read a number of questions into the record and ask the minister to respond in writing, because we are coming to the end of the time allotted for Surrey here. I’m going to proceed by asking a number of questions and hope that the minister will get back to us in writing on these.

The reason I was asking about the timeline and so on was because Surrey has put forward a desire to meet a certain timeline, understanding that that may or may not be possible, and it has to be done safely and all sorts of things. But from the province’s perspective…. I was asking in the earlier question, about the feasibility, to understand the costs for Surrey and for the province because I’m curious if the minister understands the costs to his ministry.

Earlier I asked a question of the Advanced Education Minister about the budget for the police academy at the Justice Institute, to which she informed me that it is the Ministry of Solicitor General that provides a $1.9 million budget to the police academy to fund the number of recruits they currently serve. According to the Wally Oppal report, at a minimum, they will need to expand capacity by 30 percent to meet the ongoing training requirements of a police force of Surrey’s size being added to the municipal forces.

We know from the Bob Rolls and Peter German report from 2017 that there are significant challenges with the police academy at the Justice Institute. Peter German wrote in the Sun recently that the Justice Institute “is woefully under-resourced, an aged and outdated infrastructure that struggles to keep up with the current rate of attrition of the municipal forces. It has no ability to expand or provide the number of recruits required for Surrey nor to backfill other departments.”

[4:10 p.m.]

Clearly, there’s going to need to be an investment by the province in the Justice Institute. The Minister of Advanced Education said that the discussions were ongoing between ministries about that and that a Treasury Board proposal would have to be presented because there was nothing in the budget.

What is the maximum number of recruits they can currently train at the JIBC with their current $1.9 million a year Police Academy allotment from the Ministry of Solicitor General? Has the Ministry of Solicitor General, in this three-year budget plan, provided for additional money for the Police Academy? With the months-long closure now and a backlog of officers that are needing training — and there is going to be increased demand, obviously, from SPD — what is the Solicitor General doing to ensure that the Justice Institute can fulfil its obligations?

We know that crime — and, certainly, gang activity — is a regional issue, and there is a need for more officers in almost every jurisdiction. How will the minister ensure that public safety is maintained or enhanced as it is stated in the Police Act, not only for the city of Surrey but across Metro Vancouver and the Lower Mainland, as this process evolves?

What discussions has the minister had with his colleague the Minister of Advanced Education in relation to the need for additional funds at the Justice Institute? What discussions has the minister had with his colleague the Minister of Finance in relation to the need for additional funds at the Justice Institute? Who will pay for the training costs and the ramp-up costs required to meet the initial demand for 800 officers?

Several mayors in the Lower Mainland have voiced concerns about the potential impacts on integrated units. I know the minister made comments about this earlier, but what will the minister do to alleviate concerns and ensure that crime is going to continue to be reduced on a regional basis?

Lastly, what is the province’s plan for public safety and policing if the city police board, the RCMP and the province can’t come to agreements on the necessary aspects of the transition in terms of who’s paying for what and the ultimate challenges, especially, as I say, for one, with training at the Justice Institute? Wally Oppal’s report identifies the risk that the province and the RCMP and Surrey, through the board, may not be able to come to agreement, so what is the plan B, Minister?

Thank you very much for the time. I’ll look forward to receiving those answers in writing.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’d be happy to get back to the member with answers to those questions, a number of them which I believe we’ve answered already. But we will get back to her with answers to those questions.

M. Morris: We’ll change gears here. We’ll put policing aside for now. I might have a couple of questions later on, Minister, as we wind up towards the end of the day.

I want to focus right now on the community safety unit, a brand-new unit that has been put together to deal with the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act. I know we’ve discussed it before, to great lengths, I guess, when we debated the legislation itself. I’m just wondering now what….

The minister has this unit in place. It’s fully funded and fully staffed at this particular time, or are you still waiting for more bodies to come in? Can the minister just give us an overview of where this unit is right now?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’m happy to tell the member it is fully operational, it is fully funded, and it is fully staffed.

M. Morris: This was all new money? It wasn’t money reallocated from liquor or any other branch within your ministry?

Hon. M. Farnworth: All new money.

M. Morris: Minister, this unit has been given authority under the legislation that mentioned the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act. They are deemed to be special constables under the Police Act, I believe. They have full enforcement powers for this particular statute in all areas of British Columbia, including First Nations reserves. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to that question would be yes. It’s the only one of its kind, and it’s the only one of its kind with those powers in the country.

M. Morris: No. I think, once again, B.C. leads the way. Oftentimes mostly in good ways. But the odd time we don’t want to be in the lead on some things. Good to hear. I think it just sets the stage.

I think my colleague from Shuswap has a few questions to ask with respect to this unit as well. So I’ll turn it over to him.

G. Kyllo: Thank you to my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie for providing me the opportunity to ask a few questions.

I know, Minister, we’ve had a couple conversations. I know we’ve yet to find a time to sit down and have some further dialogue on this, but I do have a number of questions at this particular time.

As a follow-up to my colleague’s question with respect to the federal and provincial laws applying equally across all of Canada, I just wanted to confirm, with alcohol, tobacco and the cannabis legislation, that the provincial laws — specifically, the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act — apply across all lands in British Columbia, including First Nations reserve lands?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, Member, for the question. Yes, they are laws of general application.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much for that, Minister. In drafting the legislation for the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act, were First Nations communities consulted across British Columbia prior to drafting the legislation?

The Chair: Of course, Members, the questions are through the Chair and not directly back and forth — minister, member, minister, member. That is my job — through me.

Thank you, Member.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, through you to the member, thanks for the question.

Consultation was initiated, though, as you will remember, given the timelines which we were operating under — the timelines, of course, being imposed by the federal government’s legislation.

[4:20 p.m.]

As I said during committee stage on the bill itself when we were debating it in the House, that consultation was not as robust as we certainly would have liked. Having said that, we do have a First Nations table at which we are able to discuss issues related to cannabis legislation in the province.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. As a follow up, is the minister able to share with some specificity the type of consultation that was undertaken? I guess, with respect to that, what were the major concerns, if any, that were brought forward by First Nations communities through that initial consultation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The consultation took place through correspondence to First Nations across the province, outlining that we have to introduce the legislation, with regards to legalization, as required by the federal government legalizing cannabis. We asked for their views.

We got, I would say, a limited response back. Having said that, there was also the public consultation that took place, for which a number of First Nations gave their views and their issues that they were concerned about.

We have since then, as I said, convened a table where we were able to discuss issues related to cannabis policy and First Nations interest. What I can tell you is that what feedback we did get was very much in line with what we heard from the general public, such as health impacts, how things would work, what kinds of rules were going to be around protecting minors, for example. But also very much on wanting to be able to participate, looking at it from an economic development perspective for First Nations.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. How would the minister describe cannabis retail operators who are currently selling cannabis products on First Nations reserve lands without necessary licensing approvals? Would they be considered legal or illegal?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.

Well, the view of the province is that these, as laws of general application…. If they are not licensed by the province, they would be illegal. Having said that, through the course of the legalization process and the implementation of legislation both at the provincial level and the federal level, there have been a number of First Nations whose views differ and have maintained that they have jurisdiction on their reserve lands.

[4:25 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: To the minister, having said that, would the product that’s being purchased by these so-called illegal shops…? Would they be purchasing it from federally approved producers across Canada, or would they be acquiring a product from the black market?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is actually an interesting question in that some is straight black market, in that it is being grown illegally and then sold illegally. Some is also technically…. In the sense that the individual may have an MMR licence to grow medical marijuana issued by Health Canada, they have grown it legally. But the moment they sell it or put it into an illegal store, it is obviously an illegal product.

It can come from two places: those who have a legal licence through Health Canada for MMR and those who just grow it without any licence. Regardless, though, both kinds being sold in an unlicensed store would be illegal.

G. Kyllo: To the minister: thank you very much for that clarity.

My understanding of the whole purpose and reason for the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act was to remove the black market and organized crime from the sale of cannabis throughout the province to provide health and safety for British Columbians, so they knew with some certainty what they’re actually purchasing.

Minister, how do you square the fact that these illegal stores that are selling cannabis without the proper licensing…? Does the minister not see a problem with allowing them to continue to sell a product that’s coming from, as he has indicated, illegal sources — or even if it’s produced legally, it’s being sold illegally in our province — or about the challenge that that actually creates and the risk that puts for British Columbians?

[4:30 p.m.]

I’m just looking for a little bit more clarity on why it is that we see the proliferation of these illegal cannabis stores selling product that is coming from the black market and quite often with the influence of organized crime on First Nations reserves across British Columbia.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Once the community safety units had been up and running…. As I said, the initial phase was very much on an educational basis. That included going to First Nations communities. The CS unit has done more than 276 inspections, 91 illegal stores have voluntarily shut down and stopped selling, an additional 46 stores have had enforcements against them, and almost $8 million worth of product has been seized.

What also happens is that administrative penalties are levied at twice the value of product. Those are now starting to work their way through the system. We are seeing a step-up of enforcement after the initial education phase has been completed.

On top of that, I think it’s also fair to say that we made a significant change recently with regard to illegal stores whereby we enacted a section under the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act that landlords who rent to illegal stores are now subject to financial penalties up to $100,000.

[4:35 p.m.]

That has just come into force. We expect that to significantly help with illegal stores. I know of the situation of the one in Vernon. That is in place and will significantly help with enforcement.

The community safety unit has also been reaching out to First Nations, not just on the education side, but in the case of one First Nation, for example, has asked for help with enforcement.

Let’s also recognize that when you have an issue where there is a dispute over jurisdiction, as a number of First Nations have indicated — it is their view that cannabis comes under their jurisdiction — this is a complex and complicated situation. It is something that has not just arisen. It has been around for a while, and we are working with First Nations to be able to deal with that. It’s why one of the ways in which we are encouraging legal retail or legal production is through the use of section 119 agreements under the act, which were designed to do just that.

We are engaged in facilitating that action for First Nations to participate legally. We are very much aware of the issue around illegal stores on First Nations, and the community safety unit is working diligently to be able deal with them. But I’m not going to say that it’s not a challenge, because it is.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I appreciate that this is not an easy challenge.

What confidence does the minister have that public safety is not being put in harm’s way through the sale of an unregulated product that is coming from, in the minister’s own words, either illegal growers or from legalized growers who are selling it through the stores in an illegal manner?

Two months ago I was contacted by an individual who indicated they had witnessed, at a First Nations store, staff members actually licking joints to seal joints. This is at a time with COVID. We’re not even supposed to be shaking somebody’s hand. Yet they were actually doing hand-rolled product and putting it in the cabinet for immediate sale. I did bring it to the attention of the CEO of Interior Health, who indicated that she was concerned, and that they would be doing some investigation work.

Specifically, when it comes to public safety, what confidence does the minister have that product being sold illegally through these illegal stores — that the public is not at risk?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We take those concerns very seriously, and I think the member was obviously right to raise it with Interior Health. I would make these comments.

[4:40 p.m.]

The sale of illegal cannabis in this province is nothing new. In fact, it’s been going on for decades. With the legalization of cannabis and the new rules put in place, I would say that at this point in time we are doing more to ensure public safety around the issue of cannabis than at any time in the past. What we’re also seeing now, with the significant and the critical mass that’s been reached in terms of legal stores — which at last count, in terms of private stores, are 260, plus an additional 20 public stores, for a total of 280 stores within the province — is legal cannabis.

According to the latest survey I saw, more than half the cannabis sold in British Columbia now is sold legally, as opposed to three years ago, when 100 percent was sold illegally. You know, all of this is still new. We are engaged in enforcement. You step things up out of the educational phase into the actual enforcement phase; we will continue to do that. We know there are some areas where, as I said, there are challenges, and we are constantly looking at ways to address those challenges, just as other jurisdictions around the country are.

I can tell you, for example, that in the state of Colorado, it took four years for the legal share of the market to reach 70 percent. We are, I think, just approaching not quite two years into it here in British Columbia. But I want you to know that enforcement continues and will continue to be a priority.

G. Kyllo: The challenge that I am seeing, as a local MLA with countless stores, legal operators that have reached out to my constituency office expressing significant concern about the unfairness…. I’ve been told that it’s upwards of $500,000 in capital costs and upwards of two years in order to apply for and obtain a licence in order to be able to sell cannabis legally in this province. It’s a significant outlay.

As well as the requirement, obviously, for purchasing all product from approved federal sources, there are source deductions for payroll, payment of municipal taxes, payment of the appropriate markups and the PST that’s associated with the sale of a cannabis product. How are these legal operators able to compete with shops that are set up illegally, operating illegally, selling product that comes from illegal sources, being purchased on the black market?

What does the minister say to those operators that are following the letter of the law, doing what government has set out for them, yet being put in a position where they’re on a very unlevel playing field and losing significant market share to these illegal operators? What does the minister say to the legal operators that are taking a financial hit, unable to compete in a marketplace where they’re competing with illegal shops and where the minister and the CSU unit are standing idly by, choosing not to take enforcement action on these illegal operators?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: To the member, I make these remarks.

First off, I don’t think it’s fair or appropriate to say that CSU stands idly by. These are individuals who have a very difficult job, and they work extremely hard on behalf of the people of the province of British Columbia. In what is a very new field of enforcement, I think they’ve been doing a pretty good job, an exceptional job.

As I’ve said, they’ve shut down 46 operations and gotten an additional 91 to close down. Fines are being levied. We’ve provided additional tools in terms of being able to go after landlords who knowingly rent to illegal operations.

We know that there is more to do. We are working with First Nations on how we can enforce the illegal product. We work with the federal government on some of the ways in which illegal stores, whether they are on-reserve or off-reserve, use to deliver product. We have been putting in place and will continue to put in place changes that benefit the legal market wherever they are in terms of being able to compete with some of the practices of the illegal market to undercut it. Whether it is campaigns….

As I said a moment ago, I believe that the approach that has been taken — whereby now more than half the cannabis in this province is sourced through legal sources — is an indication that legalization is working, that the enforcement approach that’s being taken is working. But as I’ve said, we know there are challenges in certain areas, and we will continue to focus on ways in which we can shut down and get those places out of business. We will continue to do that, and we will continue to be innovative in how we do that.

G. Kyllo: The challenge that these businesses are facing is that there is an unlevel playing field, and there’s a significant amount of market share that is moving towards these illegal shops. It’s not like the illegal operators have stopped. They are continuing to grow in increasing numbers.

The CSU unit appears…. Certainly, it is the opinion of the numerous legalized operators that are continuing to contact the CSU asking for enforcement action that the number of illegal shops is growing. They are proliferating across the province. They are not going down.

How can the minister say that they are actually winning this battle when the number of illegal cannabis stores are growing at an increasing rate month over month over month?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you to the member for the question.

As I’ve outlined already, we have seen considerable success in terms of dealing with illegal stores. There are challenges on reserve. We know that. There has been a growth of on-reserve illegal stores, and as I said, we are working on ways in which we can deal with that situation.

The reality is also this. The community safety units have been doing, I think, a pretty terrific job in getting out there and getting those illegal stores to shut down. We know there’s a problem and a challenge with the reserve ones. As I just made mention a moment ago, we are working on ways in which we can deal with that. Part of that is also our actions with the federal government to recognize that they may be able to assist in this particular area — as I said, looking at the issues through the section 119 agreements for First Nations to enter the market legally.

I also make this comment, too. It’s not a question that the illegal market, in terms of the purchase of illegal cannabis, is growing. What we are seeing from Stats Canada and other surveys is that the consumption of legal cannabis compared to illegal cannabis has been steadily increasing; that we fully expect it to continue, which is what’s been in line with other jurisdictions; and that that is going to be part of, I think, the pressure that the illegal stores are going to face.

As I said, we’re committed to working on ways to get them under control and to eliminate them. But I think it’s not fair to say: “Oh, there’s rampant growth all across the province.” It’s in certain parts and in certain reserve communities where this is happening. And as I said, we do take this very seriously.

G. Kyllo: Thank you for that follow-up answer, Minister.

Is the minister able to share…? I’m assuming that the CSU unit is tracking the number of illegal stores. If the minister is able to provide me with how many stores — illegal operators that were operating in the last four months in British Columbia.

I would assume that if minister is taking these illegal operations seriously, the CSU unit would be tracking very closely the number of illegal stores that are operating across B.C. If the minister might be able to just share what those numbers have been, say over the last five or six months, or going back even further if the minister has that information available to him.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can’t provide you with an exact number, because it varies in terms of the kind of illegal operation. For example, some of them pop up for a week and then disappear. But I would say, in talking with my CSU unit, it’s probably between 50 and potentially 100 across the province, from those that are a fixed location and others that might pop up for a week and then disappear.

G. Kyllo: Is the minister able to provide — if not now, that’s fine, but we’d certainly appreciate it as a follow-up in writing — the number of stores that the CSU unit is reporting for each of the last six months and what their anticipation is for future months? Does the CSU unit feel comfortable that their current educational tactics are working, and do they see a reduction in the number of illegal stores in the province? Or are they forecasting either a reduction or an increase in the months ahead?

I’m just going to go on to one other concern. I’d referenced earlier a concern that was brought to my attention, which I shared with the CEO of Interior Health, with respect to what I would say is an unsafe practice of an individual actually licking the seal of a marijuana cigarette that was put up for sale in a cabinet. Of course, on account of COVID, that’s a real concern.

I just noticed on a headline that the All Nations Cannabis in Lake Country closed down briefly after one of the staff tested positive on July 21 for COVID. As we look at the safety of the general public, this is, again, yet another example of a concern that I think the minister certainly should have with respect to the safety and health of British Columbians.

I want to finish up. So I’m just going to lay one more question on for the minister. That would be that, in the interim, until such time as the CSU unit has a handle and actually sees a reduction in the number of illegal stores operating across the province, the existing legalized operators are indicating a significant concern on the ability to compete and the loss of revenue.

Will the minister, through this period, look at giving a rebate back to these operators for the amount of revenue that they’ve retained on behalf of the province, and sent in, as partial compensation for the financial loss that they are experiencing due to the continued operation of these illegal stores?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Working backwards, on the second question on rebate, that would be a question that’s probably best addressed to the Attorney General, who actually has the responsibility for the LCB and the licensing of legal cannabis stores.

As to the first question, what I can tell you, and as I said earlier, yeah, we know there’s the problem on some First Nations lands. But the reality is this: the number of illegal stores is down significantly in the rest of the province. So to suggest that that’s not the case is simply wrong.

Having said that, in terms of numbers, what we can try and do is get you some additional information, as I said earlier. You know, it depends in turn…. Part of it is the nature of the store itself, whether it is, in essence, a bricks-and-mortar store that we have seen in locations or whether it’s a pop-up store. But we will endeavour to get you some additional information on that.

[5:00 p.m.]

M. Morris: We’ll probably switch over to the coroner shop here.

Just one comment, though, Minister, with respect to cannabis. You did make a comment right at the beginning that some views of First Nations differ on the law. Maybe a little bit of clarification on that. Oftentimes people’s views differ on the law, but the letter of the law still prevails across our great country here. That’s what helps support everything.

Maybe could you just clarify what you meant there.

The Chair: The member will note he should be using “would the minister clarify,” etc.

Just to be clear, Members, please check your guidebook and work on the practice so I don’t have to bug you about the rules as much.

Thanks, Member.

M. Morris: The letter of the law.

The Chair: As I say, there’s no question about the letter of these laws.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Just to clarify, with cannabis, like a number of other issues when it comes to First Nations, our view, the province’s view, is that yes, they are laws of general application. Just as with some other issues, First Nations have said: “No. These are areas of our jurisdiction.” That’s both at the provincial level and at the federal level.

As the member will no doubt be aware, on numerous occasions, these are often tested in court, sometimes with a decision that, yes, they do come under First Nations jurisdiction, and that has far-reaching effects.

It’s in that context that I made those remarks. Our view is that these are laws of general application. We’ve made that clear, but there are different opinions with some First Nations. The opportunity to test that exists, and sometimes that happens.

M. Morris: Just one more comment or one more answer on this, if you could, before I get the member for Cariboo-​Chilcotin to jump in on the coroner stuff.

Is there currently something before the courts challenging this law of general application regarding cannabis?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Not here in B.C. I’m not aware about the rest of the country but not here in B.C.

M. Morris: Appreciate that.

Thank you very much, Chair. I’ll turn it over to Cariboo-Chilcotin.

[5:05 p.m.]

D. Barnett: Thank you to my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie for the opportunity.

Good afternoon. My questions are around the Coroners Service. My first question to the minister is: when was the mandate of the Coroners Service changed?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you to the member, and good afternoon to you too. The mandate of the Coroners Act has not changed.

D. Barnett: Well, Minister, in this area…. I can’t speak for the rest of British Columbia. But the coroner no longer…. When someone is deceased at home and it’s a natural death, the coroner no longer goes into the home and takes the body to the mortuary or the funeral home.

This is devastating to many people. When you’re 80 or 90 years old and your spouse has passed away and you’re all alone, the RCMP get called because they have to go in and determine whether it’s natural or otherwise. Then there you are to deal with the situation.

The coroner used to come, and the coroner used to remove the body. That no longer happens, Mr. Minister. So the mandate of the Coroners Service must have changed, because this never used to be. It has only been in the last little while that this is what’s happening. So why the change?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you for the question.

What I can tell the member is that the act has not changed. I do understand that there has been some clarification around the policy. In the event of a natural death where there is no family member who is capable of taking care of the body, then the coroner will, in fact, remove the deceased.

Now, having said that, if you have examples of cases or circumstances where that is happening, where there is no family member and they aren’t able to get a deceased removed, please let me know so that I can at least look into it. But that is the practice that has been in place within the province.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister.

This has been a recent change. I’ve talked to many people, and I’ve also talked to our funeral home, where there’s been some major changes, and these changes are not in the best interests of those people that are dealing with loved ones and deceased. When did the policy change? My second question is: was the budget cut, and was it just in this region?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There has been no cut to the coroner’s budget. In fact, the budget has been increased. The change in the policy took place in the fall of 2019. It was made by the coroner’s office and is not related to budgetary pressures at all.

D. Barnett: I thank you for those answers, Minister, but there are some very serious issues in this region. I am going to turn the floor back over to my colleagues, but I would appreciate a call from you so that we could have a private discussion about what is really going on in this riding because it is serious. We’re dealing with human lives and deaths.

Thank you very much. I’ll await your call. Thank you. Back to my colleague.

[5:15 p.m.]

C. Oakes: Thank you to my hon. colleague the member for Prince George–Mackenzie for this opportunity to raise concerns on behalf of a constituent of mine.

On May 27, 2017, Jessica Yager died, and her family has still not received the autopsy report. Jessica deserves justice, and her family deserves closure. I have written the minister four letters in regards to Jessica Yager.

I want to acknowledge in Hansard the incredible efforts of Jessica’s mother, Rhonda Yager. Your advocacy around domestic violence and the work that you are doing is making an incredible impact. I want the family to know that we will not stop fighting for justice for Jessica.

On May 14, 2020, Minister, you did write Rhonda Yager and told her that in the fall of 2018 the Coroners Service received approval to establish a new Coroners Service postmortem diagnostic service. This service now employs five forensic pathologists who provide full-time services directly for the Coroners Service. The result has been a dramatic improvement in the timelines of examinations and reports, and I think this is a very good thing.

Unfortunately, the autopsy conducted for Jessica oc­curred prior to this service being established. The pathologist who completed the autopsy has been contacted by the office of the chief coroner on several occasions, with enquiries about the report of completion.

To the hon. minister, we need to find justice for Jessica. It has been far too long. There has still been no report back to Jessica’s family. When will Jessica’s family receive the coroner’s report on the death of their daughter Jessica?

Hon. M. Farnworth: To the member: I want to thank you for the question and acknowledge your advocacy on behalf of the family. What I can tell you is that it has been a very complex and complicated forensic examination, or pathology, and I think it has taken an inordinate amount of time.

[5:20 p.m.]

I know that there has been a backlog and that additional resources were put into that to deal with it. That backlog has been reduced significantly. I expect that that backlog will be fully completed and finished within the next four months.

Having said that, I will see if there is a way to expedite this particular case, because I agree that the family deserves to have that report.

M. Morris: Thank you for that answer, Minister. I appreciate that.

I did have a couple more questions on that, but I think the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, in her discussion with you, will bring up those issues. That policy change that did occur in the fall of 2019 has led to some consternation throughout the province here. So I’m sure she’ll bring that up.

We’ll switch now from coroners over to emergency management B.C. The first one up for us will be Columbia River–Revelstoke.

D. Clovechok: Thank you to my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie for this opportunity.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Can we just have a quick recess while we bring in the staff from EMBC as we switch over from Solicitor General?

The Chair: For sure.

Members, why don’t we take a five-to-seven-minute recess. I’ll say five minutes, and we will recess now. Thank you, Members.

The committee recessed from 5:21 p.m. to 5:26 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

D. Clovechok: To the minister, I just wanted to say thank you for the opportunity to have a conversation here with him today. I also want to thank him for his indulgence as I read into the record some information that I think will provide some context for the questions that will be coming up.

I’m going to be speaking today about Avalanche Canada. I want to recognize their highly trained staff that gathers and delivers data to issue daily avalanche forecasts throughout the winter for B.C.’s mountainous regions. They’re absolutely professionals, and we appreciate what they do. As a British Columbian, I’m very proud to say that Avalanche Canada — which is based, of course, in Revelstoke — is recognized internationally as a leader in public avalanche safety. They provide forecasts for 14 regions that total over 326,000 square kilometres within B.C. alone.

By comparison — this is interesting — the United States has 22 different centres that provide forecasts for less than 200,000 square kilometres. Although AvCan has international recognition, they unfortunately continue to struggle for recognition within our own province. The minister will know that more than 95 percent of AvCan’s forecast regions are in B.C., that well over 80 percent of AvCan’s entire budget is spent in B.C. and that 75 percent of all avalanche fatalities in the last 20 years have occurred in B.C.

Though the minister may be aware of these stats, it will come as a surprise to most British Columbians that although B.C. benefits the most from AvCan’s products and services, the provincial government is not providing its proper share, nor demonstrating the commitment that the public organization deserves in order to keep British Columbians safe.

As the minister will know, the Yukon, as an example, provides $60,000 annually to AvCan, representing about $1.70 per resident, even though the majority of its funding is spent in B.C. Alberta, too, even during the COVID-19 pandemic, has signed on to a multi-year funding commitment with Avalanche Canada. The province of B.C., on the other hand, usually only provides around $400,000 per year, which represents about 8 cents per resident. I say “usually” because a large portion of the provincial funding is not guaranteed.

Up to $250,000 of AvCan’s annual funding from B.C. comes in the form of the community gaming grant program. This means that AvCan has to reapply each year for these essential funds, and the budget each year is based on receiving this grant. This year, an added level of uncertainty came when AvCan was notified that instead of receiving a notification of community grant funding in November 2020, they won’t be notified until February 2021. This has created an unnecessary and unreasonable level of uncertainty for the organization’s operational budget.

[5:30 p.m.]

Last year the minister, in these estimates, said he was going to the Treasury Board to ask for $1 million in annual funding for AvCan. I know that this minister recognizes that Avalanche Canada is an essential public safety organization.

My first question. Will the minister today commit to providing guaranteed annual funding so that AvCan doesn’t have to wait until February to be notified about their gaming grant application?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, Member, for the question. I fully recognize the value of AvCan and the services that they provide to British Columbia and in fact to Canada as a whole. I think they do a remarkable job.

This issue of funding has been around for a while, and I did commit to go to Treasury Board. I went to Treasury Board. Was it successful this year? No, but I am committed to trying to find a sustainable long-term funding format for AvCan in the same way that we have done for search and rescue in British Columbia. I will continue to work on that. I know that in the case of search and rescue, it took a bit of time, but we did get there. I am confident that we can get there with AvCan, and I will continue to work on that.

In terms of this year’s grant, I know that that granting program takes place through Municipal Affairs and Housing. What I will commit to you is to raise this issue with Municipal Affairs and Housing and see what can be done there — recognizing, obviously, that sometimes granting programs don’t necessarily line up with the needs of the grantee organization. I recognize that in the case of AvCan, their services are most acute in that fall-to-spring window in many parts of the province.

That’s what I can tell you on what I’m prepared to do.

D. Clovechok: To the minister: I sincerely want to thank you for that. I know that you recognize how important this organization is to public safety and to the lives of British Columbians — not only for the lives of British Columbians but for folks that, eventually, once COVID-19 has been solved, will come back to our province.

One of the biggest issues — I’m glad you’ve mentioned it — is that community gaming grant. My question. Would the minister commit to advocating for a one-time lump sum grant that would eliminate the need for AvCan to apply annually for the community gaming grant, in that way guaranteeing the resources — like Alberta has given a three-year commitment to AvCan?

To the minister, would that be something he’d be willing to advocate for as well?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I will continue to push for that.

D. Clovechok: Well, I sincerely appreciate that, on behalf of Avalanche Canada and all the people that we serve. I look forward to that advocacy and to the success of getting this organization the money it needs. It is an essential service to our province. Again, thank you very much, and thank you to my colleague from Prince George.

S. Bond: Thank you for the opportunity. I thank the critic for his flexibility this afternoon with the time that he has.

Minister, I know that you are well aware of the situation I am about to describe to you, but I come on behalf of my constituents who have faced extraordinarily difficult circumstances over the last number of months. That would be in the region of McBride and the surrounding area.

I do want to thank members of the team at EMBC. I can say that there was an opportunity to have several calls to bring issues to them, and I so appreciated their responsiveness, but this is a traumatic situation for these families and residents. They have faced mudslides, flooding, loss of land and loss of property. Thankfully to goodness, while there were some injuries in some of the circumstances, there was no loss of life. For that, I am deeply grateful. I’m also incredibly proud of the resilience of the people who were impacted.

I do want to say thank you. I know that I reached out to you and others about disaster financial assistance being made available. We are grateful that, especially for the residents on Mountain View Road, there is likely to be some help for them, but today I want to specifically raise the issue of the Doré River flooding event. I raise it because I’m sure the minister can imagine what it’s like for people to watch their life assets basically disappear in front of their very eyes.

There has been significant property loss. I’m well aware of the restrictions around disaster financial assistance, but we’ve seen that a pumphouse and a well have been lost. Septic systems which were previously in an acceptable location are now, precariously, at the river’s edge. We have a local small water system that is potentially a challenge. What my constituents need is some help to be able to do an assessment of the type of protective measures that need to be taken to prevent further erosion or damage.

A letter was sent to you recently, and I can imagine you may not have seen it. I know the minister has been busy with estimates, but I’m sure his staff are aware of it. We have residents that have lost 40 metres of land. For one resident, it’s estimated that half of their two-acre lot has eroded, not to mention, as I said, the pumphouse, the well, the septic system and a small water system.

I’m asking if the minister would commit to working with his ministerial colleagues to find a modest grant, a small amount of money, to allow for a proper assessment to be done. We can’t begin to look at a fix until we know what’s necessary. There are also some other pragmatic needs — for example, the need for gravel. Is there a possibility to work with Ministry of Transportation, which has gravel pits in the area — those kinds of things?

These constituents have been through a lot. They need help. It is a modest request, from my perspective. I’d be delighted if the minister would commit today to that funding, but I’m at least asking that he consider providing us with information about how we can find those resources for my constituents.

[5:40 p.m.]

Again, thank you to EMBC. Thank you to the minister for being responsive. I know I sent him photos and a number of other things on behalf of my constituents. That is my question. I thank you for the time today. I’ll wait for the answer, and I will signal to the Chair that that will be my only question at this time.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for that question. She’s right. I did see those photographs, and they were pretty horrific. I can only imagine how traumatic it must have been for the families involved.

What I can tell the member is that I’m quite prepared to look at that request in concert with FLNRORD and the regional district. We have done similar things like this to determine the risk. So I’m quite happy to work to see what we can do.

C. Oakes: Thank you to the critic for providing me this opportunity.

I recognize the time is very short. So I would be happy with even just a written response from the minister.

First, I want to acknowledge and thank his staff at EMBC for their incredible work. I know Cariboo North has been one of those ridings…. Since 2017, our lives have been significantly impacted, year after year, with both fires and floods.

One of the gaps that we continue to have is…. For the area of the Nazko Valley, it is ground zero, traditionally, year after year, from both wildfires and floods. The challenge it creates in our system of response — of who can access programs such as DFA and some of the EMBC programming — is that often the timeline for when folks are eligible for those programs is after the impacts have already been felt. We began feeling the spring freshet this year in April. We began flooding at that time and have had significant impacts.

I hope that the minister would consider looking at those outliers, those communities that year after year…. We ran into the same problems during the wildfires. Outliers that don’t meet the criteria for access to funding.

The second — if he could respond in writing and, perhaps, advocate on our behalf — is…. We’ve certainly canvassed this with the Ministry of Transportation. We had over 200 roads impacted this past year. So much of the damage and devastation that we continue to see in the Cariboo is a result of the fires in 2017 and 2018. Significant work was done after those years, significant research, significant investment and reports of what needed to happen as far as rehabilitation — looking at soil erosion, looking at hydrology reports, looking at geotechnical studies.

After 2017, I felt that there was a strong focus on what we needed to do. The challenge is we’re just not putting the investment in the preparedness piece. I speak specifically of things such as culvert upgrades and ditching, recognizing that the landscape is significantly changed.

[5:45 p.m.]

I’m deeply, deeply concerned about the integrity of our mighty rivers. The Fraser River has been deeply impacted by the landslides that we’ve experienced in our area the last few years because of freshets and fires. The fact that our watersheds…. While there was an investment in 2018-2019 to look at the rehabilitation along the rivers, we are seeing funds no longer available.

I recognize I’ll canvass that with FLNRORD. I just hope the minister will work with us to be our champion and to help support us in getting the necessary cross-ministry efforts that are needed so that Cariboo North constituents, who’ve been so deeply impacted by the challenges with fires and floods, finally have some resolve and finally have the ability to not fear both summer and now spring, so to speak.

I have one question for you. I really do thank the minister’s staff. I had the opportunity to talk with your deputy about the significant challenges we are seeing with the road closures. Early on in the spring freshet, almost all of our major routes were either at risk of being compromised or closed. Backup roads were being closed. I feel that we need an overall comprehensive plan for Cariboo North.

How can we ensure the public safety of our road network in the event that we see another season like this year, where we witnessed and experienced so much devastating impact to our roads?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the questions from the member. I’ll say this. We’re happy to respond in writing.

As the member knows, I think, we fully understand the challenges that you’re facing up in your neck of the woods and that your constituents are facing. It’s one of the reasons why we’re undergoing the significant rewrite of the Emergency Program Act, to modernize it and bring it up to be able to deal with these situations.

We are working with the Ministry of Transportation, particularly on some of those road issues that you’ve raised.

We will respond in writing. I can assure you that these kinds of situations are, in EMBC, very much a priority.

C. Oakes: I am finished. Thank you to the minister and his staff.

M. Morris: One comment on EMBC, Minister. Then we’ll probably switch to corrections. Nothing really in depth with corrections. I will have a couple of questions on consumer protection, but I’ll put them in writing. We are running out of time. I appreciate all your patience and for hanging in there as long as you have.

With respect to EMBC, I’ve heard from many search and rescue organizations across the province here — very appreciative of the funding that was recently handed out. One question that I did have: is this going to be evenly distributed throughout the province? Are agencies like the North Shore Rescue, which does a fantastic job…? Of course, they may be receiving a significant portion of that. But I did have questions from some of the smaller associations in the province on that.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. I want to assure the member that there is a formula in place. It is still being worked on. It is administered by Search and Rescue B.C.

Some of the key components of it are, for example, the capabilities, the training level, and obviously, the areas and the size of the search and rescue associations that cover the different areas of the province. But the goal is very much to see that funding is available to large and to small organizations right across the province.

M. Morris: Any consideration for funding assistance to our many volunteer fire departments? There are quite a few of them that have been impacted throughout the Cariboo, but throughout the entire province. So are you looking in that direction at all?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can tell the member that we have expanded the criteria for the CEPF funding so that it is available to small fire departments, those volunteer fire departments, particularly in the unincorporated areas. As well, $5 million of the funding that was provided to the Red Cross is being made available to smaller fire departments across the province.

M. Morris: Thank you very much for that, Minister. It’s good to hear.

So we can switch gears to corrections. Just a bit of an update. I know that corrections has been working overtime as a result of COVID issues and trying to ensure that all of the clients and inmates they’ve had, not only in community corrections but within the corrections facilities themselves, were taken care of. There was an early-release program that corrections consulted with the chief judge and others on.

Could we get an update on how many inmates ended up with COVID, how many inmates were released over this period of time and whether any of those inmates have been returned or have had to return to serve the rest of their sentence out?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.I can tell him that in terms of cases, there were a total of two cases in provincial corrections facilities. One involved an inmate, and one involved a staff member. Both cases were isolated upon identification, and the result was that there was no additional transmission. So it was very successful in our provincial system compared to what happened in the federal system out in Mission, for example.

In terms of the release of individuals, there were 26 sentenced and 43 intermittent between March 16 and the 24th of May. We stopped doing the release at the beginning of June.

M. Morris: Excellent, due to the hard work of the folks in the corrections systems themselves and community corrections. So very good to hear.

One of the comments that I read in the coroner’s death review panel on illicit drug overdoses was there was some concern over the number of fatalities of people that had been released from provincial corrections facilities prior to their death — within a few months or a year prior to their death. I’m just wondering if the minister can comment on what might be a causal factor there, why that was pointed out in that particular death review and what steps that corrections might have to do in order to ensure that those that are released from the system aren’t susceptible to the fentanyl and the opioid overdoses.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, Member, for the question. I guess I’ll make a couple of points. Obviously, this is very concerning. We’ve worked with the coroner on that death review report.

As you know, there have been a number of changes that have been initiated and implemented that I think are going to have significant impact. One was the shift to PHSA for health care. It allows for better planning, better treatment, better monitoring of individuals in our facilities. Along with that, some of the improvements that are being made in our correction facilities, such as body scanners, the use of the naloxone spray and Narcan. So I think there’s a fair bit of work taking place in this particular area and to deal with the concerns that the member has raised.

M. Morris: I did note that the deaths they reviewed were prior to 2018, I believe, for a period of time there.

The other question, I guess, and probably the last one I would have with respect to corrections, is just on the impact that COVID has had — not the disease itself but the slowdown in our court system. The number of trials that have taken place probably has reduced the number of inmates. So what is the population in our correction centres across the province at this particular time? Has it affected the number of staff who are working? Have there been any layoffs within the corrections systems themselves as a result of this?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It has had an impact in terms of the count, which is, right now, at 1,430. It’s down about 30 percent. It’s not had an impact in terms of staffing. We have not had any layoffs. What it has allowed us to do, interestingly enough, is to do better planning in terms of release, for example, for individuals who are being held in our correctional facilities.

Obviously, that is going to…. As things open up, then we expect the court trials to continue. They will obviously pick up pace, and we will start to see an increase in the number of individuals in our facilities. But at the present time, it’s not had an impact on staff.

M. Morris: I certainly appreciate that. I don’t really have any questions. I haven’t heard any real concerns on corrections other than the staffing levels, of course, that we do hear from time to time. Happy to hear of that very limited impact of COVID on our corrections folks that do such diligent work for us throughout the province here. Appreciate the staff showing up for that.

Just a couple of comments. Like I said, I will send a couple of questions over to you with respect to consumer protection, on those legislative changes that were made here recently, just to get an update on any impacts that that may have made.

I just want to comment…. I’ve kept you over. Everybody has been quite busy here, and I appreciate the very candid responses that you’ve provided and the way that this whole estimates has gone with your ministry here.

With respect to the special committee to review the Police Act, are you aware of the process that Manitoba has recently undertaken looking very much the same? The terms of references that they’ve looked at are very similar to what we’ve looked at in this province here.

[6:05 p.m.]

I’m just wondering whether you’ve looked at what Manitoba has done. They’ve hired a team of specialists to pop the hood open on all of these very same issues, and it’s taken them a year to get through that. They’ve recently provided a report to the government of Manitoba, and there’s an implementation team being put together, as we speak here, to implement the recommendations there. Any comments on that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for that question.

Yeah. We are aware of what Manitoba has been doing, as we are with some other jurisdictions that are also looking at policing. What I can say is that if the committee wants to look at their report and their recommendations, they are able to do that. And if there’s information that comes along that we become aware of that we think may be appropriate for the committee, we’re certainly prepared to forward it to them.

M. Morris: I appreciate that. I think that will most likely be a very valuable item for the committee to take a look at there.

I appreciate the minister’s time today and all of the folks that were behind you and provided you with the good advice and are up to date on the information there. I will send you those questions on consumer protection here sometime within the next couple of days.

Vote 39: ministry operations, $800,352,000 — approved.

Vote 40: Emergency Program Act, $36,527,000 — approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members, critics, Minister, everybody, for making today’s estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General go so well. Much appreciated. Enjoy your evenings.

The committee adjourned at 6:09 p.m.