Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament (2023)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, May 2, 2023
Afternoon Sitting
Issue No. 320
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
TUESDAY, MAY 2, 2023
The House met at 1:32 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. L. Beare: In the main chamber, I call continued debate on the Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Finance.
In committee room A, I call continued debate on the Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 1:36 p.m.
On Vote 26: ministry operations, $338,869,000 (continued).
Hon. K. Conroy: Just to let the member know, I have with me my deputy minister, Heather Wood, and the CEO of the B.C. Assessment Authority, Jason Grant.
P. Milobar: Just a few questions for B.C. Assessment to start the day off. Some have been referred by the Housing Minister, over here, and others are just general, as well, recognizing that the Third Party will likely be coming in, in around 45 minutes or so to start asking their questions for about an hour or so.
First off, B.C. Assessment. In terms of this year’s assessments, my understanding was that there was, essentially, a kind of a caveat that went out to the public after the assessments were released, because people weren’t sure what was going to happen with the interest rates starting to move upwards fairly quickly. The assessments were done ahead of those interest rate changes, and people were warned that, in fact, what their house is assessed for…. We might be in this strange situation where, in fact, it was worth less than what the assessed value was, but it would work out over the next year or so.
Can the minister confirm that that’s an accurate portrayal of what happened with assessments this year? Now, the market may have, because it didn’t cool as much as was anticipated, actually seen rates still be at or slightly higher than assessed value. But the initial response from B.C. Assessment warning the public seemed to be that the assessed values might be seen to be a little bit inflated, given how quickly the market was starting to shift around a little bit in those early days of interest rate hikes.
Hon. K. Conroy: The assessments that are released in January every year are always based on the previous July 1 market value.
P. Milobar: I understand that, but at the time, there seemed to be messaging by B.C. Assessment that people should not panic. There was an awareness that they would likely be reflective of a higher than potential market value of the house this year, unlike previous years, where, typically, assessed values are lower than what a property might sell for on the market.
Hon. K. Conroy: Advance public information campaigns about what to expect and upcoming assessment releases are not new. They’re done quite frequently, over the years, and they’re done regardless of the market, whether it’s going up or down.
The B.C. Assessment Authority always shares information with the release of the assessment roll so the public understands what to expect. It’s common practice. It’s about transparency.
P. Milobar: Okay. I was just trying to establish that this year people should be expecting that their assessments might have been higher than the market value, but I’ll move on.
In terms of multifamily and what would be deemed more rent specific…. It’s owned by a landlord or a larger company, but it’s multifamily. It’s for rental. It’s technically a business, but it’s still residential. It would be zoned residential, those types of zoning areas.
Now, B.C. Assessment has one way where they start to try to formulate highest and best use and things of that nature or around businesses in general. When it comes to a rental property for housing, when an assessment is being made, does B.C. Assessment take in the rent profile of the building? Do they take in what is going on with rents in the rest of the neighbourhood? How exactly does that apartment style building, which is a rental, for living, wind up with its assessed value?
Hon. K. Conroy: The B.C. Assessment Authority looks at it the same way the market looks at it. The market determines the value of the building. So B.C. Assessment looks at the assessment and reports that value.
P. Milobar: Well, that’s interesting. No wonder B.C. Housing is under a forensic audit, then, I guess, because they just bought a building in Kamloops for 2½ times the assessed value, predicated on what the market value is. It’s interesting.
That was one of the questions that was sent here by the Housing Minister: to check with B.C. Assessment on how they would do their assessments. It’s remarkable that B.C. Housing seemed to find the only property in B.C. that was 2½ times lower than assessed value when it comes to values.
In terms of B.C. Assessment, though, and their work for this year, we have the Premier promising that all lots will be deemed to be fourplexes. There’s a lot of concern in municipalities around what that might do in terms of upzoning, in terms of land values, in terms of what that would mean for people with existing properties.
Has B.C. Assessment started to undertake work in this year around the Premier’s announcement that this will be what we’ll be facing with fall legislation, because of the timelines that B.C. Assessment would be under for assessments? Obviously, they may have to be starting to do some work now, in advance of potential legislation coming forward.
Hon. K. Conroy: I just want to, for the record, correct the member. The Premier did not say people would have to change their single-family dwellings to fourplexes or three-plexes or duplexes. What the Premier was suggesting is that legislation will be coming in the fall, and it will allow people, if they so choose, to go from a single-family home to a duplex, a triplex, a fourplex if they choose to do that. That would definitely help with housing issues in communities right across the province, if people choose to do that.
It’s important to note that the legislation’s not in place yet. It hasn’t been tabled. So B.C. Assessment doesn’t have to do anything differently right now. They look at any factors in the market. It remains to be seen if this will actually change the market. If it does change the market, then they’ll make those adjustments as required, but it will be up to the market to reflect any changes. That’s how B.C. Assessment does their reflections when it comes to making assessments.
P. Milobar: When B.C. Assessment is assessing highest and best use of a residential property, if one is zoned for fourplex and one is zoned single family, does one generate a higher assessed value, all things being equal, based on highest and best use?
Hon. K. Conroy: The market decides highest and best use. B.C. Assessment doesn’t decide that. If the market recognizes the highest and best use, then B.C. Assessment reflects that.
P. Milobar: Well, if you currently have a 50-by-120-foot lot, which would be a standard lot in many parts of Kamloops, a 6,000-square-foot lot, and there’s a fourplex on that, and right next door, there’s a 900-square-foot bungalow that is single family, in the exact same neighbourhood, B.C. Assessment would assess the fourplex, based on its use, at a higher assessment value than the bungalow right next door.
Is that not the practice across all of this province, based on the fact there are four dwelling units on 6,000 square feet instead of one smaller dwelling unit on 6,000 square feet?
Hon. K. Conroy: I’m learning all kinds of things.
To get to the member’s question, in the example the member gave, it would be seen as an as-built if there were four units on a single piece of property. So each of those four individual units would have individual titles. That’s how the market would view it, and that’s how B.C. Assessment would view it. That’s common practice, whereas the single house would be a single-family house and would be assessed as a single-family dwelling.
P. Milobar: Well, the market wouldn’t view it that way, as four individual titles, if it was a rental. If it was somebody who was just renting a fourplex, it’s not four individual titles. It’s one unit. It’s four rental units, no different than an apartment building. But it’s troubling the minister is saying that the market decides highest and best use, and that’s what B.C. Assessment operates under.
I find it hard to believe that the bowling alley in Burnaby that now is needing to be sold because they can’t afford the taxes based on highest and best use — even though they’d like to continue operating as a bowling alley — that they’re being forced out because of B.C. Assessment’s valuation of them for highest and best use.
So how does B.C. Assessment, other than market forces, determine what is highest and best use? Is it not what is within zoning, within official community plans and within zoning maps of municipalities that B.C. Housing then determines highest and best use for a property, as opposed to the market and/or the owner of the property desperately wanting to pay more in property taxes so begging B.C. Assessment to skyrocket their value based on highest and best use of housing that doesn’t exist in the air above them and other areas like that?
Hon. K. Conroy: Again, B.C. Assessment is required to assess properties based on market value, not on current use. Actually, the government recently provided tools to local governments. That was through the property assessment strategy review act, which was tabled last fall to help local governments address certain challenges for small business owners.
P. Milobar: I understand all that, but we’re going around in a bit of a circle. The bottom line is that very few municipalities have enacted that. Highest and best use is deemed by B.C. Assessment based on zoning profiles, OCPs and what is going on in terms of the development in and around those areas.
The problem is that there’s a big concern out there that B.C. Assessment, if there’s a provincewide implementation where every lot…. Now, the minister…. If I said “must,” that’s not what I meant, but it would have the ability under the Premier’s direction that he’s given — that he’s intending on implementing legislation that will give everyone the ability, the right, if they so choose, to make their single-family home lot into a fourplex.
Now, that happening…. Yes, technically, if all properties get assessed highest and best use, it would raise the assessed value of all lots. The problem is that the single-family home owner who just wants to still live in their bungalow — their assessed value will be going up based on it turning into a fourplex, and their neighbour may be quite happy with that because they want to turn their house into a fourplex and tear down, or whatever, an old property.
But the person next door doesn’t want to, and they will be deemed, under B.C. Assessment rules of highest and best use…. It is automatic that they can, if they so choose, put a fourplex where a single home is. That is the concern the public has out there.
What does B.C. Assessment…? The minister said, shockingly, that they are not doing any work yet on this. It’s going to be a mad scramble, if the legislation comes in the fall, to try to meet the July deadline the following year for assessed values if there’s not any work being done on it.
How can people have any confidence that their assessed values won’t go up based on what B.C. Assessment typically does for highest and best use? And given that…. Whether the person would like their home to be zoned for fourplex or not, it will be, under the Premier’s plan.
[J. Tegart in the chair.]
Hon. K. Conroy: Zoning changes may affect the value if the market recognizes these changes. However, if everyone’s value goes up, the tax rate goes down. The taxing jurisdictions collect only what’s required. B.C. Assessment does what they do based on the market.
J. Sturdy: Thank you to my colleague for the opportunity to ask a question or two about B.C. Assessment, in particular. This will be an issue that I’ve talked to the minister about in the past with regard to her previous role around Crown land lease rates, both residential and commercial lease rates.
There was a mention earlier, I believe, that B.C. Assessment is obligated to look at leases as fee simple. I think that everybody agrees on that. They’re also obligated to look at the assessments of lease properties and to take into consideration the conditions that are placed on those properties, the limitations that are on those properties. It doesn’t really look like that’s actually happening.
We’re seeing, in places like Paradise Valley and Squamish, with residential lease properties, that they’re being valued pretty much the same as a fee simple ownership property. As the minister knows, that has a direct result on their rent every year because the policy is a percentage of value. I think it’s a pretty blunt instrument that is being used here, and B.C. Assessment is not necessarily considering those conditions that limit the value.
Would the minister consider amending that directive to B.C. Assessment so that the assessed values more accurately reflect, ultimately, what impacts their rent on an annual basis? It clearly does affect value yet is not being considered.
Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question.
B.C. Assessment is following legislation in place for how leasehold properties are valued. As the member well knows, there’s a well-established appeal process that his constituents can follow if they don’t agree with how their property has been valued.
J. Sturdy: Yeah, I think that’s fair to say. They have been through this process many times, and because of the constraints of the legislation that suggest that these properties need to be assessed at the same value. For example, if it has three years left on the lease or it has 25 years left on the lease, it’s the same evaluation as it is with the neighbouring property that’s a fee simple piece of property that you can borrow against. It’s all considered the same, so there needs to be a little more flexibility there.
Beyond that…. Maybe it does take a change in legislation or some consideration, anyway, because it’s inequitable. It’s unfair, and it creates real challenges for people both at a commercial level as well as a residential level because of the government policy around how rents are set, which is on a percentage of value. We’re seeing situations in the value-added wood sector where rents on Crown land are doubling because of assessed values on leased land, so this has real impacts on businesses as well as residents.
Is there any intention of the minister to assess this problem and make some changes that are more reflective of reality and consider some of the issues like, for example, the term time left on a lease, when it’s being considered by B.C. Assessment?
Hon. K. Conroy: B.C. Assessment operates a mass appraisal system that operates right across the entire province, so they need consistent rules across the province. The member’s issue is how lease rates are determined on Crown land, and that issue lies with the Ministry of Forests.
P. Milobar: Just to let the minister know, we’re going to turn the floor over to the Third Party for a few questions here — they have a time commitment — and then we will be coming back to B.C. Assessment for just a couple of questions before we go on to other GCPE questions.
S. Furstenau: Just for the minister and her staff’s information, the topics I want to ask about are the output-based pricing system for carbon and some issues around the small business employment health tax. I think that’s probably all we’re going to get through. Those are the two topics. I’m not sure if the minister needs time to get other staff in the room or if that’s sufficient.
Hon. K. Conroy: If the member would like to ask her first question while we’re bringing staff in, we’ll relay it to them and get the answer quicker.
S. Furstenau: That’s great because there’s a bit of preamble with the first question just to kind of set the context and try to get some understanding.
Budget 2023, subsequently in Bill 10, government introduced output-based pricing system that replaces the existing taxation scheme for large polluters. The new system will exempt large emitters from paying the carbon tax upfront and instead require them to pay a carbon price on emissions that exceed established performance standards. The standards, I think, will be unveiled through regulation but have not yet been seen. So I’m not sure what the standards are.
Emissions will be evaluated at the end of the year based on required reporting and then must be verified by an accredited third party. Sounds like professional reliance to me, but anyways, that’s another topic. The process has not yet been totally clarified, so looking forward to clarification on that.
Companies can also invest in offset projects to compensate for their excess pollution. And, of course, this raises questions because carbon offsets, simply as a clerical accounting mechanism, really creates the conditions for emissions and pollution to rise, and I think we should all be really focused, with a lot of intention and urgency, on getting emissions down.
What Bill 10 does not establish…. My understanding is it doesn’t establish emissions thresholds or complete framework on verification and validation processes. And these details are quite crucial to assessing the merits of B.C.’s new system, which I think we should be quite concerned with.
The language around the output-based pricing system portrays it as a means to protect industry competitiveness and prevent carbon leakage, but the very real concern that we have and that many others share is that heavy emitters will ultimately pay less under this system. I think for the people of British Columbia, what they’re paying in carbon taxes, if they find out that the biggest polluters in the province actually get to pay less, I think there’s a real fairness and justice issue in this.
And on carbon credits, there was an investigation in The Guardian recently that found over 90 percent of offsets are phantom credits that don’t actually reduce emissions.
We know that the carbon credit system can be gamed, and I think with the state we’re in with climate change, we don’t want any openings for gaming these systems.
Another study done by the University of Berkeley showed that top carbon offset registries have “consistently allowed developers to claim more climate-saving benefits than justified.” So the concern is if B.C.’s new greenhouse gas pricing system for the largest polluters is going to be heavily reliant on carbon credits to lower emissions, I think it really puts in jeopardy the entire net-zero plan and, also, B.C.’s commitments to their emissions targets, which have been laid out in law.
My first question is: will large emitters ultimately pay less under this new output-based pricing system compared to the current carbon taxation model?
B. D’Eith: I’d like to seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
B. D’Eith: In the gallery right now, we have one half of the grade 11 class from Thomas Haney in Maple Ridge, with Todd Goodman. I had the pleasure of being with them outside. We had a picture and were able to talk about the House.
Just so that they know what’s going on right now, we’re in budget estimates, and the Leader of the Third Party just asked a question to the Minister of Finance. She’s the Leader of the Third Party. So the opposition will ask questions to the minister, and that’s how the process goes.
Would the House please make the class of Thomas Haney feel very welcome.
Debate Continued
Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question. The goal is to get greenhouse gas emissions down, to get the heavy emitters to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. What OBPS does is it gives the heavy emitters incentive to reduce their emissions.
I think that’s all of our goals. It’s about making sure that the heavy emitters reduce their emissions. They reduce their emissions; they pay less. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. I think that’s a good thing, because they’re reducing their emissions, and that’s the goal. The goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The OBPS system will ensure they’ll pay more for producing more. They’re already working to get those emissions down. We know that. We’ve heard that. They understand the system is coming into play, so they’re working at that, which is what everybody’s goal is. Based on the modelling done and the framework that has been released to date, the analysts show that heavy emitters would be paying at least as much under the OBPS, as far as fees go, as they would under the current carbon tax model, while they get up to speed with how they’re going to bring their emissions down.
But as I said, we know — I’ve had it from my colleagues, had it from industry — that emitters are looking and saying: “Okay, we need to get our emissions down.” They recognize it. You talk to some of the companies, they have just as great…. They’re looking at ESG qualities, and they recognize that, as corporate companies, that’s what needs to happen. That’s what we’re looking at with this system.
S. Furstenau: I wholeheartedly agree with the minister. The goal is to get emissions down.
The nice thing about the current carbon pricing system is that it’s really clear. It’s really simple. It’s a price per tonne, and it applies to everybody equally, so the incentive is built right into that system. The whole system is meant to be an incentive. The more you pollute, the more you pay. The less you pollute, the less you pay. It’s clear. It’s easy to understand. There isn’t a complicated framework that goes with it. There isn’t a difference between individuals and small businesses and medium-sized businesses and big industry and heavy emitters.
I think that the concern I have about this system is that it’s not clear and simple. It’s not a straightforward system that is easy for everybody to understand. The concern raised about it is, again, this ability to purchase carbon offsets to kind of find ways to game the system. That’s the concern I have, and I don’t really understand why we’ve departed from what was a straightforward carbon-pricing system into this output-based pricing system.
I’ll ask just a clarification question on it. Would industry operators be allowed to trade carbon credits with other operators in order to ensure compliance with performance-based standards? In this system, in this framework that’s being developed, can there be trading of carbon credits between different operators in the industry? Would there be a limit to the number of offsets that can be purchased? And, I think importantly, how is there going to be assurance that the credits being purchased for offsets are reliable, given the investigations recently that 90 percent of these offset credits don’t appear to be all that reliable?
That part of it…. Instead of taking the simple, “You pollute this much, you pay that much” — it’s really clear — getting into the system where you can buy offsets and your emission standards and all these things…. What’s the assurance that those carbon offsets are reliable? And how much can there be of trading these offsets between operators within industry?
Hon. K. Conroy: To clarify for the member, we really liked our carbon model, as well, and we got an international award for it.
However, there was a requirement to align with the federal government that didn’t work with our CleanBC program for industry, so we needed to develop our own output-based pricing system. Our made-in-B.C. output-based pricing system will ensure that we meet commitments for greenhouse gas emissions reductions of carbon leaks, as I said, as well as the emissions.
Our system will allow B.C. operators who are exceeding the standards to generate offsets, which they can then sell to other B.C. operators. I think it’s fairly simple; it’s not a complicated thing. It’s if you create too many emissions, you either can buy offsets or you can pay.
You have to reduce that so that you don’t pay as much. If you have less emissions, you benefit from being able to sell some of those, what you’ve been able to save, so it’s fairly simple.
The decision on offsets is one that we are currently considering. The reliability of credits is monitored by the Ministry of Environment under their legislation.
S. Furstenau: I appreciate the minister’s responses. I’m going to just switch, and I think it’s probably going to be my last question because we had the time booked. I see that the official opposition just shrugged his shoulders — maybe the second-last question.
I want to talk a little bit about the conditions for small businesses. There are pressures on small businesses that we hear a lot in our offices. We hear a lot from constituents, from the people who are operating small businesses.
They’re really hoping to see some relief to the growing burdens they’re facing in small businesses. One example is the employment health tax. It has an exemption up to $500,000 before the tax is applicable on any employee remuneration. This tax is scaled, with different percentages being applied between $500,000 and $1.5 million, and then anything over $1.5 million. The Ministry of Finance has indicated the exemption of $500,000 was originally put in place so that 85 percent of businesses in B.C. would not need to pay the tax.
But with the increase in minimum wage, and no proposed increase in the exemption amount, some small businesses are going to find themselves going just over that line of $500,000 or choosing to reduce hours for their employees or lay off an employee to not go over that $500,000 line, which really puts them into a very different economic situation. Restaurants we are hearing from are especially impacted by this change — already vulnerable, recovering from the tumultuous last three years.
My question for the minister specifically…. We’ve proposed that the threshold be raised to $1.5 million overall. I think that would help small businesses and not discourage businesses from growing that little bit. Right now, there is really an incentive to not grow because once you go over that $500,000 threshold, you’re in a new tax bracket.
In addition to considering raising the threshold generally, would there be a consideration to index the exemption limit to minimum wage? If there is an increase to minimum wage of 6.9 percent, would we see a commensurate increase to the threshold of the same amount that the minimum wage has gone up so that businesses wouldn’t automatically find themselves, having no increase in staff or even revenues, above that threshold where they have to pay the EHT?
B. D’Eith: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
B. D’Eith: Thank you very much. With the indulgence of the House, I have a second introduction of the Thomas Haney class of grade 11. It’s Todd Goodman’s class. Welcome to the people’s House. It was very nice being able to have a picture with you outside.
You just heard a question from the Leader of the Third Party. What’s happening right now is the opposition is asking questions to the Minister of Finance in budget estimates, and that’s what you’re watching. It will now go back to the official opposition to ask more questions.
Would the House please make our students welcome.
Debate Continued
Hon. K. Conroy: The government continues to monitor the impact of the EHT on businesses, and it’s done every year around budget time. Government looks at small businesses for their…. They analyze the threshold parameters of the various taxes as part of the budget process. So that is done every year.
It is true that more than 85 percent of businesses in B.C. don’t pay the tax at all, and fewer than 5 percent actually pay the full amount.
So if a business…. If their amount goes up by a small amount, it would be a very small amount that that would be increased by. So it goes up by a very small amount. And again, only 5 percent actually pay the full amount.
S. Furstenau: Just to restate the question, though, is there a consideration of indexing the threshold so that when there is an increase to minimum wage, there would also be a commensurate increase to the threshold for EHT?
Hon. K. Conroy: Just to restate the answer, we look at a number of initiatives when it comes to small businesses and taxes. We will do that during the budget process. We do that, and it’s always been done.
P. Milobar: I think my colleague from Sea to Sky is tied up in some other areas, so we’ll just move on to GCPE instead of going back to B.C. Assessment, if that works for the minister.
I’m not sure. Is there staff changeover? Do you want me to ask a question or just wait?
The Chair: We will recess for five minutes.
The committee recessed from 3:22 p.m. to 3:26 p.m.
[J. Tegart in the chair.]
The Chair: We’ll call the committee back to order.
P. Milobar: Now, GCPE and governments are supposed to operate under non-partisan advertising standards, but that’s been questionable over time immemorial, I guess. But really, in terms of the budget, it appears there is around $29 million this year in the budget for GCPE.
Can the minister split out what the total amount is for discretionary advertising, and what is the total amount for statutory advertising in this budget?
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
Hon. K. Conroy: Discretionary advertising in GCPE is $3.537 million.
P. Milobar: Okay. I’ll assume, then, there’s no statutory advertising.
Can the minister list if there are any individual ad campaigns that are receiving funding through Budget 2023? What are the respective budgets for these ad campaigns that would be, I’m assuming, going through several months?
Hon. K. Conroy: Just for the member’s question prior to this one…. For all of government, the statutory advertising is $1.576 million. It’s across government. That’s not in the GCPE. It’s in individual ministry budgets. I just wanted to make sure the member knew that.
For the GCPE information campaigns that the member was asking about, which are in progress and planned for this fiscal year…. We’ve got the wildfire prevention campaign, CleanBC and boosted social media posts related to corporate priorities.
P. Milobar: The minister actually — it was a good segue there — touched on my next question in her answer.
That is: what is the split between local media ad buys — the small newspapers, the small publications, the smaller radio stations, TV, more traditional style media — versus the social media of the international Metas of the world and Twitter and those types of publications? I guess they’re not publications but posting areas. What is the split of advertising dollars between more B.C.-based business versus those international social media conglomerates?
Hon. K. Conroy: We’re getting that information, but it’s taking a little longer than we thought it would. If the member would like to ask another question in the interim, just to keep things going.
P. Milobar: Sure. On the social media side, does the government engage in data mining from the ads that they run and use that data to help inform and distribute future ads?
Hon. K. Conroy: You learn something new every day. No, we don’t engage in data mining.
P. Milobar: Looping back to the $1.576 million that has been deemed non-statutory…. That was pulled out of other ministries. There’s $600,000 of internal recovery within contingencies. Is that to help cover off the staffing that would be related to that advertising being done in other ministries?
R. Leonard: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
R. Leonard: I’d like the House to welcome the grade 10 and 11 class of Mrs. Tansky, from the Phil and Jennie Gaglardi Academy in Comox. There are 25 students here today along with some chaperones and Mrs. Tansky, who comes every year with some students to appreciate how we work, how government works here, and to give them a taste. I hope that they appreciate the splendour of this building and the good works that are accomplished here.
If the House would please welcome Mrs. Tansky’s class from the Phil Gaglardi Academy.
Debate Continued
Hon. K. Conroy: Okay. I have everything. I’ve got all the answers.
The second question the member asked: the amount the member is referring to is actually internal recoveries related to TNO, Today’s News Online. It’s not contingencies, the specific amount the member referred to.
I have the breakdown of advertising. Newspapers — it’s 13.9 percent of newspapers right across the province. Digital is 38.5 percent. It’s on social media. It also includes ads for newspapers on newspapers’ websites. Black Press has a website right across the province, so it includes ads on those newspapers’ websites as well. TV is 21.8 percent. Radio is 15.2 percent. And I’ve just learned something new. Out-of-home advertising — which means you’re not in your home, so that means billboards or bus shelters — is at 10.4 percent of the advertising.
P. Milobar: The minister said the government doesn’t engage in data mining when they do social media ads and posts like that. There was just a recent Premier’s telephone town hall that was done. I believe it was in conjunction…. The Minister of Finance might have been on that. I saw some of that was billed as a budget update, some of it not. I’m not sure if the minister participated in some of those or not. I’m assuming that campaign, those phone town halls, were coordinated by the GCPE.
Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, I did participate in the town halls. They were done as a way of sharing information about our budget and asking questions, because that was the goal, to ask questions that people had an opportunity to submit. It was done by GDX and Citizens’ Services. It was supported by GCPE, but it was done by GDX.
Just so the member knows, we are restricted from doing any data mining, from gathering any personal information on those calls, so of course, we didn’t. They were all done with the CRTC rules that protect privacy and allow people to opt out if they choose. I mean, it was very much an opportunity for people to ask questions, either by voice or by online questions, and a great opportunity to have those questions answered.
We had 30,000 people on one night’s call and 28,000 on the other. It was people from right across the province asking questions about our budget and the direction we’re moving in. It was a great opportunity for people to engage in that. We heard from people after the fact that they wished they’d pressed the button to actually engage and hadn’t, but they listened and asked questions to me after the fact when I ran into them.
It was a great opportunity for us.
P. Milobar: I understand the want from our government, to want to reach out.
I guess my next question, though, is I received word from several constituents wondering how unsolicited text messages inviting them to these telephone town halls, from people that would most obviously not have any interconnection with the government and/or especially the NDP, would suddenly be getting unsolicited — to a cell phone, especially, not a land line — invitations to things like this.
Does GCPE regularly engage that way? How are they collating a distribution list, when it’s people’s personal cell phones that are getting unsolicited text messages from a number? In the case of people in Kamloops, they were getting texted from a phone number out of Vernon — you know, had never texted these cell phones previously. It was the first time they’d ever had contact with this number making the invite, so they have concerns how government is processing and using the data they actually have on these people to try to then spin that into government communications product.
Hon. K. Conroy: First of all, I want to make it clear that people had the opportunity to opt out. This was not meant to engage with just New Democrats, BCU members, Conservatives or Green Party members. This was meant to engage with all British Columbians — an opportunity to answer their questions — because these were their questions.
We weren’t just saying: “We’re going to talk about what we want to talk about.” We were answering people’s specific questions, and that was really important. It was a good way to do that. Again, we don’t have the data, per se; the provider does. They do the random dialling. They use the phone book, but they also do random digital dialling. The provider did that, not us. That information wasn’t shared with us as a government.
People don’t need to worry. We don’t have access to their cell phones or their phones. A lot of them came from the phone book. We followed all of the CRTC rules.
We have done this before. We did it with Minister Dix, during COVID, and the PHO. It was very successful. We thought this was another opportunity to answer people’s questions. It wasn’t about us giving our spiel. It was about answering people’s questions. I know there were people from all walks of life and all political parties that engaged; you can tell by the questions that were being asked. I think it’s really important that we give people that opportunity.
P. Milobar: The minister can try to spin it and say that it wasn’t about the government doing their spiel. But last I checked, the official opposition wasn’t asked to participate, to provide our perspective to taxpayers in the province. The official Third Party wasn’t invited to be a participant, a panellist, so to speak.
It was very much the government, the Premier and the Finance Minister trying to convey to the public their take and their perspective on the budget. Yes, people were able to ask questions. The answer, as we’ve witnessed through estimates throughout this House, can be spun in many different ways, with very little opportunity to go back and forth.
The crux of the question was really concerns around how people are having their phone numbers accessed and that databases are being used. Obviously, this is a fairly sophisticated firm that was doing this, under contract from the province. It would have been very expensive, given the sheer numbers, on a couple of the calls that the minister referenced.
Again, I didn’t see the government offering up either participation of the official opposition or funding to the official opposition to try to fund a similar type of town hall outreach to provide a different perspective of views on the budget either. Frankly, it was fairly government self-promoting.
To that end, how much did these telephone town halls cost the government and the taxpayers of British Columbia?
Hon. K. Conroy: What do you say? I’ll give him the exact numbers. Each telephone town hall cost $37,975. That’s including tax. That puts it up a little bit. When you think that we reached almost 60,000 people, it’s less than $1.50 a person, which is pretty cost-effective.
I would equate it…. It’s actually no different than when the former Premier, Christy Clark, went on TV a number of times and did her promotion of the government. Opposition was never invited to give our viewpoint. No other party was invited to give their viewpoint. That did happen a number of times.
Government has an opportunity to…. At least with our opportunity, we were answering questions. This was not a half-hour session of listening to what we were doing. It was actually us answering questions. Again, I knew they were questions from people of all political stripes and from right across the province, which was really great to see.
P. Milobar: I’m sure there was even less political spin than that answer when it came to the answers on the telephone town halls.
It’s always interesting when it’s: “Do as I say, not as I do.” This government, when they were in opposition, seemed to have a lot of problems with advertising. I’ll get into some of those other statements, previously made, of: “Do as we say but not now as we do.”
That appears to be around a $76,000 contract. Was it sole-sourced, or did it go out to open bid?
Hon. K. Conroy: It was a standard competitive process.
P. Milobar: To clarify, was that put on B.C. Bid, or was it someone within GCPE that was reaching out to preferred vendors to ask about their availability?
Hon. K. Conroy: There’s a limited number of vendors that do this kind of work. We reached out to three of them. Two provided bids. PrimeContact secured the bid.
P. Milobar: We seem to have a staffing component of the GCPE, to buy $3.5 million worth of ads in a year, of $23.2 million. It’s costing in wages and manpower, womenpower, $23.2 million to place $3.5 million worth of ads in a year.
Now, GCPE also has a budget of $29.3 million. Can the minister explain: is that $2.6 million being used for polling by the government?
Hon. K. Conroy: Two things I’d like…. One I’d like to clarify. I want to just clarify that there are five people who work in the GCPE who deal with advertising. Last year we….
What I think the member is referring to is how much is budgeted to spend on research, and it’s $432,000.
P. Milobar: I’m confused. There’s, it appears, a staffing complement of $23.2 million. But the minister is saying there are only five people that work on advertising. What do the rest of the people in GCPE do, in general terms? I don’t need exact job titles but then to make up the difference between five people and $23.2 million.
Hon. K. Conroy: There’s a lot here. I mean, they produce and coordinate digital content related to priority files of government; provide strategic direction on engaging audience using online communication channels. That would include strategic digital content, video production, community management. They could use concept and design for government priorities and projects to maximize the effectiveness of materials.
Making sure we’re communicating with our audience; support for accessibility concerns; responsible for graphic design for all public-facing government-branded materials; graphic design for all the ministry offices; maintaining the B.C. government identity brand; marketing; advertising; campaign development; media buying; strategic communications planning; market research; brand development and management; copyrighting; ensuring appropriate advertising budgets are in place; advancing cross-ministry strategic communications; priority projects; coordinating communications expertise; corporate input on significant announcements that relate to the government’s platform or individual ministry mandate letters.
They provide editorial advice, editorial services; specialize in writing and message development; coordinate strategic communications for executive council in the Premier’s office; centralized planning management and execution of public events; oversight of centralized cross-ministry corporate calendar; coordination of B.C. government communications activities; media relations and management of media-based events; provincial, regional and ethnic cultural media support; translation services; media monitoring; transcription and distribution to internal and external clients.
I mean, there’s…. Does that give the member the gist? I mean, there’s a lot more. I could keep going. I mean, there’s a lot more than just advertising.
P. Milobar: No. I wasn’t trying to be flippant. I didn’t even want the public to think five people were making $23.2 million. So thanks for that.
Just imagine, I wouldn’t even have this many questions if the NDP had followed through on their 2013 commitment — if we’re going back down memory lane, as the minister did earlier — that the Auditor General would review every ad before it went out to ensure it was non-partisan in nature.
But I get that time marches on, and the NDP didn’t want to live by that 2013 commitment once they formed office.
I noticed that the polling number, the dollars spent on polling, has increased dramatically. It has more than doubled since 2021, actually. In 2021, it was about a $200,000 budget for polling, and now it’s at $432,000.
I’m wondering if the minister can clarify. On March 8, there was OIC 157, which appointed Paul Noble as director of research and analytics, government communications and public engagement, Ministry of Finance, for a term ending October 7, 2023. The salary is between $96,400 and $128,100 per year.
I don’t take issue with someone being paid, and I get that these are professionals and everything else. The question really is: is that $96,400 to $128,100 range included in the $432,000, or is it over and above that?
Hon. K. Conroy: I’m just going to answer a number of questions that the member raised without realizing he was raising them.
Just to clarify on ad standards, all of our ads, all GCPE ads, are reviewed against the non-partisan criteria established by Advertising Standards Canada. They approve our ads to make sure that they’re non-partisan.
Also, the member referred to the research budget. The budget doesn’t change, but in 2021, it was underspent significantly because of COVID, so that’s why there’s a difference there.
As far as the OIC the member talked about, the budget, the salary for that person is separate from the research budget.
P. Milobar: Well, there’s a lot there in that answer.
First off, the justification to go to $400,000 on polling back in 2020 was because of COVID. That was all pre-election polling. In fact, the minister at the time said: “ That information gets used in program development. That’s how it has been used, and that’s how I think it’s always used — making sure that we understand where people are at so that we can be a responsive government.” She also said polling was done by government to understand how programs are being perceived by the public, in regards to COVID. That was $400,000 during COVID.
The next year, budgeted was $200,000, in 2021, not spent, underspent. Budgeted was $200,000 in 2021, recognizing that the first wave of COVID information needed to diminish. Polling, more importantly…. This isn’t about advertising. This is about polling on public policy dollars.
The minister can call it research all she likes. It’s polling. In a time leading up to an election, it was $400,000 under the guise of COVID. Immediately after that, it dropped back down to $200,000. This year it has jumped back up to $432,000, plus a new director being hired in the $100,000 range, on top of that, to oversee.
Now, the minister talked about — how she phrased it — coordination efforts with the Premier’s office as part of GCPE duties and responsibilities. So how much is that within the budget to coordinate, and how much of that ties in with polling and other information that’s either going out from GCPE or being captured by GCPE through polling, which is research, back through the coordinated staff with the Premier’s office?
Hon. K. Conroy: That’s a fairly detailed, specific number the member is asking for. It’s going to take some time to find it. We’ll get that back to him, and we can move on to other questions just for time-wise.
P. Milobar: One other clarification too. I noticed the minister said, “advertising standards,” but didn’t say to ensure that they’re non-partisan in nature or that they’re directing people to a government service. That was something that was left out.
No, sorry. The minister referenced non-partisan but didn’t reference the whole piece about directing people, in an ad, to a government service or how to access government support or help or a program, which was something that, again, the NDP railed on, in opposition, that needed to be a part of every government ad — directing.
I say that because there are billboards all over Victoria that say, “Child care is affordable,” and that’s it. That’s all it says. It doesn’t say how to link or anything else. It doesn’t say how to access child care. It doesn’t say how to get to a program or anything.
So there are some growing questions, especially as we get closer to election windows, on how this government chooses to spend the dollars of the taxpayer — especially, as I say, pre-2020 election, polling dollars went up to $400,000.
We’re in the window of an election year coming up within the next 16 months. It has to happen. Magically, polling is back up to $432,000.
Now, this coordinated person with the Premier’s office…. We’ve tried through FOI, and we can’t seem to get any answers. I know this is going to seem somewhat frivolous, but we have heard varying numbers, and some were quite shocking.
I’m hoping the minister can provide some insight into the various machinations that GCPE would have gone through, I am assuming, to coordinate with the Premier around his podiums, nicknamed the explodiums, and their hydraulic systems and everything else that goes into it. We’ve heard some very large dollar figures attached to those. Can the minister confirm (a) what those costs were, and (b) if they were over a certain price point, were those sole-sourced, or were they open bid?
Hon. K. Conroy: GCPE did not purchase or design a podium for the Premier. The podium is provided as a component of a standard kit as part of a service agreement with a third party that GCPE holds a standing arrangement with, as they would with anybody who needs adjustments when it comes to podiums.
P. Milobar: Okay. In terms of going back to the non-partisan ads and adhering to the standards, my understanding is those standards only apply to any ad purchase that’s over $250,000. Any ad buy that’s under $250,000 is an internal review. Is that the case or is everything an external review around whether or not it’s a non-partisan ad regardless of the price of the advertising buy?
Hon. K. Conroy: The non-partisan ad standards include both internal and external reviews of government information advertising expenditures by ministries under STOB 67, information advertising. The standards were developed following a review of current practices and guidelines in other jurisdictions, as well as the recommendations for implementation of non-partisan advertising standards by the Office of the Auditor General and three private members’ bills that were introduced in 2013, 2016 and 2017.
The B.C. government has engaged Advertising Standards Canada to conduct two-stage, independent, third-party reviews against non-partisan advertising criteria for advertising campaigns exceeding $250,000 — that includes the production and placement costs — at the draft creative stage, followed by a final review when creative materials are ready for publication or broadcast. Results from all independent, third-party, non-partisan advertising reviews with a value over $250,000 are posted online.
For information campaigns below $250,000, an internal review through a third-party contractor takes place to ensure the ads meet the non-partisan criteria. Advertising of any value must meet all the non-partisan advertising criteria before it can be released for publication or broadcast.
P. Milobar: Now, looping back in with the research that the government does this year with their $432,000 plus $100K for its new director of research, I guess the question would be: did we not have somebody in GCPE overseeing polling and research previously? Is this an additional hire, or is this an unfilled position that was sitting there desperate for someone to come in? Can we get a little more clarity as to why there needed to be an OIC, in particular, for one individual hire within GCPE?
Hon. K. Conroy: For the member’s information, there is an OIC for every single person hired in GCPE — just for clarification. This position was identified some time ago and has remained unfilled until recently.
P. Milobar: I’m just wondering, then, why it would be a position that has a fixed date in terms of October. It seems it’s only a six-month appointment from March to October, and then it doesn’t continue on. It would seem continuity might be important in a position like that.
Hon. K. Conroy: This is a common practice.
P. Milobar: We’ve had a long list, $2.715 billion, of supplemental estimate items that recently were dealt with by this chamber. I’m just wondering how much, if any, was spent on polling. Well, I’ll call it “research,” just so the minister doesn’t say, “nothing,” because it wasn’t polling in her mind. Was research done in regards to any of the items on the supplemental estimates list?
Hon. K. Conroy: There’s no research on any of these items specifically.
P. Milobar: Has there been research done, or is it budgeted to be done, around decriminalization?
Hon. K. Conroy: At this time, there is no research planned on decriminalization.
P. Milobar: Just a couple more items on this area. How about anything done or contemplated to be done on the housing plan or the catch-and-release justice system?
Hon. K. Conroy: We’re just getting some exact information for the member, but I have a question for the member. We have representatives from the Crowns here today. We were going to be doing the Crown estimates. So I just am wondering if we could get an understanding of which Crowns we will still need, either before the end of the day or tomorrow, so we can give them a courtesy heads-up, if that’s possible.
P. Milobar: Sure. It’ll likely be BCLC and the Infrastructure Benefits. Those will probably be the two that would be most critical to deal with.
What’s that?
Interjection.
P. Milobar: No, I think we can move on from that. We only have a few hours tomorrow anyway, so it will be tight for time. Apparently. That’s what I’ve been told. We’ll see. I’ve been known to stretch it if I have to, though. Just ask the Environment Minister.
While we’re waiting for that answer, then, maybe I can just loop back and clarify around the decrim. I’d asked about planned or done, and I heard the minister say that nothing has been planned in terms of polling/research towards decriminalization. But if she’d said it, I missed it. Could I just get clarification on whether or not anything was actually done with polling/research around decriminalization?
Hon. K. Conroy: I just want to clarify with the member. Part of the reason we do the research is so that we can listen and learn and take action on priorities that matter to people.
We will be doing periodic research, which asks general questions on public safety, crime and housing, again, asking the public what’s important for them. We did hold focus groups, and focus groups are part of research. So that’s why it’s all categorized as research, because it’s a much broader topic. So focus groups are very much a part of research. We asked what supports people wanted to see when it comes to mental health and addictions, with a focus on decriminalization.
P. Milobar: I’m wondering if, again, “done” or “is planned” or “is underway” in terms of polling/research on the issue around the Surrey police transition has been done as well.
[J. Tegart in the chair.]
Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, we did research on the Surrey police situation.
P. Milobar: That’s interesting. We have a $150 million plan now for one form or another of policing in Surrey. Did that $150 million, brought forward for Surrey by the Solicitor General, go through Treasury Board?
Hon. K. Conroy: All financial matters go through Treasury Board.
P. Milobar: The minister is saying that it has already gone to Treasury Board. It has already been approved, the $150 million that the minister has committed to Surrey, if they stay with the Surrey Police Service.
Hon. K. Conroy: Yes. Again, all financial matters go through Treasury Board.
P. Milobar: Well, Madam Chair, I guess I’m a little confused. We have a highly charged, dragged out process around the Surrey police force or the RCMP. It has been 4½ years now.
The government has just acknowledged that they have been polling in advance of making a final announcement of a report, which has been heavily redacted, on what direction they’re going to go in, with $150 million for one form of policing and zero dollars for another form of policing. I guess we can all guess what the research might have indicated to the government.
I’m a little surprised. My understanding is…. In the Solicitor General estimates, the Solicitor General said the $150 million had not gone to Treasury Board yet.
Could we get further confirmation from the minister around this?
Hon. K. Conroy: You can direct your question to the Solicitor General.
All financial matters go through Treasury Board.
P. Milobar: Can the minister inform the House, then, on what date she approved, as the head of Treasury Board, the $150 million for the Surrey police force and whether or not there are actually additional dollars over and above the $150 million?
The Solicitor General, again, has indicated the $150 million might not be the end number. They’re open to negotiation and discussion with Surrey.
Hon. K. Conroy: We don’t disclose details of Treasury Board decisions.
P. Milobar: I’m simply asking for a date that this was approved. I’m not asking for the details of the decision-making. We already know government internal polling, paid for through GCPE, helped inform this decision by government, given that they were out polling on the Surrey police transition.
We have a document, which is 80 percent redacted by the government, that is supposed to provide us the basis of this government decision. The Solicitor General — now, maybe it’s because he’s still a rookie in this place — has indicated that it went to Treasury Board. I would assume the only member of the government from the ’90s, the Solicitor General, who was in cabinet then and is in cabinet again, understands how Treasury Board works and how that process works. He has indicated that this had not gone to Treasury Board. We have the Finance Minister saying it had.
I think the residents of Surrey and the council of Surrey, at a minimum, if not all the taxpayers in British Columbia, deserve a little bit more clarity on something as important as a five-year commitment of $30 million a year, which may or may not have gone to Treasury Board and which would likely have to be funded through this minister’s contingencies, as she ultimately has responsibility for in this budget.
We’re simply asking for a date that this went through Treasury Board. Is the minister trying to say that even the date of a Treasury Board decision is confidential?
Hon. K. Conroy: I can’t speak to what was or wasn’t said in other estimates. Again, the member needs to refer his questions to the Solicitor General.
We don’t disclose the agendas of Treasury Board.
P. Milobar: Well, again, I’m not asking for an agenda.
The minister can point to former ministers. I’ve been advised they would give up something as simple as a date of a decision. In fact, there are a few former Finance Ministers kicking around these chambers these days.
I’ve been around this questioning line on Treasury Board decisions over and over again with ministers, Finance and other ministers, over the years, in my few short years I’ve been here. Ultimately, after we do this back-and-forth for about an hour, the minister says: “Well, actually, I can give up a date.” A date isn’t actually, again, betraying anything to do with minutes, anything to do with what the discussion was.
I’m not asking if any of the members from Surrey, who might have been on Treasury Board, who are MLAs, were in the room for the vote and the discussion and what they had to say about that or not. I get that the minister might not want to convey that. I’m simply asking for the date the decision was made.
This is a report that the government has been sitting on for months and that Surrey has been waiting for. We’re well into this year’s budget fiscal year already. This is money that obviously isn’t identified in the regular budget. It would have to come out of contingencies.
Again, what was the actual date that the final sign-off on Treasury Board happened for the funds within the Surrey policing plan that was presented by the Solicitor General? Again, no discussion points, not how many meetings you had to come to a conclusion or a decision, just the date.
Hon. K. Conroy: Again, we don’t disclose agendas from Treasury Board.
P. Milobar: Well, I guess we can see why this has been voted the most secretive government in Canada. It is not a confidential piece of information. Dates get released by government all the time if they choose to, if decisions had actually truly been made, both in cabinet decisions as well as it relates to Treasury Board decisions.
The fact that we’re dealing with a document that the Solicitor General told us, “Why don’t you go read it?” during question period, when it’s been redacted by 80 percent, shows how much this government doesn’t want the full story to be out there. It breeds actual uncertainty, and it breeds skepticism in the public, and it will probably undo a lot of the polling that might have been done ahead of time for the government, when they want to keep on playing this game of: “We can’t tell you something as simple as a date.”
I guess I’ll ask the minister this question. The law was changed. The legislation was changed, enabling the minister or the head of Treasury Board to make unilateral decisions without a full Treasury Board meeting taking place. Was the decision based on a Treasury Board meeting or the minister herself just signing off on the payment within the Surrey policing transition plan?
Hon. K. Conroy: No, the decision did not go under the delegation framework that the member refers to.
P. Milobar: Sorry, just with the Crowns, I totally had forgotten. My colleague had a couple of pension-related questions for BCFSA, and I was hoping to sneak those in by end of day today. It just tweaked in my head when he walked in.
I do apologize for that. I wasn’t trying to be…. If they have left, if they’re able to come back tomorrow, if they don’t have to travel out of town, then we can always fit it in tomorrow. We’ll see where we get to that. We can wrap that part up by the end of the day, if need be.
In terms of the funds that were approved by Treasury Board for the Surrey policing and that report…. Again, I recognize the minister won’t get into the weeds on what the Solicitor General’s decision-making was or wasn’t in terms of which police agency to go with and which would receive money or not receive money. That would have formed the basis of the Treasury Board approval, one would assume, though.
We’ve also heard from the Solicitor General that that is not a defined number yet at this point — the $150 million. It could be for a longer period of time. It could be bigger dollars in the same time frame. It could be bigger dollars in a shorter time frame. That is all still being worked out.
It seems a little odd that Treasury Board would have felt that they had enough information to go ahead and make an approval and start talking publicly about it, given that when I just questioned the Health Minister the other day about a cancer centre in Kamloops, he couldn’t give me an answer as to even an order of magnitude of dollars because nothing’s gone even remotely near Treasury Board yet. Yet here we have a preliminary number, by the sounds of it, from the Solicitor General floated out there.
Again, this is quite serious, because it’s not just the Solicitor General. He’s also the Deputy Premier. We’re dealing with the Finance Minister. I mean, these are the highest levels of ministers of the Crown. The Attorney General would probably be the other of the trifecta of ministerial oversight.
It’s troubling when we’re hearing these slightly different versions again. It’s troubling for us, but there are close to one million people in Surrey wondering what the heck is actually going on, moving forward, on a police transition that has taken 4½ years to get…. Now not even a definitive answer out of the province as to what is going to happen.
Can the minister confirm, first off, that these funds will have to be coming out of contingencies and new programs and, secondly, if $150 million was the approval number for Treasury Board, or was it a higher number?
Hon. K. Conroy: Yes. In general, new allocations, or things not budgeted for after the budget is tabled, can be funded out of contingencies.
P. Milobar: Thank you. That’s why I’m trying to get a date on the Treasury Board decision on this. We’re trying to determine whether it’s part of the existing budget or if it’s part of the contingencies in terms of that. Again, it sounded like the minister explained what contingencies are used for. But specifically, the $150 million for the Surrey transition, the recommendation by the Solicitor General for that — is that coming out of contingencies, or is that contained within the existing budget?
Hon. K. Conroy: I said, “in general,” and, again, I’m not disclosing information coming from Treasury Board.
P. Milobar: I’m not asking for information from Treasury Board, respectfully. I’m asking whether or not the $150 million referenced by the Solicitor General for the Surrey police transition is in contingencies or if it’s contained in the general budget.
Hon. K. Conroy: It was not contained in the general budget.
P. Milobar: Thank you. If it’s not contained in the Solicitor General’s $584 million policing budget that’s within this budget document, can I get confirmation, then, that it’s contained within contingencies, or is the minister saying it’s not actually identified in contingencies yet either?
Hon. K. Conroy: In general, that’s what contingencies are for.
P. Milobar: Again, this government wonders why people have skepticism on this whole plan and program for the Surrey police service versus RCMP and why the mayor and council and residents are getting frustrated by this government.
We have a report that’s 80 percent redacted. No clarity on that.
We had the Solicitor General, when asked whether it’s been through Treasury Board, say: “I’ll make a couple of points. First off, I do not — and no minister ever will — talk about the deliberations that take place at Treasury Board.”
He wouldn’t acknowledge or not acknowledge whether the money’s actually been approved, and I appreciate that. That’s why I asked staff to send me up the Hansard, to read it into the record, to make sure I was getting proper and accurate….
Interjection.
P. Milobar: No, I haven’t, actually. He hasn’t verified that it’s there either, if you read through the rest of it.
This minister, who’s actually in charge of the treasury, will not acknowledge whether or not the money is in contingencies, saying, generally speaking, that money that will be spent that’s not contained in the general budget comes out of contingencies — giving the answer of a definition of what a contingency fund is. It is not confirming for the residents of Surrey that the government has earmarked $150 million, potentially more, according to the Solicitor General, out of contingencies.
It’s a pretty straightforward question. These are budget estimates to try to figure out where the money is in this budget for government commitments. The government has very publicly committed $150 million to the city of Surrey if they do X. The simple question to the minister is: has that $150 million been assigned — $30 million of which would be this fiscal, I’m assuming, since it’s a five-year commitment — out of contingencies?
Hon. K. Conroy: The member, and we will get the Hansard, all along has been saying: “The minister referred to an exact amount.” Now the member just quoted what he said in Hansard, and the minister did not refer to an exact amount. In fact, the minister said what I have been saying all along: that we will not have a discussion about what is discussed at Treasury Board in this chamber.
So if the member would like to continue asking questions about the Surrey police, he really needs to refer those questions to the Solicitor General, who is the one that is taking the lead on that file.
P. Milobar: As I said, I was paraphrasing my understanding of what was said in the other House, which is why I asked staff to get me the exact wording. Now, the minister did not confirm it had been through Treasury Board either, to be clear to the minister. He didn’t confirm that it had been to Treasury Board either. The people of Surrey would like confirmation that the money they’ve been promised is actually there.
The minister can, say, refer me to the Solicitor General. However, the relevant vote, subject to debate, contingencies and new programs, is directly under the control of the Minister of Finance. There is no $150 million for the Surrey police transition, which the Solicitor General has promised, without the okay by the Finance Minister. She is in charge of the spending of contingencies. The minister has already confirmed that it is not part of the Solicitor General’s existing police budget in this year’s budget.
I’m simply asking if the $150 million has been approved and is being funded out of contingencies. If it’s not being funded out of contingencies, could the minister show us where the money is coming from?
This is a commitment of spending that this government has made, very publicly, to a city with almost one million people in it. I think they deserve a clear answer of where exactly in this budget the money for this transition lies. One would assume it’s in contingencies, but the minister seems to not even want to acknowledge it’s in there, which makes one think it actually hasn’t been approved at Treasury Board yet.
Hon. K. Conroy: Again, I think I have confirmed this, but all financial matters go to Treasury Board for discussion. New allocations or things not budgeted for after the budget generally could be funded out of contingencies.
P. Milobar: Generally can be funded out of contingencies, but there are other areas that things can be funded, if the government chooses, in terms of internal transfers, especially as it relates to capital funding. I’m simply asking, again, not for a dance-around answer. One would think it would be a pretty simple answer for the government.
There are contingency funds. People expect those to be funding things, as the minister keeps saying — what a definition of a contingency fund is. She has established that the money is not in this year’s annual police budget for the Solicitor General. A commitment has been made for spending to Surrey, if they choose to go down a certain course. So I think it’s important for them and their decision-making to know that the money is truly there and committed by this government.
I don’t understand why it’s so hard for the minister to just acknowledge it’s coming out of contingencies. I’m not asking about Treasury Board. Everything in this budget, as the minister has pointed out, has gone through Treasury Board, yet we don’t hear: “Well, I can’t talk about that commitment government made because it went through Treasury Board.”
We’re asking where in this budget would lie the commitment, the funding, the dollars that were committed by this government to Surrey, if they choose to go with the Surrey Police Service…? Where in this budget that lies. I’m asking for confirmation that it’s in contingencies, and I have yet to actually have that confirmation.
Hon. K. Conroy: All financial matters go to Treasury Board to be approved. That’s what I’ve been saying since I started answering the member’s questions. The member is surmising, putting words into my mouth that I have not said.
I’ve said that all financial matters go to Treasury Board to be approved. Any initiatives that are new or not tabled with the budget, these types of new initiatives, would be funded under contingencies.
P. Milobar: Well, the confusion for Surrey…. This is the government’s making of confusion, frankly. You have the Solicitor General, who says: “I do not and no minister ever will talk about deliberations that take place at Treasury Board.” Fair enough.
This minister acknowledged on my first question that it actually had been approved at Treasury Board but wouldn’t give any other information. My first question was: has it gone to Treasury Board?
The problem, and this is where I’m trying to find $150 million and get a very clear answer, is that the Solicitor General also said:
“What’s also important is that we’re not going to go into the city of Surrey and say: ‘Oh, here it is. Take it or leave it.’ We want to work with them on what they’ve identified as their numbers. My ministry will sit down with the city of Surrey, go through the report and the new information that they need in terms of their decision-making process. We’ve made it clear we want to work with them on those costs so there’s not a burden on the Surrey residential, or the Surrey business, taxpayer.”
That sounds like dollars are still being discussed, and there’s no finite dollar figure yet. There are other, similar quotes to the questions in his estimates.
Again, I guess I’m trying to get a very clear answer on this one specific spending commitment by the government. Has $150 million for the Surrey police service been approved to be spent out of contingencies? Now, this is no different than me asking a question of $432,000 being spent out of the GCPE budget for polling. That would have been approved by Treasury Board, technically, as well, as part of the overall GCPE budget.
If it was going to be funded out of Treasury Board, or out of contingencies, and I said, “Is $432,000 coming out of contingencies?” that probably wouldn’t be a hard question for the minister to answer either, directly. That is the context of asking this question.
Has $150 million in contingencies been committed to the Surrey police service transition, be it $30 million this year and $30 million every year after that, or $150 million just this year, and it sits in an account and gets drawn down? What is the sum coming out of contingencies for the Surrey police service?
Hon. K. Conroy: Just to clarify with the member, this is very different than the member asking me about a GCPE item that is obviously in the budget. What the member is asking me is not in the budget, is nowhere to be found in this budget, so it’s very much out of scope.
The GCPE number is in the budget. It’s there. Everything that the member was asking about in GCPE is specifically in the budget, which I could relate to, I could talk to. It’s in the budget. So just sharing with the member why that is very, very different from what he is asking now.
Again, contingencies are used for items new or not in the budget. The Solicitor General and I are very much on the same page. We both are agreeing with each other that we do not disclose details of what happens at Treasury Board.
P. Milobar: Again, I’m not asking for details of Treasury Board. This isn’t any different. This is the spending estimates, the budget estimates on spending for the provincial government. Contingencies have a few billion dollars in them that are not defined. Is the minister now saying that throughout the whole fiscal year, no questions can be asked about contingency funds that this government has in their budget?
Hon. K. Conroy: I’m saying I’m not going to disclose information discussed at Treasury Board.
P. Milobar: Well, every decision, as the minister has pointed out, for spending has to go through Treasury Board, which means every decision to spend any contingency money will have to go through Treasury Board. Again, based on the minister’s answers, is the minister saying that the several billions of dollars that are in contingency funds contained in this budget, that she has direct control over, that she is not prepared, throughout the course of this year, to answer any questions on those decisions of spending or amounts because it came out of a contingency fund versus a line item in the budget?
Hon. K. Conroy: To the member’s specific question on can we not have a discussion on contingencies, I just want to clarify.
The role of the Minister of Finance is to set out overall fiscal and policy direction in government, including contingencies vote. However, the specific programs and initiatives that are funded through the contingencies vote should be discussed with the individual ministers.
P. Milobar: Well, I’ll just read Vote 48, which this minister is responsible for, and then I’m going to turn it over to my colleague to ask some BCFSA questions. Vote 48, contingencies and new programs, says:
“This vote provides for additional funding for items budgeted in other votes to accommodate the financial consequences of unanticipated and contingent events. Unanticipated events include developments during the year that could not reasonably be anticipated when the budget was prepared. Contingent events include developments that could be anticipated but not with enough certainty to make a reasonable estimate of budget costs or where final costs are dependent on a pending decision by government or another party.
“This vote also provides for funding related to pandemic response and economic recovery, new initiatives under the CleanBC plan, ex gratia payments and the funding of new programs initiated during the fiscal year. Costs may be recovered from the federal government or other parties external to the provincial government for activities funded by this vote.”
That’s under the control of the Minister of Finance, Vote 48 around contingencies. I was simply trying to get a very simple, clear statement from the minister for the people of Surrey, who are going through a lot of uncertainty and turmoil right now, as to whether or not there was truly money identified and accounted for in this budget, through contingencies or in the permanent budget. The minister seems unwilling to provide that certainty for Surrey, and that’s fine. That’s her choice. But that’s simply all I was trying to do.
With that, I’ll turn it over to my colleague from Kelowna West to deal with some BCFSA questions.
B. Stewart: Thank you for allowing me to bring up some questions in terms of the regulator, the B.C. Financial Services Authority.
I just want to confirm that they are the regulator for a pension called the Interior Lumbermen’s pension plan No. 85224-2.
Hon. K. Conroy: Yes. In fact, the BCFSA is responsible for that pension plan.
B. Stewart: I just want to ask the question in terms of the oversight provided by BCFSA over these pension plans and just in terms of the overall breadth of what they aim to do as the regulator.
Hon. K. Conroy: The Pension Benefits Standards Act protects the interests of members of B.C.’s registered pension plans. Employers who participate in defined benefit plans, which this one is, are required to fund the benefits promised to their employees unless the employer is insolvent.
B. Stewart: Recently, I’ve been approached by quite a number of logging contractors that are both active and in retirement. They’ve recently received notification from the Interior lumberman’s pension plan that they may have some liability for unfunded liability.
I guess really the question…. I will be specific. Two of companies, Jim Lind Logging and Lindwest Holdings, were contracted under government contracts with Crown Zellerbach, Fletcher Challenge, Riverside, Tolko and, in 2004, were notified by the Ministry of Forests that they wanted to buy back those contracts.
It wasn’t initially how it was offered. At the end, they were bought out and, subsequently, the government also paid severance to the employees as they wound up their operations in West Kelowna.
The pension plan currently — the numbers I’ve been notionally told — has about 70 active logging contracting companies, 140 retirements. The Lind family is well established in the West Kelowna area, but they received this letter, November 4 of 2022, indicating that there was an unfunded liability because, partially, the reserve account had been allowed to drop down to a level of about 69 percent.
These people sold to government. Severance was paid, operations ceased and the equipment was sold. Here we are some 18 years, 19 years after the fact, and they’re getting a letter indicating that they’re potentially liable, or they’re going to receive some sort of invoice or determination sometime early this coming summer in terms of what their liability is.
You can imagine contractors that have sold and been out of business. There are a lot of things between that period of time that could have happened. There are a number of things in this letter that talk about whether it’s defined or direct benefit, but more importantly, as the regulator, it seems that something has happened where the oversight of the plan has not been monitored properly.
My question to you is: how often do they look at these and report to yourself, as the ministry and minister?
Hon. K. Conroy: The BCFSA’s responsibility is to administer the act, and the act is there to protect the members of the pension plan actually receiving the pension. They also have the responsibility to review the plans every three years, and they have ongoing discussions with the trustees of the various pension plans.
Now, it’s the trustees that have the fiduciary responsibility to their members, and their members are those people that are receiving the pension — not the employers but the members receiving the pension. It’s the trustees who have taken the steps to protect their members in this case.
B. Stewart: I appreciate that that is the hierarchy and the responsibility. However, the question really is that in 1978, this plan was brought in, to make certain that employees that were working for independent contractors had some benefits. It was targeted at the time. Of course, the oversight was through BCFSA. That is important.
What I can’t understand is that the letter…. I’ll just read you a paragraph here. It’s not signed; it just is identified as from the plan. It says:
“The plan continues to have a solvency deficiency in respect of the benefits earned under it before 2017, including the benefit earned by your organization’s employees. The plan’s trustees have implemented numerous measures to address this solvency deficiency. However, they have now determined that all employers who left the plan when it had a solvency deficiency must pay the portion of the plan’s current solvency deficiency attributable to their employee benefits. If that portion is not paid, the benefits payable to that employer’s employees must be reduced to the planned solvency ratio, currently estimated at 69 percent.”
Besides the Linds, who sold their business over 18 years ago and have been out of the business…. You can imagine this unforeseen liability. I guess my question really is…. I’ll just mention another name. I met with a fellow by the name of Scott Horovatin. The family is a multigenerational logging family. The father has passed away, the mother is living in the house, and now they feel that they’re being threatened and may lose some of their homes that they have, just to pay this deficiency.
I guess what I’m really asking is: what type of accountability is on BCFSA to ensure that these individual plans are meeting their solvency requirements and not coming up, almost two decades later, asking for money from these people that are long since out of the business and may not, or likely don’t, have the money?
I could show you court cases that are ongoing right now with small contractors being sued by the insurance plan. I just don’t think that this is right. It seems to me that BCFSA should have caught this a long time ago and raised the alarm bells.
If you could help me understand, how are these logging contractors, which have worked in these communities for generations, expected to come up with this deficiency? It’s probably because the oversight by the trustee has been insufficient.
Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for raising this. I know it’s a difficult situation.
Trustees have that fiduciary duty to administer the plan in the best interests of the members and in a manner that complies with the act. In doing so, sometimes the trustees have to make tough decisions to balance the plan’s challenges with its long-term sustainability.
The superintendent of pensions and staff at the B.C. Financial Services Authority have actually been working with this plan for a number of years, many years, to help address its funding challenges.
Since 2016, several requests by the trustees for funding relief, within the constraints of the act, have been granted. But in February of 2021, the superintendent’s staff determined that continued funding relief wouldn’t address the plan’s long-term funding issues. So the superintendent asked the trustees to develop a strategy to address those issues. It’s up to the trustees to address the insolvency issues.
BCFSA acted, as they were required to do, to direct the trustees to deal with the solvency deficit so members could receive their pensions as was expected. Just so the member realizes, this is a defined benefit plan. So the legal obligation to the members is to pay them the pension that they are expected under a defined benefit plan. Again, BCFSA has done their due diligence in trying to ensure that the trustees deal with the insolvency of the pension plan.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:25 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
PUBLIC SAFETY
AND SOLICITOR GENERAL
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); A. Walker in the chair.
The committee met at 1:33 p.m.
The Chair: Good afternoon, everyone. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order.
We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.
I now recognize the minister to move the vote.
On Vote 42: ministry operations, $1,013,019,000 (continued).
R. Merrifield: In the same report that I referenced earlier, the coroner’s death review panel on IPV, or intimate partner violence, there were three recommendations that were made.
I’m just going to read one of the recommendations, which is No. 3, and it says: “enhance IPV data access, quality and collaboration, including a provincial office of domestic violence that will coordinate dialogue between the office of the chief information officer, justice and public safety sectors to clarify the legislative authorities for sharing information between providers and service agencies to support victims of intimate partner violence and their children.”
Could the minister just give me an update on the provincial office of domestic violence as to where it’s located and where in the budget it’s funded?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The office was transferred to my ministry. The program was transferred to my ministry in 2017-2018. That means that it aligns the domestic violence programs within the ministry, allowing for a harmonized approach between my ministry and the gender violence programs and domestic programs and other forms of gender-based violence.
We are spending approximately $54 million in funding to support the 400 victim services, including the $10 million for sexual assault centres. So it’s now all in my ministry.
R. Merrifield: Where is the provincial office of domestic violence located?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It will be located in the community safety and crime prevention branch. That’s where all the policy work for the programs takes place.
R. Merrifield: Could the minister then tell me exactly what is the allocated budget to the provincial office of domestic violence?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Is there a stand-alone office? No. Is the function still there? Yes, and it has been since 2017. The funding and the policy work continues that was in place, along with increased funding in terms of sexual assault centres, as amongst other programs.
R. Merrifield: Thank you, Minister, for the answer to the question.
The minister has talked about additional funding for sexual abuse victims, which is fantastic. However, domestic abuse, intimate partner violence, is not always sexual in nature, so there are very different aspects to that.
The coroner’s report actually describes that the function of this office was to be a coordinating branch. As I have been punted around three different ministries to try and ascertain the collective collaborator who is actually coordinating all of these efforts, it’s become apparently clear that nobody is, that there are separate efforts being made.
I won’t discount them in terms of what the minister just talked about, but there’s not that domestic violence provincial office that is actually looking at all of these different aspects and understanding how they are working together. If there’s some urgency in my voice right now, it’s actually because the situation is so urgent. We saw domestic violence and intimate partner violence actually decrease from 2009 to 2016. Since 2016, we have absolutely been on a horrific trajectory, and the lowest increase was actually 13 percent. That was the lowest increase since 2016.
We know that the pandemic of 2020-2021 was horrific for those that were victims of intimate partner violence. They were literally locked inside their homes with their abusers. So if there’s some urgency in my voice and some pleading with the minister that this actually be a coordinated effort, that all of the different ministries would have a coordinator to come together and bring all of these different aspects together, that would be greatly appreciated.
My final question will be this. Will the minister commit to funding this particular office that was described in great detail in the coroner’s report and actually given voice in the coroner’s report as to what it was supposed to do and the function? Will the minister commit to not just the functions being diluted throughout the different agencies, but actually a coordinator of all of these functions today?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for her question, and I understand the urgency and the passion to which she brings that issue because I think we all share that. We know that domestic violence, intimate partner violence, gender-based violence is a terrible thing, and it’s unacceptable.
I also want to assure her the work is being done with the gender equity office and the gender-based violence action plan, coordinated in my ministry. That work is underway. There’s an ADM committee where all relevant ministries are involved.
There’s also an external advisory committee. So we’re working to ensure that not only the policies, but the programs that need to be placed, are in fact happening and that people are working together. And when I say gender-based violence, that includes intimate partner and domestic violence. I hear what the member is saying, but I also want to assure her that the work that is required is underway.
M. Morris: Just a little follow-up to my colleague’s questions as well. Domestic violence is a serious situation in many communities, as the minister is aware. And again, I go back to the communities of Kwadacha and the very remote communities where there are few, scant resources available for the members when they attend these kinds of complaints and no resources available for follow-up.
I’m wondering if the minister or the police services or somebody has been looking at this to figure out what kind of a task force, perhaps, or what kind of resource can be made available to reach out to those isolated communities to provide that service.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. We are aware, and we know the challenge that the member is talking about. There’s ongoing work within the ministry on the broader issue. But in terms of the specific issue, as the minister is relating to northern, in particular, remote Indigenous communities, we are actually actively working on procurement at this point to be able to put in place additional sexual assault services specifically earmarked for Indigenous communities.
D. Clovechok: Around the safer communities action plan, my colleague asked if I had a question, and I do. I’m wondering, given the communities that I serve, which are, as you know well, Revelstoke, Golden, Invermere, Kimberley, all with four detachments, staff is small. Invermere is an 11-member detachment. The other ones aren’t that much bigger. Yet between May and October our population, because of tourism, increases 30,000 to 40,000 people. That puts an enormous amount of stress on these detachments. We’ve got a couple of reservists that are working right now trying to fill in those gaps, and we’ve got positions that are not filled.
You add the tourism onto the decriminalization of hard drugs…. Albertans — and I say this with all due respect to Albertans; not only Albertans, but everybody else — are already coming to our area. And it’s the Wild West.
That’s going to put an enormous amount of pressure, we think. This is an experiment. We don’t know what’s going to happen, but it’s going to put an enormous amount of stress, potentially, on our members where there already are stresses with 30,000 or 40,000 tourists. I’m just wondering: under this safer communities action plan, is there any plan to increase those law enforcement positions? I know it’s hard to find members, but it’s going to have an impact on our communities.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question. I appreciate the challenge that communities such as his face, particularly in the summer season. We work with the RCMP….
I know a lot of the communities you represent are just under the 5,000. They’re also under the 15,000.
In terms of the rural areas and some of the smaller communities, that’s why the provincial business line…. As I said, when we work with the RCMP on determining caseload, particular challenges in particular areas…. We’re working with them on identifying priority areas. They will do seasonal increasing in particular areas. Again, we work with them on that.
There are the search teams that are in Prince George, Kelowna, Kamloops. I think Kelowna would be the one, probably, for your particular area. They’re able, the four members located there, if there’s a need, to put them out there.
There is the ability, within the RCMP, to get extra resources to deal with, on a seasonal basis, in some of the communities you’re talking about…. As well, the additional officers that we’re looking to hire, on the provincial business line I talked about, can assist in the rural and smaller communities in your riding.
D. Clovechok: Thank you for that. I totally understand the math behind it all.
One of the things that the municipalities are looking at now, in terms of decrim, is putting bylaw officers in place to enforce whatever bylaws are passed.
The biggest concern that I’ve heard, and even from the RCMP, is…. When you take these bylaw officers, who may not have the police training or may not have any training, for that matter, other than bylaw training…. You’re going to put them at risk. When you’re going into a park or when you’re going into a beach, like Kinsmen Beach in Invermere, where someone is shooting up…. It puts them at risk.
I’m just wondering what your vision would be for communities like my communities to deal with those issues when the RCMP are out doing what the RCMP do. I think there’s going to be a gap there somewhere.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. This is something the special committee on police reform looked at.
I can tell you, in terms of the continuum of enforcement…. Obviously, if bylaws are doing enforcement and things are going fine, that’s fine. But if they’re finding that there is a challenge, then, obviously, police are there to do what the police do, in terms of ensuring that laws are being followed. That’s why we want to make sure that the resources are there to be able to meet those seasonal surges that occur in communities like yours.
Okay. I won’t comment on hordes of Albertans coming.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I know. I know.
Those are the kinds of things police are able to act on, and that’s why we want to see those additional resources there. As I said, there are existing ones, in terms of the surge capacity, but there is also the ability for seasonal resources in areas such as yours.
M. Morris: I was posted in Alberta once. I had Alberta plates on my vehicle, and I was treated like a tourist every time I came back to my home in the province here.
I want to carry on with our First Nations topic for now. I just want to go back, though, to a question. I don’t know if I understood the answer.
I’m just wondering if there’s some kind of document or paper available that the police or police services use to determine the metrics necessary for caseload management per police officer.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The short answer is…. It’s not a piece of paper. Rather, it’s a process, with the RCMP looking at all of the things that, in fact, the member has raised: population movements, caseload, demographics, crime rates, remoteness. All of those things, together, are forming, part and parcel, how the decisions are made. But it’s not specifically a piece of paper.
M. Morris: Years ago I was in a position where I was able to get some money through the RCMP. I was a district officer at the time.
I commissioned a study that ended up being entitled “A 30 Year Analysis of Police Complexities and Costing,” or something like that. It laid out a number of those factors. The report was published by the University of the Fraser Valley in about 2004 or 2005, I believe. A lot of those metrics were included in that particular report. So I just throw that out there.
Can the minister name the First Nations communities where additional RCMP resources will be added and the timeline for those resources to be in place?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The work is underway with the RCMP on determining where those resources will go, as I said in the earlier answer. That operational decision is the RCMP’s, but we are superintending that to make sure that they’re going to the communities that need it. We’re very much involved in that, but we don’t have a list as of yet.
M. Morris: I think the minister said there are 52 positions planned for 2023 and 125 for 2024. Pretty aggressive staffing levels.
Out of the 52, for example…. Where would the minister determine the priorities? I know the police are responsible for this. I’m sure he must have a pretty good picture of where the priorities would be right now. Where do First Nations remote communities come into play as far as the priorities go?
Hon. M. Farnworth: There are three, and I’ll say they’re equal priority areas. One doesn’t trump the other. They are rural policing, major crime and highway patrol. That’s what we want to work with the RCMP in determining, saying, “Look, these are three priority areas for us. Let’s work in terms of now. Within that, where do we base the new resources?”
M. Morris: I can certainly understand that priority list.
How many positions are currently funded federally for First Nations policing in B.C.?
Hon. M. Farnworth: They are funding 117.5 positions.
M. Morris: So 117.5. It has increased slightly over time.
How many First Nations communities do we have in B.C.?
Hon. M. Farnworth: There are 204 First Nations in the province.
M. Morris: How does British Columbia fare in comparison to other provinces in Canada with respect to the numbers of federally funded police officers for First Nations?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I think it’s an important question today, and it is definitely going to be an important issue going forward.
It’s an issue that I have raised at a number of FPT meetings with the federal government, starting with getting them to actually fund — because we’ve had this discussion in the past — the positions that they’re supposed to be funding.
I think there’s a difference between how the First Nations policing operates in this province compared to other provinces. In part, it’s a relation to the history in British Columbia. In Alberta, there are some significant First Nations policing reserves and First Nations policing detachments. We don’t have that here in British Columbia yet.
What I can tell the member is that in the meetings I’ve had…. We referenced Prince George in an earlier question. Whether it’s at the First Nations leadership group or whether it’s at UBCM, I’m seeing an increased desire for either more, as it’s referred to, tribal policing — to be able to do their own policing — or more RCMP First Nations policing.
It varies from nation to nation — the path that they would like to go. In many cases, it’s dependent on capacity. Within the ministry, we are working with different nations on the approach that they would like to take. Some have said they want to go to their own policing. Okay, we can work with them on that. But many others are saying: “We want to have more First Nations RCMP officers.” Again, it’s a question of getting those First Nations recruits and candidates in place, and that’s not easy.
In my discussions with my federal counterparts, both the previous minister, Blair, and Minister Mendicino indicated they want to see, at the federal level, significant improvements and an increase in First Nations policing.
M. Morris: Good to hear. Of course, it’s an ongoing struggle. I remember many of those meetings I attended myself. In fact, there was a First Nations policing review, a federal review, that was done a number of years ago. I think it was probably about the time we switched roles, somewhere around then. They asked me what my thoughts were, and I just drew out of my experience. I said we probably need 500 more, which I don’t think is an unreasonable amount.
In my role as an HR officer for southern Alberta, I was very much involved with staffing a lot of those First Nations areas and having to fill in on the First Nations tribal police forces that we did have. There are a number of things that surface when you have First Nations policing. I experienced it, as well, in Fort St. James, with a special constable program that we had way back in the ’70s.
You would have individuals, from their own communities, policing their own communities. The enormous pressure that was placed upon them by family members and others in the community almost rendered them…. They were incapacitated. A lot of them were demoralized to the point of never returning to policing again.
I think all those things need to be looked at. When you have a large community like Surrey or Prince George, people can return to their communities and operate without too many of your schoolmates reminding you of what you did when you were in grade 12. I hope that is taken into consideration.
Has the minister ever presented to the federal government as to the numbers we feel are necessary — not the level of funding, because I know there are various funding formulas for this, but the numbers of First Nations policing that we need to fulfil the current First Nations policing model.
Hon. M. Farnworth: We have not asked for a specific number. What we have asked for is increased flexibility, in terms of the funding, to be able to operate in the context that we have here in our province. Part of the message and part of the work that we’ve been doing has been dealing with those issues of, okay, which nations and the capacity — the way that they would like to go forward.
The point you raise is a real…. In many ways, if you live in a small community and you know everybody, you do face enormous pressure. We know that’s a challenge.
It’s interesting. One of the things that came up at the last FPT related to…. Alberta was raising the concern, and it was one that we had not realized. It’s something, if we see an expansion in First Nations policing…. It was a very interesting one.
One of the major reserves outside of Calgary was losing officers to the Calgary detachment because, and I was quite surprised to hear this, the First Nations police did not have a pension plan. The other police all had a pension plan.
So the Alberta minister was asking the federal government: “Look, change it, so we can….” The nation wants to have policing. They’ve got people who want to do policing, and they’re losing policing. So that’s an example to me and what you have outlined in terms of small communities.
The way we have to think about the challenges that First Nations have in terms of policing and the resources that are required, the capacity, the geographic location, the demographics, the rate of crime…. All of those things have to go, in my mind, into how we move forward in terms of First Nations policing getting more recruits, getting them in the right community so that they don’t end up, as you said, becoming demoralized and then turning away from what should be a rewarding career for a lot of young people.
M. Morris: Very good and valid points. The other part of that, as we all know…. We see the scrutiny that police officers are put under right across Canada. It doesn’t matter what jurisdiction they’re in. The expectation is that anybody who is a police officer almost has to be a perfect citizen in all respects. So that’s tough enough as it is.
The accreditation required for an individual to maintain the trustworthiness of the public as a police officer and enforcing criminal law and the social justice issues that hit any community are enormous and significant. It’s a big package that needs to be looked at down the road here.
Does the province still have tripartite positions in the province, and are those 117.5 all tripartite positions?
Hon. M. Farnworth: We have 59 community tripartite agreements with 132 First Nations.
M. Morris: Just a nod of the head. Does that include the 117.5, or is this above the 117.5?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It includes.
M. Morris: I know there are a number of small First Nations communities with two or three or four members stationed there, and the cost of building facilities in those locations is enormous. What is the minister’s position on this? Is this included with the plan to add more resources in these communities to ensure there’s accommodation for the members when they get there? The office is sized appropriately for the new members going into those areas?
Hon. M. Farnworth: We are able to access…. We obviously recognize there are always challenges in this regard. But there is a program in place that the feds have, which we are able to access, the First Nations and Inuit policing facilities program. That is able to provide both accommodation and facilities for First Nations communities when additional policing is provided.
M. Morris: I haven’t heard of this program before. It’s interesting. How long has it been in effect? Is 100 percent of the capital costs of these additions included in that agreement?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s been around for a while, actually. It’s part of the framework agreement we have with Canada, and it’s on a 52-48 cost-sharing agreement.
M. Morris: Is any of the $230 million that the minister announced with this program allocated to capital, or would we be looking at another capital budget to provide for that?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Just positions.
M. Morris: I imagine there’s already some thought and discussion going on right now to provide the millions of dollars necessary. So 52 percent federal, 48 percent provincial, or is it the other way around for that agreement?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s 52 percent federal, 48 percent. I also just want to be clear, this is about the First Nations policing.
M. Morris: If we have a detachment, like…. There are a number of them out there — Takla, Kwadacha — that are not fully a tripartite. We’ve got provincial members in those locations as well. So the province would provide the 48 percent necessary for a tripartite First Nations position, and then we would have to come up with 100 percent of the costs for the provincial members that are there, including the provincial detachment?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. The way it would work on the capital side is actually literally exactly the way it would work on the human resources side. So if it’s 52-48 First Nations, it would be 52-48 of the capital and the same for 70-30 and 90-10.
M. Morris: No matter which way you cut it, it’s a lot of money. I remember being involved in building a remote detachment when I was a district officer, and I was floored by the expenses, getting everything into that small area.
A couple more questions, just on the First Nations. I’ve had a number of Chiefs and council members and band members from different locations. Being in Prince George is a hub. Everybody I’ve worked with in the past, out west and up north and all around, pop in from time to time for a coffee. They’re concerned about the 2½ grams of drugs that you’re allowed to keep in your possession. Many of the communities are dry communities, where they don’t want alcohol in those communities as well.
They were asking me about the ability of the RCMP to continue on seizing the small amounts of drugs that they find on individuals on the First Nations communities themselves. I said I’ll check on that, because I’m going to have you as a captive audience soon. I just wondered if the minister can provide any guidance to the First Nations with respect to that.
Hon. M. Farnworth: No, they don’t have the authority under the Health Canada exemption, but I can tell you that I am very aware of their views on this issue.
As I said, when…. I think we talked earlier about…. In Prince George, I said that there were some views that I think would surprise a lot of people. Those were amongst the views that they mentioned to me.
M. Morris: I see that as problematic. These small communities are struggling, and they don’t know who to turn to. One of the tools they use is passing band council resolutions to ban some of these people from their communities, and they go into the hubs like Prince George and the Terraces of the world, and they become the street people that are there. They suffer heavily from addictions. There are no services for them.
I spoke to a Chief, who I have high regard for, and he’s had to do this a couple of times, and he cries when this happens. He wants the police to help him. It’s a dry community, and he struggles to see these drugs coming into his communities and the overdoses that they’re getting in these small communities. They’re tragic. There have been several people that have died, in his but in other communities as well, as a result of just small doses. Children are getting access to these drugs as well.
This is a Health Canada…. Or this is a policy that’s been put in place. It’s not a law. It’s a policy, if I understand things correctly. The way that the Chief was asking is if it’s still against the law everywhere else in Canada to possess 2½ grams…. This is a provincial policy as an experiment in the larger centres that are being frustrated by this. He’s saying then that the RCMP should still be able to come in and seize the 2½ grams or less of these drugs. He said he’s desperate. He’s looking for any answers he’s got. There’s nothing preventing the RCMP on reserve lands from seizing 2½ grams or less of any of these hard drugs?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the issue and the question from the member. I just want to put in a clearer clarification too. They don’t have the authority to seize the 2½ grams unless they believe, or have evidence, that there’s trafficking going on — in which case they absolutely do.
M. Morris: Interesting point that the minister brings up. I’ve got two sons that are heavily involved in gang violence — on the police side; I’d better provide that clarification — and drug trafficking and whatnot. They have come up with several examples of where traffickers are now taking advantage of this 2½-gram limit, so that their street traffickers have no more than 2½ grams on them at any given time.
The same thing is applying into some of these smaller communities. They will make sure that they only have 2½ grams on them, but as soon as they get in through the community and it’s distributed, then they will go back and get another 2½ grams or more. They’ll have a safe house or a safe location. In many of the remote areas, they’ll drive, stash it somewhere along the road, and then keep going back to that stash for the entire time. So it has proved problematic.
I’m wondering if the minister or anybody has put their mind to how they deal with those kinds of things that are contributing towards increased trafficking.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. A couple of points.
First, it is a pilot project. Police are very much involved in the evaluation of it. Two, if there is evidence of trafficking, they absolutely can make an arrest.
Behaviour is also part of it — that they can do that — and information, such as what you’re sharing with me, also is part and parcel of the evaluation that takes place and that the police are involved in. As you know, it is a pilot, and these are the kinds of things that, obviously, form part of the evaluation of the eventual outcome.
M. Morris: What I’m hearing from the minister, then, is that these small First Nations reserves, very isolated, have no choice but to accept the fact that their citizens can bring in 2½ grams of fentanyl, cocaine, crystal meth or whatever it is.
At the same time, they have to leave any bottles of alcohol that are found. They’ll be confiscated by the band. Oftentimes they’re met — some of these are fly-in locations — and taken off the airplane and whatnot before they get into the community. But the 2½ grams of these very hard, dangerous drugs will be…. The Chiefs have no choice but to allow them on the reserve.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member raising the issue. I will make this commitment. On First Nations land, they have the ability to make their own First Nations laws, and often bylaws. We will look into the issue and ensure the information we have given you is (a) correct or (b) they do have that ability.
What I do know, and what I can reassure, is that if there is evidence, as I said, of trafficking or of the behaviour of trafficking, then absolutely, police can make arrests and charge. On the specific issue that the member raises, we will look into it for him.
M. Morris: I appreciate the answer, and I know the difficulties around this issue under the current circumstances. I would add that the police would love to charge, but they no longer have that authority since the Crown counsel act of 1974. I remember the good old days when we could swear our own informations. For several years, Crown counsel, provincial and federal, haven’t charged for mere possession in the province.
The likelihood of charges resulting from small amounts is pretty slim to none these days. In fact, charge approval for the more serious offences is even hard to come by these days as well.
I’m going to switch off from First Nations for a bit, but I’m going to come back to it later on and talk about cannabis sales on First Nations. I’m going to go back to the plan and put some general questions now, related to policing within the province under your community safety plan.
We’ll start with the RCMP marine section. Is the RCMP marine section fully staffed and all vessels operational today?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I can tell you that we are currently working jointly with the RCMP and with an independent contractor in reviewing their air and marine capabilities.
M. Morris: “Reviewing their air and marine capabilities” is a pretty broad statement. I’m curious as to the number of offshore vessels that the RCMP currently have operational. I know we had a number of catamarans added to the fleet back in my day. I know they’ve long passed their best-before date. I’m just wondering what the plan is in place for them, and how many are operational today.
Hon. M. Farnworth: That’s actually the assessment work that’s currently underway in what is currently operational: what are their needs going forward into the future?
M. Morris: Okay. It makes me tend to believe that it’s in pretty sad shape, perhaps, today.
We used to have the Inkster in my district, stationed out of Prince Rupert, a 75-foot catamaran that provided an invaluable service for all the remote First Nations communities along the Pacific coast and the Queen Charlotte Islands. Then there were three others, stationed out of Victoria and Nanaimo, to cover off the Lower Mainland and the southern part of Vancouver Island. Oftentimes they were used for operational platforms for issues that were taking place out on the ocean.
I’m hoping that that capability is still there, and if it’s not there, that it’s going to be remedied as soon as possible. I won’t go into detail on that, because I know there are a number of files that it generates there.
The minister mentioned air services. I was involved years ago, as well, in reinventing, I guess, air services for the province back in the late ’90s where we went to the Pilatus PC-12 as a platform for the pressurized aircraft. I’m just wondering where we sit today with air services. What kinds of innovation things are we looking at in the future? Are we adding more rotary-wing to the fleet? Where might those be looked at?
Hon. M. Farnworth: We’ll get back to you with that information.
M. Morris: The minister’s announcement stated that 277 new RCMP members will be added to the contract cap of 2,602. A couple of questions come from this. The 2,602 is based upon the contract when it was signed in 2012. Here we are in 2023, and our province has increased in population significantly in that period of time.
Has the minister looked at increasing the cap from 2,602 to an amount necessary to accommodate the new populations we’ve had and the increases to CFSEU, MCUs, all the other investigative units that see an increased workload as a result of that?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I’ll say two things. First, this is the first step, the first phase in addressing the situation that the member has raised. A key part of that has been literally a deep dive into the staffing and the resourcing around those numbers. We have done a lot of work on that. We identified that this is the area that needs the immediate attention. That’s why the funding was announced — to get those positions staffed, get those positions in place.
Then it’s working forward from that: “Okay, the population is growing. We have seen communities that were under 5,000 and that are now over 5,000.” This is the first step in what is going to be an ongoing project.
M. Morris: I keep reminiscing here. Back in my day, I used to look forward to these communities that went over the 5,000 mark or over the 15,000 mark, because it freed up provincial resources that we could distribute through the province here. That’ll be another bonus whenever we get to that point.
With the 277 new positions that the minister has announced, how many public service positions are going to be included in the proposition? There will be a number involved in this one.
Hon. M. Farnworth: There would be probably about 80 over the three years, in total.
M. Morris: Would the cost of the 80 be included in your $230 million?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it would.
M. Morris: What is the contract rate per FTE, per RCMP member, today, and what’s included in that cost?
Hon. M. Farnworth: We’ll get that information for the member.
M. Morris: That sort of leads into my next question. Is the minister contemplating body-worn cameras by RCMP members in E division and provincial and municipal — all business lines?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Currently there’s the trial underway in terms of body cameras back east, in the Maritimes. The plan is to have them rolled out here in British Columbia in a phased approach, detachment by detachment, in 2024. In the case of, for example, municipal detachments….
Body cameras are already used in certain situations now, as I know the member is aware. In the case of the VPD, they are doing a pilot, again, later this year with a plan to — assuming everything goes according to plan — roll out by 2025.
M. Morris: What’s the cost today for the body camera and all the supporting technology that goes with it?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s between $2,000 and $3,000 per unit, but we’re also checking, and police are checking, those rates during the pilot to get an actual, accurate determination of what the cost actually is.
M. Morris: It’d be interesting to see that rollout, and I think it will resolve a number of issues that are out there.
Going on to your violent offending intervention initiative that was announced as well, which includes your crime intervention hubs, comprised of police, prosecutors and probation officers working together…. Police and probation officers come under the minister’s ministry.
One of the comments that I…. I didn’t keep the quote here, but it insinuated, I guess, that the police weren’t providing the necessary information to prosecutors. I’m just wondering if there’s…. Did I misread that or mishear that, or is there an issue out there with the prosecutors not getting information from police?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ve not heard that issue, so I’m not sure where…. Let’s put it this way. That’s not a problem that I’ve certainly been made aware of or have heard of.
M. Morris: I read it somewhere in a news release, but I could…. I’m committing it to memory right now, so I won’t elaborate on that particular issue. I have heard it from different individuals as well, that the police provide prosecutors with a ton of information every single time. Are these hub positions, the police and probation officers, new FTEs that are part of your plan, or are they existing FTEs?
Hon. M. Farnworth: In the case of the policing resources, it’s additional financial dollars. In the case of the probation officers, it is new positions, 21 new probation officers. I know under the AG, because that’s out there…. I think it was an additional 40 prosecutors.
M. Morris: A little clarification on the police officer side. You talked about financial resources. Does that include a new position, or is it that we’re hiring or a municipality is hiring? What does that mean?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to clarify with the member. When he’s talking about the hubs, he’s asking about the prosecutors, probation officers and if there are additional police assigned to the hubs. Was that that the way I understood the question?
M. Morris: Yes. New FTEs, new police officer positions. These aren’t just taking somebody that’s already doing a job and putting him or her into a police position here.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the policing, it is the lead officers and officers specialized in dealing with violent offenders. They’re already on the ground. The Crown prosecutors, the additional probation officers with those new FTEs, and then the funding that the lead officers and the police are able to access from anywhere across the province, the site funding, to augment their investigations that they are doing in relation to particular individuals and violent offenders, repeat offenders. When I mention the additional money, that’s where they’re able to access it.
M. Morris: So let me see if I get this straight. I understand the additional probation officers. I understand that the Attorney is adding the 40 new prosecutors. But we are the policing side — I always use the royal “we,” still. The policing side is going to be using existing police resources, but you’re going to be providing them with more funding to complete the investigation or to ensure that the package is complete or…. I’m not sure what that…. It’s not costing the ministry any money for the policing side of it, other than an investigation?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Everything you said…. Then I’ll focus just on the financial part. So you’ve got the lead officers, those officers who specialize, the existing police on the ground dealing with particular individuals. The site funding is $16½ million over three years, and it is to be able to do the additional work that’s required in a lot of these cases. It may well be things such as intelligence gathering — surveillance, for example, as an example of the kind of funding that they would be able to access. Costs that normally would be borne by the local governments. Instead, we’re providing those additional financial resources so that they can do an even more effective investigation with these particular violent individuals.
M. Morris: My understanding of the way the system works today, and it’s a system that I’ve worked in over the years as well…. The police officer doing the investigation does a complete investigation and does the work-up and provides the complete package to Crown counsel for review, for charge approval or if it’s an in-custody hearing that has to take place.
That file normally won’t get by the supervisor reviewer if the police officer doesn’t have a complete file to begin with. So a lot of this work is already done. It goes to Crown counsel. Crown counsel will look at it, and it should be the complete package, and then they make the determination if it’s a charge approval or if it’s an in-custody. All the information should normally be in there now for the prosecutor to make sure that the judge is seized with the information — the complete history of the accused, the violence, the number of times he or she has been arrested in the last week, in the last day and all the offences that the person might be on probation for already.
All that is normally provided to the prosecutor now, in today’s world. Then the prosecutor feeds it to the judge, or should be feeding all that information to the judge. So I’m curious as to what this police position is going to do.
The minister mentioned surveillance. Oftentimes, if an individual is heavily involved in, it doesn’t matter what it is, and it’s suspected that they’re going to reoffend, in recent times the police would have a team ready to follow that individual once he was released in custody. Nine times out of ten, that individual would reoffend and they would rearrest him and bring him back and start the process all over again. But it got to the point where they didn’t have enough people to surveil all the people that were being released all the time.
Is that what the minister is talking about, when adding resources, that the police can now probably build a surveillance team to surveil all the violent offenders that are being released on a regular basis?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member is right in terms of the police investigation, the files going forward.
As I said, what the additional resources do is allow for better case management by having those probation officers and the prosecutors. But the funding in terms of the police, that doesn’t change. The police work doesn’t change. It’s not about new FTEs. It’s about additional funding that allows them to do additional investigative activities. Whether it’s overtime, for example…. It allows the police to do more with, as opposed to the resources that they have.
M. Morris: I’ve sat where the minister is sitting in the past. Oftentimes, much to the chagrin of the staff around me, I would forget from the time I was sitting down until the time I stood up as to what the proper, appropriate answer would be. So I certainly understand.
I’m going to go back to the policing component, because these hubs are comprised of the police, the prosecutor and probation. This is the way it was announced. The police are already there. The police are already doing their thing. So now this new initiative is going to provide overtime, if I understand correctly, for the police to do whatever extra duties they need.
I know they scramble. I talk to them all the time. They’ll pick up a bad guy for the 15th time in the month. They have him held in custody, and he has to go for a release hearing. Oftentimes it’s done by video and by phone, and it’s all done during the shift.
Sometimes they’ll have to extend the shift a little bit to accommodate whatever judge or justice is hearing the case from wherever they might be in British Columbia.
When I first heard this, I thought: “Okay, this is going to take pressure off of the police investigators themselves, and we’ll have a full-time policing position much like we used to prior to the Crown Counsel Act, in 1974, where we had a Crown liaison or a court liaison member that looked after sorting out all the files that went to court for that particular day and looked after all the first appearances and all of those kinds of things.” That’s what I was looking at.
This is not the case. This is nothing new for the police. There is no police person attached to this hub, per se.
[R. Leonard in the chair.]
Hon. M. Farnworth: In each of the hubs, there will be dedicated police officers. It could be RCMP. It could be municipal. In the case of some hubs, it could be both. They will work with Crown prosecutors and probation officers. So there is that coordination taking place.
M. Morris: It leads me back to the question I had earlier. Where does this position come from, particularly when we look at the 12 hubs? We’ve got 97 court locations across the province and well over 100 police offices throughout the province that will be feeding into this hub.
Where does that police presence come from? Is it an existing presence that’s going to be transferred into this hub, or is it somebody that’s going to be doing the hub off the side of his or her desk?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It is existing police who are already dealing with these kinds of offences. I said lead police before. They’re working with, now, dedicated Crown and dedicated probation officers. They’re working as a team, in a very collaborative approach, in dealing with these particular cases — in particular, violent individuals.
M. Morris: Is the police presence in this hub, then, an office-bound resource, with the police that review all these criminal files and are able to present them? Or is it…? In many cases, it’s the individual member who’s doing the investigation who puts the package together, who presents it to whoever is hearing the bail hearing or the first appearance or whatever. So who is this?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The police have indicated that there will be a lead police officer who will be at the hub, at the table, with the dedicated Crown, with the dedicated probation officers dealing with a specific target. It will not necessarily be the officer who is doing the investigation, but that will be an operational decision made by the particular police agency.
M. Morris: Okay. I can understand that concept. If the hub is located in Prince George, as an example, it would be a municipal city-paid-for individual that’s working in this hub with the prosecutor and the probation officer.
If the cases are from the surrounding area — Williams Lake, Quesnel, Fort St. James, Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Terrace, Prince Rupert…. A big area feeding into this one hub. I understand Terrace has its own hub as well. Who pays for that? How is that costed separately, and how do they keep track of that cost?
Hon. M. Farnworth: A couple of points I want to make. First, the targets — I’m using that term “targets” — are identified ahead of time. It’s not a question of somebody being arrested, and then the hub comes into action. The hub is there and is dealing with the target that’s been identified ahead of time. I think that’s an important distinction.
The other is that I know the member said, in the case of Prince George, and he mentioned Terrace…. Williams Lake is also its own hub as well. In terms of that Prince George area, it’s a big area. But there are a lot of other hubs besides Prince George.
M. Morris: Presumably, most of the targets will be from Prince George. It’s got quite a heavy…. We’ve had five homicides in Prince George so far this year and a couple of member-involved shootings this year. The caseload is well over 100 crimes per police officer in the city of Prince George. The provincial side is probably running a deficit there as well. I won’t get into those details right now. Fort St. John and Dawson Creek would be part of the Prince George….
What measures are there to ensure that whoever is doing that work, if it’s a municipal position, is being compensated? Or these communities — that Prince George isn’t paying the cost of looking after all these violent prolific offenders from the outlying areas.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. Obviously, there’s that concern about funding. I’ll make these observations. First off, they are now up and running. They’re getting them up and running. Everybody is working very collaboratively. Police are excited about this. The Crown are excited about this. Probation is excited. They think this is a really good initiative.
At the same time, whenever there’s something new, we want to make sure that it’s working right. If there are situations, as the member talk has raised, we will absolutely resolve it. That’s one of the reasons why that funding is there. You’re going to be able to deal with those kinds of situations as they arrive. But I think this is a new initiative. As I said, police are happy about it. I think there’s an opportunity here for it to really work.
M. Morris: Agreed. I think it is a good initiative. It was something that I suggested a long time ago — that we have dedicated Crown resources. Of course, probation knows these individuals inside and out, as well as the police do. It’s just that prosecution side making sure that the judge sees the information to make the proper decision.
One of the things mentioned in the news release about the hubs is that they’ll also connect offenders with services they need to support better outcomes. What does that entail?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s a case of identifying the resources in a community that are available to assist individuals with, let’s say, for example…. Whether it’s mental health or addictions or whatever, the police have let someone know: “You are on our radar.” And you are, in essence — I don’t like using the word target, but — a target. But: “By the way, we have also identified the services that are available to wrap around you to provide supports, ideally, to keep you from being a target.” That’s the intention.
M. Morris: It reminds me of the initiative that we brought in when I was the Solicitor General on ending gang life, violence and whatnot.
But this seems like an added workload to a police officer, a prosecutor and a probation officer in an environment where they’re already trying to feed this information into a judge. Is there going to be another position that’s going to be reaching out and doing all the outreach for that?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The probation officers — that is their job to do that coordination of the resources that are available.
M. Morris: How many probation officers per hub are we looking at?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The probation officers, the probation resources are already in place. The new positions — that will be their job, to do that coordination, because the probation officers are already doing the managing, but the new ones will do the coordination.
M. Morris: I imagine there was work done in order to come up with this model and an estimation of how much work would be out there. So what would the average file load for a hub be in Prince George? I know what it might be in Surrey, but Prince George and Williams Lake and Terrace…. What would the average workload be for that hub?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It is, on average, about 20 files per Crown prosecutor. Of the 12 hubs, six hubs will have two Crown prosecutors, and six will have one Crown prosecutor.
M. Morris: I’ll be looking forward to the outcome of the hub model. Hopefully, we’ll see some positive results at the end of the day. I’ll get into the targeting aspect shortly.
I want to talk…. I’m going to have a series of questions here dealing with prolific offenders and police. Just a bit of a preamble here first, directed to the minister and the director of police services.
Has the minister or the director conducted any review, under the Police Act, on the impacts — we’ll call it the catch-and-release system — that it has on police resources as it pertains to the increased risk of injury to the police officer or the accused from multiple arrests of historically violent offenders who often increase the level of resistance each time they are arrested?
That happens on a regular basis. I can remember individuals I’ve dealt with that will work out and do whatever they can so that the next time I arrest them…. They put up a little bit more of a tussle.
The increased incidence of police being confronted with loaded pistols, shotguns and other prohibited weapons by repeat offenders who no longer consider the justice system a threat.
An increased risk to officers’ mental health from being understaffed.
An increased risk to the integrity of criminal investigations due to excessive workloads. This goes back to what I talked about earlier, with the number of criminal files that an individual will handle, to the point where they start making mistakes on the investigations. There is no charge approval, or it goes to court, where the courts will identify a mistake that was made way back at the beginning of the investigation that compromises the investigation continuing.
The increased risk to public safety because of insufficient resources to respond to calls.
What I’m looking at is…. I believe it’s section 42 or 43 of the Police Act that provides the authority for these different studies or reviews.
Can the minister provide the number of officers who have been physically injured while arresting or attempting the arrest of individuals for each of the past five years?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the list of questions the member asked. In each of those questions, he raises, in my mind, what I think is a crucial issue, and that is that police face a very challenging environment these days on a host of fronts.
We see it not just here in this province but across the country — more willingness of individuals to use weapons than we may have seen in the past. We know there are issues around…. Where are those illegal weapons and guns are coming from? Across the border. All of those things.
It’s why the Premiers held a call with the chiefs of police of all the provinces to talk about violence against police. It’s why we’ve brought in the initiatives that we have, the initiatives that we’ve just been talking about — the safer communities plan, the SITE funding, the investments in the provincial policing line. All of those things are designed to give police the support that they need.
I can also tell the member that on a number of the questions that he raised in terms of statistics…. We have a number of those statistics, and I will get that information for the member.
M. Morris: To add to that list, then, can the minister provide the number of times the IIO has been called in due to injury or death to an individual in the custody or control of a police officer for each of the last five years as well?
Can the minister provide the number of officers who are currently off because of operational stress injuries or mental health concerns for each of the last five years?
How many police vehicles have been intentionally damaged by violent offenders trying to evade police in the last five years — and the property damage that’s also attributable to that with other vehicles and buildings and whatnot as a result of that?
Hon. M. Farnworth: We’ll do our best to get you that information and work with the police to get it.
M. Morris: I would, perhaps, add to the list….
There’s lots to think about here. This is serious, probably because I’ve got kids that are confronted with this all the time too. I’ve talked to a lot of members that are absolutely stressed out and burned out as a result of the increased level of violence that they’re facing every day. It’s tough for a lot of the detachments to muster a full shift to do the work.
To the minister’s knowledge, have police agencies calculated the cost of the perpetual cycle of prolific offenders cycling through the justice system, time and time again, on police time, dealing with the same offender time and time again, on community corrections, dealing with probationers who are continually breaching their probation, getting picked up by the police, getting released, on probation.
Oftentimes it’s a police officer dealing with the same individual for several days during the course of a month. That occupies time that he or she could be doing other things. I think it’s a significant cost.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question, and the member’s right. As I just said a moment ago, police face incredible pressures in doing their job, and we live in a much more complex world, in many ways, than when you and I were a lot younger than we are now.
I don’t mean to make light of things. I think that’s the reality, and that’s why the approach that we’re taking is to recognize that it’s not just about the enforcement side. The whole spectrum, on the social side, on the root causes of crime are just as important.
That’s one of the things that we’re trying to do with the safer communities plan. One of the things we’re trying to do is ensure that there’s better coordination. So let’s say, between my ministry, Mental Health and Addictions, Health, Social Services, those determinants, Housing. All of those things.
If we’re able to work on all of those things, they play an important role in dealing with fewer people offending, which is what police on their jobs want to see. It is a comprehensive approach that’s required. That’s the approach that we’re trying to take forward in dealing with the challenges and the issues that police are facing that the member has just raised with me.
[F. Donnelly in the chair.]
M. Morris: I certainly hear where the minister’s coming from.
How often in the last five, ten years has the minister or the director of police services exercised the authorities under section 42 or 43 — it’s been a while since I’ve looked at the Police Act — to conduct a special inquiry or do some research into a particular issue that might be plaguing police or might be affecting public safety in British Columbia?
Hon. M. Farnworth: We do engage in research with police into selected topics through the crime reduction research program. There are initiatives underway there. As regards section 42, I’ve asked my staff to go back and look over the last ten years to see if anything has been done under that section. In terms of research, it does take place, and there is a program where that actually happens.
M. Morris: Thank you for that, Minister.
Going back to the roots of crime, this is a topic we could talk about for days. The roots of crime, in my experience, have been rooted in alcohol and drugs, and have led to most of the criminal offences that I’ve ever investigated in my life, and I’m sure many other police officers.
Coupled with that is the acquired brain injury from years of drug abuse and overdoses and those kinds of things. So if we could satisfy that, I think we would probably solve 80 percent of the crime problems. But that’s a long way away.
I’m just thinking that as some empirical data or a platform to use for police agencies and public safety in British Columbia, a lot of the data that we’re missing here — the dangers to police, the proof that the violence is escalating by individuals who no longer have any fear of the justice system, for whatever reason — would populate reasons for providing more resources to police at the end of the day that will assist in determining what a Criminal Code caseload is per officer.
Also, bearing in mind the safety aspect for the officers from a mental and physical perspective. But also, a safety aspect for the accused that are being arrested, because the heightened violence is leading to injuries on both sides of the fence as well.
The more information that we have to populate our decision-making at the end of the day, I think, will lead to some better outcomes.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I think the member raises some very valid points. The more data we have, the better. Data makes for more informed, better decision-making and better programs and better approaches.
M. Morris: We’ll go back to special investigations, targeted enforcement. It’s the new program providing $16 million, I believe, for the program and strengthens targeted investigations and improves information-sharing between police agencies. Can the minister say how many new police officers will be attached to this program?
Hon. M. Farnworth: When we were talking about the hub program earlier — the site program, that funding — that’s what I was talking about when we were talking about that $16 million.
M. Morris: Is this program any different than the provincial tactical enforcement program that we had in B.C. for a number of years now — I think it goes back at least a decade or so — where they targeted the prolific offenders identified in their communities?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s modelled after that program, but it is different.
M. Morris: If the minister could tell me what the difference is, and also advise me whether the PTEP model is still in use in the province or whether it’s been abandoned.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, we still have PTEP. The priority of PTEP is gang offenders. The site is targeted to repeat violent offenders.
M. Morris: A pretty thin line that divides the two, I think.
From what I’ve been hearing, a lot of the violent offenders could be inclusive of a gang, whether it’s a gang like the Hell’s Angels or whether it’s a local gang but still participating in gang activity and whatnot.
The minister…. Again, I go back to the establishment of the special investigations targeted enforcement program that will strengthen targeted investigations and improve information-sharing between police agencies.
Is the minister concerned police agencies aren’t sharing information? Are there any police agencies that have developed their own unique information management system outside of PRIME?
Hon. M. Farnworth: No. It’s not about the police agencies not sharing individual…. It’s like once an individual is targeted, often the individual operates, sort of, in a number of communities, and it’s making sure that police are working together and all know that that one individual has been targeted.
The Chair: Members, we’ll just take a short recess. The committee will come back at quarter to.
The committee recessed from 3:41 p.m. to 3:47 p.m.
[F. Donnelly in the chair.]
The Chair: I’ll call the committee back to order. We’re in Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, on Vote 42.
M. Morris: Is the minister aware of any police agencies that are using information systems unique only to their police department? Or is everybody using shared information systems throughout the entire police universe here?
Hon. M. Farnworth: No. As far as we’re aware, everyone is using the same information system.
M. Morris: A couple of general questions on resourcing. I applaud the 277 new officers coming, but how does this reconcile with the overall vacancy pattern — we talked a little bit about this yesterday — and the attrition rate that the RCMP is expecting here? Do you see any issue getting those 50-odd resources for this year?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I can tell you that literally after we made the announcement, I was on the phone with my federal counterpart, saying, “Look, we are making this investment. It is for a real problem in what we’ve identified in terms of vacancies, and we want them filled.” We have worked with the RCMP, and we will be monitoring very closely to see that we get the resources that we have asked for.
M. Morris: Has the RCMP or the minister considered…? The RCMP bought CFB Chilliwack a number of years ago, and they’ve turned it into the Pacific Region Training Centre. I’m wondering whether there has ever been any thought — by the RCMP, by the minister or by police services — to look at the Pacific Region Training Centre expanding to accommodate all the cadets and recruits that British Columbia needs for the foreseeable future.
[R. Leonard in the chair.]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. As the member knows, Depot is the main training ground in the RCMP. They determine that model. I do know that they do the experienced officer training program out of the Pacific facility that the member references.
M. Morris: I’m aware of that. I do know that at one time Penhold used to be a training centre for recruits, and N division headquarters, Ottawa, also was a training centre, so it’s an option. I think if B.C. is still struggling to find the number of cadets that we need, it might be an option worth exploring.
I’m going to turn now to cannabis sales on First Nations reserves. Can the minister confirm that the Canada Cannabis Control and Licensing Act is an act of general application in B.C., and applies to all First Nations reserves?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it is a law of general application.
M. Morris: Are First Nations living on First Nations reserve land required to purchase all cannabis produced for retail only from producers who are federally licensed?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I think all cannabis in Canada is required to be legal and licensed when it’s sold and purchased.
M. Morris: So, just to confirm, for any First Nation that sells retail cannabis on First Nations reserves, that cannabis must come from a duly licensed federal producer?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, that is definitely government’s view.
M. Morris: Does the community safety unit have the legal authority to enter First Nations reserves and enforce the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.
M. Morris: Can the minister tell me how many complaints the community safety unit has received from the public regarding illegal cannabis sales on First Nations reserves in B.C. in each of the years since the act was brought into force?
Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the complaints, we’ll get back with that number. I can tell the member that there have been nine enforcements.
M. Morris: Nine enforcement actions on First Nations reserves?
Hon. M. Farnworth: That’s correct.
M. Morris: Did those result in seizure? Were there charges processed as an offence? Or was the administrative action taken?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it would have involved seizures and also, because it’s the community safety unit, the administrative penalty processes.
M. Morris: The administrative penalty process…. There would be a monetary penalty administered to the people involved in this. What was the monetary penalty, and have they all been received?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The value of the products seized is about $12 million. In terms of the administrative penalty…. There’s, obviously, a process that may well still be ongoing in a number of these seizures.
M. Morris: So $12 million worth of product was seized. It doesn’t tell me what the monetary penalties were and how many…. How much of that monetary penalty has been paid already?
Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the penalty, it would be the value of what has been seized. As to how much has been collected, we’re not in a position, at this point, to be able to say.
M. Morris: Just for clarification, then. You seized $12 million worth of product, but that isn’t the penalty. The person that has been involved is assessed $12 million more that they need to pay. Is that correct? Okay. Everybody nodded.
Is the minister aware of any intelligence from the policing community, through police services, of any organized crime involvement in First Nations retail sales on reserve lands anywhere in British Columbia?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I can’t share police intelligence, in terms of who is or is not involved, in the way that the member asked the question.
M. Morris: I’m certainly not asking for names or anything like that. I’m just wondering whether the minister is aware of any involvement of organized crime in selling retail cannabis or other drugs on First Nations reserves.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll make this observation. Is organized crime generally involved in cannabis or believed to be involved in cannabis? I would say, I think, it’s generally believed to be. But I’m not in a position to be able to comment on a specific group or a specific location.
M. Morris: I can certainly understand the minister’s sensitivity in answering that. Then we can presume that all illegal cannabis sales on First Nations reserves probably have some involvement in organized crime throughout the province, because that seems to be the predominant source of a lot of the illegal cannabis that’s grown in the province here. Is the minister concerned about that? When does the separation come, where the community safety unit will turn the investigation over to the RCMP, or how do the RCMP get involved in these types of investigations?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Two things. I know the member’s statement in terms of his general view on…. I know that that’s a view that he has put forward. The community safety unit works actively with the police of jurisdiction on investigating whether it’s an RCMP-policed community or a municipal detachment–policed community.
M. Morris: Is the minister concerned about the involvement of organized crime on First Nations reserves? One of the things that I’ve heard from chiefs over the years, and I’ve heard it recently as well, is that they’re afraid to get involved in the actual discussions around that within their communities because of reprisal from the people that are involved in selling the illegal cannabis on reserve. There’s intimidation. There are threats against family members, against property and things like that. So they don’t say anything. A lot of them don’t say anything.
I think it’s incumbent upon Public Safety to ensure the safety of those individuals when we see groups like that operating. I’m just curious as to the awareness that the minister might have of this and what approach he would recommend in these types of situations.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. Obviously, yes. As the Public Safety Minister…. Any public safety minister is concerned about organized crime, wherever it is, whether it’s impacting on reserves, off reserves — you name it. That’s why, one of the reasons, the community safety unit, as I said a moment ago, works closely with the RCMP, in terms of their investigations, or municipal police forces.
We also work with chief and councils because we have had…. In fact, I would say there’s been more of an uptake from chief and council, saying, “Look, we want you to deal with this particular situation,” and we most certainly will.
There’s also the education component, as well, that the CSU will do with First Nations on what they can do and how we can help them dealing with the situations that they may find themselves facing.
M. Morris: I anticipated that response from the minister because we can’t tolerate…. Organized crime has no place in British Columbia — period.
But it leads into my next question. How many First Nation communities have applied under the provisions of the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act to sell retail cannabis since the act came into force?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Currently, there are seven First Nations operating under section 119, and there are 15 licensed First Nations cannabis stores.
M. Morris: Good to hear. How many applications are outstanding at this particular time?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Currently, in terms of Indigenous retail applications, there are another two that are in progress.
M. Morris: I had a bunch more questions there, but I know the Greens will be coming in at five to spend some time on policing issues as well. I’ve got a couple of questions on the community-industry response group, and then I’ve got probably 15 or 20 minutes with the coroner and about 15 or 20 minutes with corrections as well. That should take us sometime between now and five o’clock.
The community-industry response group — the minister has allocated $36 million to this group. Does the minister see these costs increasing over time? Is this a permanent section? Or is this dealing with the issues currently being faced by the province?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question, and as we know…. I think we are all realizing — government is realizing — that this is a challenge that we have been facing, and we expect we will continue to face. As a result, we put in place a base budget, based on our experience over the last five years. We hope that…. It would be great if things died down and we’re not having to fund that. But the reality is that is what we’re facing, so we’re prepared for what may come in the future.
M. Morris: A couple of parts to this. On April 5, Chief Superintendent Brewer, in charge of this particular group, spoke to the media about the ongoing investigation of the Coastal GasLink investigations and stated they are closing in on the suspects. He also noted that they are suspects from outside of British Columbia who are known anarchists leading the criminal acts of violence.
In light of the Surrey stabbing on the bus, and the individual has been identified as belonging to…. The case is a terrorism case. The national security investigation unit was looking at that.
I’m wondering whether this particular investigation…. Have they elevated the status of the offence to include terrorism under the Criminal Code, where the minister has to approach the Attorney General to get permission to raise it to that particular level? I’m just wondering whether there have been any steps taken in that direction, whether the minister considers this to be an act of terrorism. I’m talking about the multi-million dollars of damage done to the equipment and the threats against the individuals in the security force out there, hired by Coastal GasLink.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. These acts are of serious concern to us as a government. What I can tell the member is this is still very much an active police investigation, and anything they need, we’re providing, if they request anything. I hope they are able to bring it to a conclusion, and I hope whoever is arrested faces the consequences of that through our justice system and faces the criminal penalties they deserve.
M. Morris: Thank you for the answer to that.
I know section 83 of the Criminal Code talks about the proceedings needing permission of the Attorney General to proceed as an act of terrorism in British Columbia, or anywhere in Canada for that matter. I’m just more or less interested in the minister’s perspective on that and whether he would support that once the investigation had proceeded to that point where proceedings are underway.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. I think in a situation like that, you would make a determination once you received the appropriate information from the police, but you wouldn’t do it before that.
M. Morris: Noted. I do know that you’ve got to wait for the outcome of the investigation. From the seriousness of the offence, I think it’s something that probably would be looked at anyways, at the end of the day, so I look forward to that day coming.
Those are the questions. I would have lots more — I find this subject fascinating — on all of these things that we’re talking about, but in the essence of time here, we’ll now switch to either corrections or coroner. I’m easy with either one first.
Interjections.
M. Morris: Coroner. Over the past five years or so, I’ve received several inquiries about the Coroners Service not responding to natural deaths at residences or not responding in a timely way to families waiting to hear about their recently deceased loved ones.
There was a recent case in February where an individual took his own life early on a Saturday morning of a long weekend, and the coroner didn’t contact the family until late Saturday night. That coroner provided the family with the cause of death and other details and apologized for the delay by offering the comment that they used to work on weekends but now needed permission from the B.C. Coroners Service to do so.
As I understand the current process, a field coroner attends the scene of a death to investigate and document all key evidence and then forwards the information, via electronic case management system, to the investigating coroner, who is also responsible for completing the coroner’s report and, once all information is received, will contact the family.
In the case of a long weekend, as happened in the example I gave, the investigating coroner did not contact the family of the deceased until the Tuesday after the long weekend. The body was not released by the coroner until the Wednesday following the long weekend.
With those comments in mind, I’m wondering if the minister can explain why the coroners can’t respond to sudden deaths on weekends without the permission of the B.C. Coroners Service.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you for the question from the member. Coroners do work on weekends. There’s always a coroner on, 24-7, and there’s also a senior coroner that is available to answer questions from family members. But they most certainly do work on weekends.
M. Morris: This is the information that I’m getting from different individuals, but I’ve also received similar information from rural outlying areas in the province as well.
When does a death meet the reporting requirements of the Coroners Act?
Hon. M. Farnworth: All unnatural deaths are investigated by a coroner. The only time they wouldn’t be is if they are of natural causes, where the coroner does not then have jurisdiction.
M. Morris: So are there any deaths when a coroner won’t attend?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member. Situations where the coroner wouldn’t attend would be for natural causes. Often, the way it works is if….
Let’s say there’s a 911 call. The first responders are there, whether it’s police or fire or paramedics, and the individual is deceased. It looks like a natural cause of death, let’s say a heart attack, for example, or they contact next of kin and it’s clear that there’s a medical history that may be involved. They will let the coroner know that, and the coroner will then be able to make a determination that, yes, this appears to be natural causes. Then the coroner, in that case, would not be required to attend.
M. Morris: I think this is something that a lot of the public are unaware of. I know that we’ve had police officers in various smaller detachments around the province that end up sitting with the family for a considerable time because it’s not a coroner’s case, but the family is still distraught.
I’m wondering. In a situation where, in the example that I gave, an individual takes their life or they’re found dead, and the coroner’s involved or not, whose responsibility is it to notify the next of kin?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. In the case of somebody taking their own life, for example, that is not a natural death, and the coroner has to attend. They have that responsibility in the case of a…. Obviously, the police are going to be there as well, on the scene.
In the case of a natural death, the coroner is not required to attend, and family members can take possession of the body and start to make the arrangements. The police don’t have to remain at the scene. The determination is that it is a natural death, and there’s no requirement for the coroner to attend, nor is there a requirement for the police to stay at the scene.
There was a part of your question which was around next of kin. In the case of an unnatural death, obviously, it’s the coroner that will do the notification. In the case of a natural death, and there are no immediate family around, then the police often do that notification.
M. Morris: Again, I think there’s an assumption out there, with the general public, that when somebody dies, the coroner will look after all the arrangements.
What happens in situations where…? You have a family who has very little means, and somebody dies of a natural death, which doesn’t require a coroner’s response. The body is…. The person had a heart attack or died from natural causes and is lying in the doorway. There’s an expectation that the family is left to their own devices. They have to find a funeral home. It doesn’t matter where they are in the province. That responsibility is theirs.
Is there no other involvement of any government agency at that particular time?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. A couple of points.
In terms of an individual or a family member of the deceased…. The family does not have the means to deal with the removal or the moving of the body. There is a program in the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction that is able to assist in that regard.
If the individual, let’s say, passes away of natural causes in a public place, for example, or if it’s an elderly person who is at home — the individual has passed away and has no family members or is frail and elderly — then the coroner will assist with being able to make the arrangements to remove the body.
M. Morris: I appreciate that. I think there needs to be a significant program to inform British Columbians about how that whole process works. There are a lot of people that phone MLAs and police and everybody because they are left thinking that somebody is going to take care of those arrangements for them.
One final question. It’s a lengthy one — and I raised it last year — about the ground penetrating radar allegedly finding graves with children. It’s a couple of parts here. One is…. I didn’t realize that ground penetrating radar had advanced to the point where you can actually identify it as a grave and actually identify it as a child in that particular grave.
The part that really troubles me is…. We have many First Nations across the province that are missing their relatives, their children, that went to residential school. I’m just wondering…. Is this a coroner’s responsibility, dealing with these unmarked graves or mass graves, however they’re described, in ensuring that what we do have is human remains there, or is it a policing responsibility to ensure that we don’t have any missing people?
If we do have missing people…. I know that I’ve investigated many of them over the years, that we have files that are never closed, that are open in perpetuity until that individual is found, one way or the other.
So with that in mind, I’m just wondering if the minister is aware of an independent researcher by the name of Nina Green and aware of the regular email updates that she provides every member of this Legislature and every MP across Canada. Oftentimes, those are every week. She has spent hundreds of hours searching the B.C. Archives website and poring over microfilms to find those B.C. death certificates pertaining to the residential school system.
In her most recent email today, she said: “Let’s start with what we know.” This came in just before lunch today. “Residential school children were meticulously tracked by name and registered number by the federal government for the purposes of the per-capita grant the federal government paid to the school for each named and registered child. The evidence for that meticulous tracking by name and registered number in the Library and Archives Canada school file series is voluminous and irrefutable.”
She has identified about 500 children that had been on the missing children’s registry right across Canada, and she’s got their death certificates and whatnot. I’m wondering if the minister is aware of this and what the minister has done.
I know that B.C., back in 2014, provided the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation with all the B.C. death records for Aboriginal children aged four to 19. I’m wondering whether the minister has, through either the coroner or the police services in their missing children investigation, provided our First Nations communities with copies of all the information that the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation has received or what steps he’s taken.
Has he touched bases with this Nina Green to see what information she has and what we can provide these families that are in so much stress and pain over the fact that their children are reported missing? I think we could alleviate a lot of that if there was some connection made between this information and the First Nations groups that we have.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for this question. I think all of us have been affected by what has been discovered, particularly in the last couple of years, starting in Kamloops.
What I can tell the member is…. The Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation is leading the effort in terms of the issue that he has raised. There is an ADM committee that includes the Coroners Service as well as the RCMP and the First Nations Leadership Council. They’re working collaboratively and sharing the information that is available.
At the same time, it’s not a question of either the coroner or the police who are leading. Rather, it has been very much letting the individual community lead the way. If there’s a determination — something has been found — then they work with the coroner and the RCMP on that.
That’s the information I can give the member at this point.
M. Morris: I appreciate the answer. This is a very sensitive issue, I know. I’ve talked to…. I’ve got several First Nations friends. We talk about this stuff on a fairly regular basis.
I guess my concern comes from…. If a person is reported missing, what action is taken to find that individual? It doesn’t matter how long. If there’s any allegation of foul play — infanticide, homicide…. It doesn’t matter what it might be. There’s no statute of limitations on that.
I’m wondering whether there have been police records that have been searched. As far back as time immemorial, any missing persons files, or those kinds of complaints, that are unresolved are still open, probably in the archives.
That’s one issue. The other issue is if there are unmarked graves that are identified…. I think we’ve got, probably, millions of them all over the place. But if we have what some people are determining mass graves — I have a problem with that, in the society that we worked under in British Columbia — or graves of children that are in areas where they shouldn’t be, I’m thinking that those should be….
We need to assure the public that those kinds of things aren’t happening. If they are happening, people need to be held accountable for that in the long term.
I’m hoping, perhaps, maybe, the minister or this group can contact or get in touch with this Nina Green. I have received copies of those emails regularly for two years. I’ve spoken with her, as well, and validated some of the information. My investigative side has come out.
I think we owe that duty to all the First Nations communities in B.C. — to provide them a list of the children that we have identified from death certificates and burial certificates and whatnot as well. I will leave it at that. I appreciate the coroner showing up here today.
I see the Greens are here.
The questions I have for Corrections are very…. They’re more statistical, so if I can read them in and then Corrections can advise me after. Okay.
I’m wondering. There’s one question, which I’ll get the minister to answer, with respect to mental health and addictions treatment.
The questions that I would like answers for…. Can the minister provide the average prisoner count for each correctional centre for the previous five years? How many inmates, on average, were in remand? What was the average time in remand for the previous five years? Can the minister provide the number of folks on probation across B.C. for each of the previous five years as well?
With respect to my first question there…. Can the minister provide an overview of the mental health, addictions and recovery treatment available to inmates? I know when I was sitting in that chair…. Through a lot of tough negotiations, we were able to get the Provincial Health Authority to take over responsibility for the health of the corrections inmates.
I was hoping that was a blanket coverage that would look after the mental health side of it too. I’ve heard otherwise. Can the minister update me on what might be taking place with respect to mental health and addictions for inmates?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer is yes. The Provincial Health Services Authority does provide the services that the member has outlined, mental health services and addiction services. Yes, they do. Plus, there is a director of mental health to work with in our corrections facility.
M. Morris: I appreciate the answer, and I appreciate the time that the staff have put into this.
I’m going to turn it over now to the Greens for the next 45….
Hon. M. Farnworth: I have just one quick answer to a question you asked before.
M. Morris: Okay.
Hon. M. Farnworth: That was to the air and marine fleet questions. The RCMP do have three catamarans. They are all operational, not necessarily in great condition. They have requested replacement, and that’s part of the review that is undertaken. In terms of the RCMP air services, there are ten aircraft: six helicopters and four planes.
All boats and planes are part of the review that I said was underway and that I told you about.
M. Morris: Once again, I just appreciate the staff’s time on this.
I’ll turn it over to the Green folks here. When they’re done, then the ICBC critic will be coming in. The remainder of the time, what we have left today and probably an hour or so tomorrow, will be focused solely on ICBC.
A. Olsen: Thanks a lot. I appreciate it.
Following up on the question around mental health and corrections, just a pretty high-level question for the minister with respect to what the philosophy is in our correctional system.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I would sum it up in two phrases. Protect communities, and reduce reoffending.
A. Olsen: Is it the idea of our corrections system to rehabilitate those that are in it and to reduce the recidivism rates?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it is.
A. Olsen: From that perspective, I’m wondering how the minister feels about the use of solitary confinement in our corrections system.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.
First, we don’t use the term “solitary confinement” anymore. We do have separate confinement. It is used for two particular circumstances: one, if the individual is a danger to themselves, and two, they’re a danger to others. If they are in that, it is for the absolute minimum amount of time.
A. Olsen: Are they by themselves?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Not exclusively. The majority are, but sometimes they will be with another person.
A. Olsen: Can the minister provide the reason why we’ve changed how we refer to this technique, I guess, or this tool that is used in our corrections system, from solitary confinement to separate confinement? Is it because there are occurrences where the technique or the tactic is used, and there are times where people are together?
Hon. M. Farnworth: We have not used that term for quite a long time now. I would say one of the reasons is that it is often viewed in the context of the public as a form of punishment. The policies we have in place are that separate confinement is not used for punishment, but rather, as I said, for those who may be a risk to themselves or a risk to others.
You asked me if, and I said sometimes there are, there may be two people in separate confinement. That may sound a little counterintuitive in terms of risk to themselves, and it varies from situation to situation, but it is sometimes a situation where, for someone who is suicidal, actually having another person there is actually beneficial. So there are circumstances that are taken into account as to when it is used.
A. Olsen: Perhaps this might be worthwhile for us to have a separate conversation about this in further detail. I think there is use in me raising it here on the record as well, because the stories that I’ve heard are of separate confinement being used as inmate punishment. Also, as management. I think the minister just talked about this. Also have had conversations with respect to the impact around increased depression, deteriorated cognitive skills, hallucinations…. I think we see studies that show that the impact….
This was why I was asking what the point of the corrections system was, because it seemed like this practice works against the goal of rehabilitating or reducing recidivism. That’s why, I think, I’ve raised this issue in other parts of this Legislature and wanted to just raise it here as well. So I think it’s probably better for a conversation further down the road, somewhere else.
I do want to move to policing. I was part of the special committee to review the Police Act. We did 15 months of work as a committee, and on April 28 of last year we tabled our final report. There were 11 recommendations in that report, covering a new community safety and policing act, civilian-led accountability and oversight, better training and support to transform policing culture, a new provincial police service, equitable funding, equitable police distribution, Indigenous involvement, improved local and regional accountability, and better governance mechanisms.
We also recommended that the minister depoliticize this process of police reform in our province by creating an all-party committee that was able to leverage the consensus that that special committee, which the minister stood up, had been able to build during that 15-month process. We noted that transforming policing in this province is a multi-year, multi-parliament, maybe a multi-government process. It could actually be multiple governing relationships, like we had in the confidence and supply agreement, as an example. So there are all sorts of different outcomes that could happen over the time.
Why did the minister choose to ignore the recommendation and not create an all-party committee to work with the Ministry of Public Safety to implement the recommendations and to oversee policing reform in our province?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I just want to, first of all, start by saying I have not ruled out, and government has not ruled out, the creation of an all-party committee. We have a new ADM who’s busy going through, working within my ministry on those recommendations. As you rightly said, this is a multi-parliament, -government effort.
We are looking, as I said, at a first phase of amendments in the Police Act in the fall, but it’s a staged process. We are still actively working on the recommendations, actively working on what’s involved. And we have not ruled out an all-party committee.
A. Olsen: Twelve months have passed since that. The official opposition has a new leader, perhaps a different culture. We have the issue that the minister just addressed in Surrey. We have the issues in the capital regional district here. We’ve got multiple detachments in the RCMP suffering from staffing shortages. There’s no end of work that could benefit from work by all three political parties, all three caucuses in here that could have assisted, and would have assisted, I would suspect, the minister and the ministry in decision-making around the Surrey policing situation, as an example.
The fact is…. I respect the fact the minister has left the door open to the fact that a committee could still be struck, but doesn’t the minister see, in the 12 months between the tabling of the report and now, a lost opportunity to maintain the momentum that was generated over the 15 months of work that we did?
I can say to the minister, as a member that was working on that committee, I really feel that for the work that we did, the momentum has been lost. We see it showing up in question period. We see the politics of it showing up in quotes and responses, whereas when we were working together on this, there were consensus-building opportunities that are now lost. Does the minister not see the 12 months as lost opportunity?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand where the member is coming from. I appreciate that he wants to ensure that momentum is not dropped and that the work of the committee is not ignored. I can absolutely tell him that the work of the committee is absolutely not being ignored. It is very fundamental in the work that’s taken place within my ministry in terms of reforming the Police Act.
I look forward to when that comes forward — the member seeing his work reflected in the changes. But I just want to let the member know about the work that has taken place to date in terms of within the ministry and that engagement to ensure that the momentum from the committee’s report is actively ongoing. It is going to be a key component of what we’re able to bring forth.
The ministry has engaged so far with 12 First Nations; modern treaty nations; friendship centres in Cariboo, Nawican, and Kermode; Friendship House Association of Prince Rupert; the Indigenous leadership organizations; the B.C. First Nations Justice Council; the First Nations Leadership Council; the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner; the independent investigations office; the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police and their modernization subcommittee; the B.C. Police Association; the police boards; police board chairs; chief of the Organized Crime Agency board; Transit Police; the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner; the UBCM; my advisory council on multiculturalism; and police victim services.
We’ve been engaged with all of those, in part to be able to do the work that’s necessary to move this forward. Does it take a long time? Yeah, it does. I know this. The member knows this, and I know it. Government does not necessarily move at the fastest pace. But it does move. I just want the member to know that the work is taking place. The work of the committee is very much part and parcel of why that work is taking place.
A. Olsen: Why did the minister initially establish an all-party committee to review and make recommendations to reform the Police Act?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. I think it’s fair to say that at the time the committee was struck, there was, I think, a significant amount of public concern about policing, not just here in British Columbia but, in fact, in many parts of the country. I think that there is a sense that there need to be changes in a number of areas. Some of the more, you know, mental health…. I think that the issue around mental health and policing, which has been an issue, really kind of, I think, came to the surface, as did issues around governance in policing and how it relates to police boards, for example. I think reports that we have seen at the national level around the RCMP were also, you know, part and parcel. So all of those things.
I think the government’s view was: you know what? The all-party committee is a way to bring forward and to hear what people have to say and to bring forward ideas and recommendations, which they did. And I think that’s the genesis, if you like, of the committee in the first place. And as I’ve said, I think the work the committee did was excellent work and is very much foundational in terms of the work that’s been underway within my ministry and that first phase being expected in the fall.
Part of the approach is to make sure that we are doing those consultations with people who…. Let me rephrase it. It’s important that the development of it, the consultation that’s taking place, is reflective of the people who made presentations and upon whom policing impacts. That’s one of the reasons, for example, the co-development has been taking place with First Nations.
A. Olsen: For the past several months, while we’ve been in here, we have heard a persistent approach by the official opposition around public safety, around policing and around prolific offenders brought into probably the least useful part of the business that happens in this place — question period. The most useful place where the business happens actually happens is in this room that we’re in today, where we worked for those 15 months, collaboratively, all three parties building consensus.
I guess where I’m lost in this is that the minister saw and has spoken very clearly about the effectiveness, the efficacy of that committee, then chooses to abandon the very process right after we had tabled a consensus report, decided to become very insular about it, take it within the ministry to do the work rather than to do what the recommendation was, which was to strike that committee, an oversight committee, that could help whatever government is in place to be able to deliver on the recommendations in collaboration with the minister.
Ultimately, it’s still the minister’s responsibility, but what was lost in that was the collaborative approach, the consensus-building approach that has now been troubling this same minister over the last number of months because immediately, the issue became repoliticized again.
We had a situation that depoliticized the issue. All of us learned from that process. That was then abandoned. The issue was re-politicized, and I think it came and showed itself in this most recent decision that was needed to be made around Surrey. Rather than making it a decision of the Legislature, it became a decision of the minister.
I think that, in the end, what happened was we weakened that process. We have lost 12 months of good work because the decision was to be insular about it.
Does the minister support the creation of a provincial police service that’s not the RCMP?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll address the two issues.
In terms of the provincial police service…. That’s one of the recommendations in the report. It is an initiative that is very complex, and that’s why I have asked my staff to look into what would be involved in that. The report itself acknowledges that the recommendations would take many, many parliaments. In that recommendation…. I think that’s the one that would take that. Not least of which, there’s a contract in place till 2032.
The reality is that there would be a lot of work to understand the implications of that. Also, what would be the various options? My staff will be working on that to provide information to myself as minister.
In terms of Surrey…. I understand what the member is saying. The reality is…. I am guided by the legislation. I’m guided by the act itself, which says I have to make that determination based on the advice I get from the director of police services. It’s not a political decision. It’s based on the issue of public safety and the advice that I get from my director of police services and the analysis that they’re required to do in terms of a transition plan.
There’s a very specific legislative process that I have to follow. I can’t delegate that decision to anybody else.
As I said, the issue of a provincial police force…. That’s a complex issue which my staff would have to do a significant amount of work on.
A. Olsen: Yeah. This is exactly the reason why I’ve been asking about the all-party committee.
We’ve lost 12 months. We’ve actually…. The problem that I feel is the biggest challenge we now face, based on the fact…. Instead of continuing to engage all of the political parties in this Legislative Assembly on a burden that we all carry, public safety…. It’s the burden that the minister carries specifically, as a minister of the government, but it’s a burden that all of us should feel we carry some part of.
The project always was going to be a decade-long project. We saw it in New Zealand. It’s a decade-long project to transform policing, to transform culture, to make sure the training is in place, to make sure the regional and local governance are in place, to make sure that the community’s Indigenous nations are involved. That was always going to be a decade-long project.
Precisely the reason why we recommended the all-party committee was to ensure that we didn’t lose the consensus that was established in that report. I’ve been in this place every single day that it has been open since then. I feel zero confidence that that consensus still exists. I feel the 15 months of work that we did to build that consensus and to build trust across party lines likely doesn’t exist anymore. That’s what was sacrificed when the minister decided to bring it entirely in-house and to carry the burden alone.
What I fear is…. The work that we did on paper is still good work. You can look at the recommendations. But the political landscape in this place, the political landscape in communities like Surrey, which has the largest detachment…. That’s the reason why the question, “How does the minister feel about a provincial police service?” is an important question. The largest RCMP detachment, as the minister said in question period the other day, is in Surrey. It is political chaos there.
I understand that the minister has to follow the act, but also the government has to be tracking the political nightmare that’s being created in local government elections and the recognition that there are multiple layers of politics at the local level and at the provincial level.
That’s why all of these questions are applicable. The reality is that if we continued a committee that had all of us sitting around the table, we would be forced into a position to work together in a way that has now been lost. That’s how all of these questions that I’m asking actually fit together, because the work…. If an all-party committee is struck now, we start from the beginning again.
The minister’s right. The RCMP contract ends in 2032. That’s less than ten years from now. The decade window that I’m giving in these questions is a deliberate one because it might have taken ten years for us to responsibly transition. But we’ve lost a year, and we’ve lost a whole lot of political goodwill that we worked very hard around that table to maintain. We deliberated for hours to get to a position that all the parties could agree on.
The minister could have taken hold of that and continued to make that the culture around the discussion around here instead of what we hear in question period, day in and day out, which is just yelling back and forth about policing and public safety, not making our communities more safe. In fact, making the entire discussion more toxic. That’s what I fear about this situation.
Police accountability is the thing that the public is most concerned about. We invited Vancouver police chief Adam Palmer to the committee twice to get their perspective on systemic racism. Twice, that police chief couldn’t acknowledge systemic racism. I believe it was twice if my memory serves me correctly. Then, in the media, Chief Palmer brazenly states he’s not accountable to the city of Vancouver, not accountable to the province, not accountable to the federal government. The minister said in question period that he is accountable. Accountable to whom?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the comments from the member. I want to acknowledge that, look, I totally understand where he’s coming from, but I also want to make it clear that the work of the committee is foundational in the work that’s been ongoing in the last 12 months. I do believe…. And as I said, we have not made a decision on not constituting an all-party committee, but there’s…. I think that the work is something that…. All members of the House, I think, support the work that took place.
I mean, it gets raised in question period, and it is political, but at the same time, it is still around the fundamental issues that were raised at the committee, whether it is often on mental health, about policing, about the root causes of crime, about governance, all of those things.
There is work underway dealing with that, and as I said, we have not said no to the all-party committee.
I want to address the issue of accountability that the member raises. A police chief, a police organization, is absolutely accountable to the community it represents. The police chief is accountable to the police board, the police are accountable to the public, and to say otherwise is simply not correct.
A. Olsen: I agree entirely. Unfortunately, in the quote, all there was, was who that police chief wasn’t accountable to. There wasn’t the context of exactly who that individual is accountable to.
I agree that police chiefs are entirely accountable to their police board and, through their police board, to all of those other individuals, organizations and community groups that the minister was talking about, but as the story was told, it was just: “I’m not accountable to the city of Vancouver.” Technically, that’s not true. Technically, that individual is entirely accountable to the city of Vancouver — maybe not to the mayor and council, but to the police board, the city and the citizens in the city.
The reality is that we’ve got a situation where a chief of one of the largest police services in the province — one of the most, I think, well-known in the public services — is out saying, in public, who they are not accountable to, not who they are accountable to. I think that it’s very troubling. The reason I’m raising this is because it paints a picture for the public about the direction that their police services are going — and without a very strong response from everybody.
That’s the reason why I wanted to raise it here. I think it gives an opportunity for the minister again to be very clear to the public on who it is that the chiefs of police…. We give them an incredible amount of power, and we need to be consistently reminding that there are checks and balances on that power. That was one of the fundamental pieces of the Police Act: an independent, civilian-led transparency and accountability body that brings together all the different bodies.
We’ve got three of them right now. We’ve got the IIO, we’ve got the Police Complaint Commissioner, and we’ve got the civilian group that’s currently reviewing the community-industry response group, the RCMP group out of Ottawa. In this province, we’ve got this fragmented police accountability system. We have our ability to address two of them. We have no ability, or very limited ability, to address the one that goes all the way to Ottawa.
Accountability, again, just to point it out, is the concern we consistently heard from the public that they’re concerned about. We also heard that there’s another policing body, or another enforcement body, in this province that has no direct accountability. The Police Complaint Commissioner is not involved. Perhaps the IIO might get involved if there was a death involved. This is the conservation service.
There’s zero independent oversight of the conservation service in this province. I’ve asked a number of questions in question period to the minister about policing and accountability. The minister consistently responds about the arm’s-length relationship between politicians and law enforcement, but that doesn’t even exist in the conservation service. The conservation service, as I’ve been able to understand it, is basically a provincial army. It’s directly responsible to the Minister of Environment. No independent accountability or oversight.
To their credit, the former COS chief stated clearly in our consultations that they should have oversight. It’s a recommendation in the Police Act report, one that has not been brought in. The union, on the other hand, said: “Absolutely not.” They don’t want to have anything to do with independent oversight. They want to treat every one of these incidents as if it were a human resources process, a union disciplinary process or an administrative process. They have no authority or expertise in the law enforcement expertise behind it.
I’ve had meetings with former COS members over the last number of months. They paint a terrible picture of the culture in that organization. Again, no oversight, Minister — none. I’m really concerned that we have a well-armed enforcement agency with little or no oversight. Internal complaints are handled internally. Does the minister feel this is acceptable?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member, and I can tell him that I am aware that there is a view that there needs to be more oversight in terms of the conservation service that he’s been talking about.
I can also tell him that there is a regulation dealing with the conservation service. They are special police provincial constables, and there is a disciplinary regulation that is in place that people can make a complaint to. It would be to the Director of Police Services. That’s what is in place now, but I am aware of the issue that the member has raised.
A. Olsen: So one of the hooks that the hat gets hung on is that there is an arm’s-length relationship between the political body and police services or enforcement bodies. No such arm’s-length relationships exist. I think the people of B.C. would be shocked to find out that actually this B.C. conservation service could be directed by the government. It does not have the same arm’s-length relationship as other policing services in the province.
These are individuals that carry and work with high-powered rifles. They can bring those high-powered rifles home, which, as I understand, is unique. If you were in the RCMP, for example, that wouldn’t happen. Now the argument that’s been given is that these individuals work in rural British Columbia, and there’s not always an opportunity to lock them up like the RCMP might be required to. So the high-powered rifles go home at the end of the day.
In training, these individuals are basically asked to act like police officers, but they’re not police officers. They are special constables, but they are the conservation service. At times they’re asked to actually work alongside the RCMP because we have a scenario in our province where the RCMP are understaffed. So sometimes they work in concert with the RCMP, from what I understand.
When I’ve been receiving information about a culture of homophobia, transphobia, bullying, racism…. I’ve been trying to navigate through the provincial government, a myriad of the Ombudsperson, the public service agency. I am finding it absolutely impossible to find that accountability that the minister says exists. My experience over the last number of months in trying to deal with this, and trying to bring this to attention, is that accountability does not exist.
I cannot bring this, as I understand it, to the police complaints commissioner and have them look into it. I met with the Ombudsperson. I was encouraged to take it to the public service agency. The public service agency got me in front of the new chief. That was the process. The process was I was to bring these very sensitive issues directly to the person who oversees internal accountability of these internal issues.
There’s no arm’s-length, separated process that is safe for people to do this. We raised this in our reforming the Police Act report one year ago. Nothing has changed. This government has sat on this, knowing the problem. As the minister said, he’s aware of the problem.
When will this conservation service, a much-needed service in our province, have the same level of accountability as other enforcement agencies in this province? When will we be able to see that it has an arm’s-length relationship from the politicians? Because currently it does not.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question and the commentary from the member, and I know that you know it was recommendation 9.
I can tell you that on that issue of accountability in governance, there is a considerable amount of work underway in the ministry on these issues that the member is raising, including this last one. I said I’m aware them. We’re aware of the problem.
I also would make the point that the conservation service lies within the Ministry of Environment. It doesn’t lie within this ministry, but in terms of the recommendations out of the SCORPA, that work has been underway. It’s not a question of sitting on something and ignoring something, but rather, it’s about policy work that needs to be done on this recommendation and all the other recommendations that are in there.
I can tell you that, as I said, we’re aware of it. There is work underway in terms of government’s accountability, and I think all of us want to make sure that when there are agencies who are charged with enforcement, that there are proper accountability measures in place that the public has confidence in.
A. Olsen: I’m well aware of where this conservation service lies. In fact, I’ve raised this with the Minister of Environment, but they are special constables. While their service is within the Ministry of Environment, we grant them similar powers to the powers that we grant to a municipal police service and RCMP police service. Yet we have absolutely no accountability mechanisms to ensure that when stuff goes bad the public can be certain that those members are going to be held accountable.
The union was clear. The union wanted to have no further powers granted to anybody. Credit the former chief of the conservation service who said, absolutely, bring it on. In fact, it’ll help with the credibility of this service. For one year, since we tabled those recommendations, there have not been more accountability measures put in place for the conservation service.
I have been dealing with individuals who have been bringing their stories to me because there is no safe place for them to bring them to. Everywhere they’ve gone, it has been a threat for them. These are vulnerable individuals. This government is providing them no safety to be able to have the ability to be a constructive part of changing the culture of that organization, so they come to me to do it. I’m not the place for that to happen.
I know the minister knows who they are. I know the minister knows what the recommendation is. What I’m worried about is that every day that passes, the people who we task with that work are vulnerable. They have no place to raise their complaints to that is not going to be investigated by their own superiors, people who are often the ones that might be treating them in those awful ways.
There is no confidence. There should be zero confidence from the public that if an incident happens, there is a place for that incident to be properly handled in an independent — not even civilian-led, just an independent — way.
I hear that there’s a lot of work being done. Tomorrow is one day later that vulnerable people are left vulnerable. When is the valuable work that’s being done going to come to fruition, and this provincial army, basically, will be brought in to a level of accountability and transparency that the public can be confident about and where the members can achieve the level of safety that they should already have been granted a year ago when we raised this issue?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, I thank the member for the question. I want to make a number of points in response to his commentary.
First, in terms of accountability. Because they’re special police constables, if there is an incident…. The member has used the term “army” a couple of times and “carbines” a couple of times. If there was an incident involving a weapon, an injury or someone is shot, the IIO has jurisdiction over that, and that is oversight.
The member raises issues around culture — toxicity of culture, homophobia, transphobia, all of those things. PSAC is the place to deal with that. PSAC is the place to deal with those things.
At the same time, the member wants to see additional accountability measures. As I’ve said, there is work underway within my ministry around that. I’ve said that in terms of governance and accountability, we are going to see that first phase, in terms of amendments, in place in the fall. But the work has to take place. The work has to be done.
It’s not a question of, as I said in response to the member’s previous question on this, it just not taking place. The reality is it that is taking place and has been taking place under the last 12 months.
M. Lee: At this time, the member for Surrey–White Rock and myself would like to turn to ICBC estimates. I don’t know if the minister needs to change over any team members at all.
I would say that I appreciate the opportunity to join the member for Surrey South as the critic for ICBC, as I’ve done over my years as the MLA for Vancouver-Langara. We’ve seen, of course, in various debates on the formation of ICBC reform legislation with the Premier, many opportunities to review what the government calls the enhanced care system.
I wanted to first start off…. Can the minister confirm that in the 2020-2021 year, the year before no-fault came into effect, ICBC paid out $2.11 billion in injury claims, and that in the year 2021-2022, which would be the first year of no-fault, claims decreased to $1.48 billion. Is that correct?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.
In fiscal year 2019-2020, $2.57 billion was paid in terms of accidents that occurred that year. In fiscal year ’21-22, it was $1.53 billion that was paid out.
M. Lee: To clarify, the minister said 2019-2020. Is that correct, or did he mean 2020-2021, the period I was asking for?
To repeat my question for the minister, I was asking for the period 2020-21, which, in my understanding, is for the minister to confirm that it was $2.11 billion.
I appreciate the minister just said…. In 2019-2020, it was $2.57 billion. But still, after no-fault was introduced, in the 2021-2022 year…. The minister just said it was $1.5-billion-something…. That still amounts to, and what I’m referring to, a 30 percent drop in what was being paid out in benefits to British Columbians.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the clarification. He was looking for the year 2020-2021. In that fiscal year, it was $1.94 billion that was paid out.
M. Lee: About a $440 million decrease between the time that the previous system was in place to when no-fault was introduced.
Can I ask the minister…? During the same period, between ’20-21 and then 2021-2022, what was the increase…? I understand the amount of motor vehicle accidents in the province of British Columbia…. What was the number of motor vehicle accidents in 2020-21 and then 2021-2022?
My understanding is that there was an increase. If the minister can confirm what that increase was and the two numbers that I’m referring to or asking about.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the claims, in 2020-21 it was 60,700 injury claims and 193,000 vehicle claims. In ’21-22 it was 73,900 injury claims and 249,000 vehicle claims.
M. Lee: Just isolating on the number of injury claims, 60,000 to 73,000 is roughly about a 15 percent increase in bodily injury claims to British Columbians. My point is: why is it the case, then, that under the enhanced care model for the government, we have an increase in the number of injury claims in this period, but a decrease of $440 million in terms of benefit payouts to those same British Columbians?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. The difference is explained by the fact that under enhanced care, benefits aren’t paid in a lump sum. They’re actually paid out over time for as long as the person is requiring the care. That’s the explanation for the difference that the member is asking about.
M. Lee: When we talk about the way benefits are paid out, then, we know that, for example, under the no-fault system, a person is only entitled to a percentage of wages they were earning at the time of the accident, which is up to $1,200 per week. If an individual was a student about to graduate, a young worker looking to move up in their industry, a stay-at-home parent planning to go back to work or a small business owner where their income is not easily calculated, ICBC does not take into account the future potential of the income that that person might be deriving.
I know that the minister is well aware of many instances where British Columbians have been complaining about the challenges of the new no-fault model.
I’d ask…. We know, and I debated this at length with the Premier when he was Attorney General and Minister Responsible for ICBC, that under the no-fault model, there is really no outside entity independent from ICBC. The first area where a person can challenge ICBC’s income replacement benefit assessment is through its fair practices office. Can I ask…?
Through this period, this first year that no-fault has been in place, can the minister indicate the number of complaints that have been raised with the fair practices office in respect of income replacement benefit assessments and the number of assessments which have been overturned by the fair practices office, meaning how many income replacement benefit assessments have been provided by challenge for review by the fair practice office, and in those cases, how many were overturned by that office, meaning a different result and not simply agreeing with the ICBC adjuster as to that benefit replacement entitlement?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I’ll make this observation. The fairness officer deals with administrative fairness. Have you been treated fairly? If you have a dispute over benefits, you would take that to the civil resolution tribunal.
M. Lee: Certainly the CRT is another avenue through which individuals can take their claim. Sticking with that, before coming back to a specific example that’s been reported in the public realm…. To follow the minister’s response…. Just to repeat the question, in terms of ICBC’s income replacement benefit assessments, how many challenges on those determinations of income replacement benefit assessments have been raised to the CRT? And as a result of any CRT review, how many have been overturned?
Hon. M. Farnworth: We’ll see if we can get you a number in answer to your question, either shortly or I know that we have an hour or something tomorrow. We’ll try and get it for you.
M. Lee: We can further have the conversation, but just so that the minister can correct the public record, then. It was reported, in an instance that the minister and his team may have seen — a challenge in respect of a gentleman by the name of Scott Shepherd in North Vancouver, who was walking down a North Vancouver sidewalk when a car jumped the curb and launched him into the air.
He was someone who had just started a new career in life insurance a month before the accident and was also coaching golf on the side so he had another source of income. He brought forward his claim for income replacement benefits from ICBC, including gathering letters from his employer and other receipts from clients of his for golf lessons.
The decision that he received 2½ months later…. First of all, it took 2½ months to make the decision and was half of what he had requested or thought was reasonable under what he had provided. So three months after the accident, he started receiving a little over $1,500 every two weeks in August of the year that he was involved in this accident.
Now, he clearly was somebody who was innocent, walking down the street. Clearly, someone else was at fault in terms of his bodily injuries. He went on to challenge this, it’s stated, through the fair practices office.
So I think it would be helpful if perhaps the team can look into if there have been any claims of this nature sought through the fair practices office. Certainly, as we see, the challenges with no-fault….
There have been situations, of course, where ICBC is the sole determinant of benefits in this case. There’s not really any independent avenue, of course, to seek any recourse if there’s any disagreement on that.
Can I ask the minister: in terms of where we seek criminal convictions, how many…? I think the minister was just reviewing some numbers there, so perhaps we can just get the global number. In terms of motor vehicle accidents for the year in question, that first year of 2021-2022 under no-fault, how many motor vehicle accidents occurred in that year?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I gave the member the number of claims, which is 249,000 in that year. We will get him the number in terms of criminal involvement, in terms of the criminal convictions, in terms of the number of accidents that he asked for.
But I do want to re-emphasize that point, that in terms of the determination of benefits, the civil resolution tribunal is the body that does that, as opposed to the fairness officer, and the civil resolution tribunal is independent.
Anyway, we will get the number of the criminal issue in terms of accidents that the member asked for.
M. Lee: In terms of looking at how benefits are to be assessed, we have seen situations, of course, where there has been significant unfortunate trauma, brain-injury types of occurrences. There, again, have been complaints about navigating the ICBC system, through the media, over, in many cases, many months.
Can I ask the minister: what measure, through ICBC, has there been from a performance metric point of view about how many claims are involving those with brain injuries? How often…? What’s the frequency, the time duration, let’s say, of getting through their claim process?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. Again, I’ll make a couple of observations in regards to the member’s question.
First, ICBC has a legislated responsibility to assist people through the claims process — to assist them, to help them — whether they’re mildly injured or have catastrophic injuries. The other point that I would also make is that benefits flow right away. It’s not a question of having to wait for a court to make a decision or to wait for a lawsuit to work its way through. That’s a significant difference, and it’s a significant benefit to those who are injured. It’s one of the main, I think, significant improvements in terms of enhanced care.
M. Lee: We know that there was a public report relating to Tashia Wong, who was a young Vancouver car accident victim who was hit when another car ran a stop sign and struck her vehicle so hard that it was written off. Ms. Wong was left with a concussion, migraines and short-term memory problems, as well as physical injuries. As the minister would well know, it was featured quite publicly in news media, in January of this year, in which she described her experience with ICBC as a bureaucratic nightmare.
In her words — Ms. Wong’s words, that is — ICBC fights her on every single thing. She estimated that she had spent thousands of dollars of her own money to cover medical expenses, including prescription medication and counselling recommended by a doctor, that should have been covered by ICBC. This has, of course, left Ms. Wong, in her words, overwhelmed, stressed and experiencing a worsening of her symptoms.
How does this example of the challenge of working through ICBC, the bureaucratic nightmare that Ms. Wong describes…? When the minister says that ICBC is legislated to assist people of that nature, how does the minister respond to Ms. Wong’s situation?
Certainly, the member for Surrey–White Rock and myself have heard from many other British Columbians about their concerns about the faults with this system. So how does the minister respond to these challenges?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. First off, I’ll say I’m more than happy…. I can follow up on that particular individual case that the member referenced.
What I will also say is that we are two years into the system, and the vast majority of people, I think, have a positive experience. That being said, if situations do occur, as can happen, we also want to make sure that we learn from them and make sure that steps are taken to ensure that whatever problems there were are corrected. But as I said to the member, I will happily do a follow-up on that particular case that he just raised.
M. Lee: Well, I’m glad we can squeeze another question in.
I appreciate the minister saying what he said. I can tell the minister that it doesn’t seem to us that the…. We know, of course, with the challenges with the system, that some of these challenges will take time to present themselves.
We have seen other instances where a 64-year-old gentleman has the need for certain supports that are not present in his own home with his family. He is now, certainly, still a resident, for over five months now, in a long-term care facility, separate from his home, separate from his family.
ICBC has determined that that is the most cost-effective way of supporting him, meaning that ICBC is not prepared to provide assistance, benefits, payouts, support to ensure that this gentleman can return home to be with his family. So he’s separated from his family for more than five months now.
Again, this is another example…. I’m obviously not going to go through them all. But in the time that I have here today, I’d like the minister…. If the minister has any comment on that particular type of situation where ICBC is making a determination, effectively, to separate the 64-year-old gentleman from his family for more than five months….
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I understand the issue that the member is raising. I will just say this. The care that’s needed and the care that’s received are obviously decided by the care team, at the same time ensuring that that lines up with the benefits that ICBC offers. The critical one is to ensure, obviously, that people get better.
The response is that we do work, and the care team does work, to ensure that people get the care that they need, that they get the care they need to get better, and that it also has to line up with the considerable benefits that ICBC offers. Enhanced care is care for as long as you need it, and situations are often unique.
With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:19 p.m.