Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: I call in this chamber continued second reading, Bill 35, the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 31, the Emergency and Disaster Management Act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 35 — SHORT-TERM RENTAL
ACCOMMODATIONS ACT

(continued)

Deputy Speaker: My understanding is the member from West End will not be finishing his remarks as he has another job to do here.

H. Yao: I just want to take the opportunity to express my sincere support for Bill 35, addressing some of the Short-Term Rental Accommodation Act.

For a start, I do want to take the opportunity again to express my sincere gratitude to Richmond South Centre for allowing me to represent them.

Housing is one of the bigger challenges. I think, instead of calling it housing issues, we have a home issue. People are looking for a way to create a home. We’re looking forward to allowing individuals to settle down in the community, establish roots and form connections.

One of the reasons why I am so supportive of Bill 35 is that it starts off by saying, if we actually are able to address some of those multiple-unit short-term rentals, we can return about 16,000 whole house units back into the housing market, allowing more young people to be able to find different kinds of home options and addressing, as one of our multiple-prong approach, the housing crisis that we’re dealing with.

One of the key things that was brought to my attention is that over 28,500 short-term rentals are listed active each day in British Columbia. Many people are utilizing their own primary residence and create a sub-unit to create additional income. We understand that is a different way of addressing the issue.

We have 28,500 short-term rentals listed active each day, and then almost 50 percent of those units have multiple listings. It creates a concern.

[1:10 p.m.]

It’s telling us many individuals are taking advantage of a short-term rental and running it like a hotel. It’s not fair for a lot of businesses who actually spend money and effort to create brick-and-mortar facilities like hotels to support local communities’ tourism industry.

At the same time, a short-term rental is meant to just be simply complementary. It’s not meant to steal or take housing units away from our housing stock in British Columbia, away from an individual who actually needs a home to rent, to purchase.

We’re looking at a number of short-term rentals that’s been increasing 20 percent year by year. That is an incredible, shocking figure for us to think about. If we increase something by 10 percent, by compound interest, it only takes ten years to double the number. When we talk about 20 percent year over year, that scares me.

That tells me short-term rental is growing at such a rapid pace that it’s squeezing our housing market and putting a lot of young people…. It’s putting the housing market into an unaffordable range. This is definitely one of the many issues that need to be addressed, and I’m very thankful for the Minister of Housing placing such a strong emphasis on addressing this issue.

As a Richmond MLA, I often have to also ask my­self…. The figure that has been provided for me: how many of them are addresses with illegal units, hidden within a community.

I remember I used to live in an apartment building and often saw people come in and out with suitcases, on a regular basis, even though, back then, the building was a non-rental unit. We did not allow rentals back then. That reminds me how many opportunities for a family to go buy a home are being taken away because somebody, in the name of profit, decides about purchasing multiple units and, because short-term rentals might make more money in the short run, decides to run an almost hotel-like business in our city.

I know that I have faith in our local government. I have faith in our elected officials over at the city of Richmond, like when they actually put out a plan supporting our city development in regard to how we can make sure we develop more areas appropriately for our city.

But when you have illegal markets happening in the background or markets functioning in a way that doesn’t match the development target, it puts all of our numbers…. It puts all our efforts to support a holistic, healthy community at risk. That’s why I’m very, very excited to be able to see that Bill 35 is being put on the table for us to have a good discussion around.

Another figure that…. I almost want to say it’s not just shocking; it’s almost heartbreaking. As I mentioned earlier, 20 percent year by year. But if you look at the total number of the short-term market, it’s dominated by 10 percent of the operators, who actually make 50 percent of the profit.

It has become a very profit-driven market, to the point that it has become an industry when it was initially designed just to be supplementary — a little household income. This deviation from the initial design of short-term rentals is something I think is addressed by Bill 35.

I also want to emphasize that we are having a housing crisis. We also have a labour shortage. Many people who are making close to minimum wage probably want to work near where they live, because, obviously, they’re dealing with a lot of transportation expenses and travelling costs. They want to spend more time with their families too.

One of the goals we are trying to really focus on is to allow young people to find units within our city. I know, even for Richmond, short-term rental unit listings are everywhere. If we can convert them into homes for young families, how great that would be to help us support our labour market, to allow people to actually find local jobs that can support them and support their families and allow schools to be supported by local individuals.

That’s why, when we’re looking at this short-term rental issue and how it has become a bigger burden upon our housing market when we are addressing the housing crisis, I’m, again, very thankful for our Minister of Housing really tackling this issue to allow us, through different strategies, to release different housing stocks back to the market so that we can create more homes. Not for-profit units, not some kind of hotel-mimicking system, but homes back into our community.

We do not want to build a tower where people come and go and nobody knows who one another is. We don’t want to build an apartment where the neighbours don’t know one another because they can change every day.

[1:15 p.m.]

We want people to have neighbourhoods — neighbourhoods where people have long-lasting relationships with the area where they spend time in.

If you look at the community amenities, you’re talking about swimming pools, hockey arenas. You’re talking about basketball courts. All those are justified when they’re being utilized by the taxpayers in a way that’s meaningful and rewarding for the local community. But this kind of short-term rental, when you have multiple listings that are not within your primary residential units, is creating a hotel-like market that’s taking away many, many homes and eroding the very sense of neighbourhood that we British Columbians have cherished in the past.

I would like to even go back to a little personal anecdote, story. I remember when I was a kid, one of the things we always loved to do was play hockey on the streets in front of my house. Kids come together. It’s a fun activity to participate in. Of course, we have a lot of scars, wounds and laughter as we come together and form a neighbourhood. That’s what British Columbians are looking for.

British Columbians are coming together to say: “What can we do?” We really ask ourselves: “Can I know my neighbour? Can I go to across the street to borrow a container of sugar? If we have some kind of issue, do I have someone who I can have a relationship with, and I can name them by their first name, instead of seeing a stranger carrying a suitcase in and out on a regular basis?” That places a question mark. People often say: “Is this apartment not even safe, because we have a bunch of strangers we have never met before?”

That’s one of the reasons why I really want to emphasize…. I am pretty sure all our colleagues, everywhere, believe that all British Columbians want to have neighborhoods. All British Columbians want to have a community. All British Columbians want to have an opportunity to come together and celebrate the fact that we’re all British Colombians. That’s why I’m so thankful for Bill 35 placing a greater emphasis on how we can actually release some of the hotel-like market units back into creating homes.

I think one of the things we want to talk about is…. Instead of calling it the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act, we should really talk about: how can we create more homes for British Columbians? This is just why I’m so excited about this policy.

I think one of the interesting parts about this, too, is that I had a conversation with multiple municipal elected officials about short-term rentals. They struggle with it. I’ve seen every level of government, from federal, provincial, even municipal…. We all understand we are under a lot of housing crises at this point. A lot of housing challenges need to be addressed, or the fact I like to say: the lack of homes.

The municipal governments are trying their best to address this issue. They want to step up. I know the councils and the mayors are doing whatever they can to make sure we create more home units for British Columbians. That’s the reason why Bill 35 will actually strengthen and increase the fines that local government can charge: to strengthen the ability to enforce the local rules. It will require a short-term-rental platform to share their data with the provincial government and local enforcement and encourage short-term-rental platform accountability, to make sure local rules are followed.

Of course, if you look at some of the strengths and the benefits of Bill 35, it really focuses on how we can actually work with different platforms to really understand how we can remove those inappropriate units. I also want to emphasize that I would love to see what we can do to help our local government to address some of those hidden short-term rentals that have been within our community as well.

I know somebody might say: “You know what? If the short-term rentals with Bill 35 can release about 16,000 or even maybe 8,000 units, that’s perfect. But why doesn’t your government build 8,000 more units?” Our government is building. We’re working on the building of different units. For student-housing units, we’ve built 8,000 already and are adding 4,000 more to it. We continue playing catch-up and building more units to address the housing issue.

With this Bill 35, it will help us also prevent new units that are being built being purchased into short-term rental. We want those units to continue to be…. We want to be building homes. That’s a key word I want to continue to emphasize: we are here to build homes.

We will continue working with British Columbians, with different levels of government, with different industries, different sectors to really ask: how can we create a number of homes available for our younger generation, for our seniors who are looking for a place to settle down? We’re looking for ways to ensure British Columbians can stay in British Columbia.

I know there were stats that were shared with us that close to 250,000 people in the last few years have moved into British Columbia. It shows British Columbia is growing. It show British Columbia is actually thriving.

[1:20 p.m.]

We have also a number of immigrants coming in too. They’re bringing in skilled workers. They are bringing different talents. They’re bringing their different perspective and culture to enrich, to diversify and to strengthen British Columbia.

We want them to be feeling welcome too. So that’s why our government is doing so many different great works towards a different level of services to ensure that we’re investing, investing and investing, so that we can invest early instead of worrying about a future expense where we have to play catch-up and with proper interventions.

If we talk about short-term rental, this is, again, one of our many strategies that we’ll commit to. We need those housing markets to be released. The housing stock belong to British Columbia as formal homes. They can be rented out, they can be purchased, but do not turn them into some form of profit-generating hotel-like units.

There is an expectation that if people own a primary unit and have a sub-unit within the primary residence, they can use it. If they have multiple units, of course there’s a limitation to it. But in the end, people shouldn’t be able to go around saying, “Because I am financially able to, I’m going to buy multiple units in a community and start renting them out like hotel rooms,” and then taking away the very niche stock for young people to call home.

I also want to emphasize one thing in Richmond too. Richmond is a very diverse community…. I want to speak from Richmond’s perspective as well. Richmond is a very diverse community where we want our young people to be here. We have a lot of individuals who are well off. We also have individuals who are struggling.

I think one of the things we are trying to do is we always focus on how we can — all people in Richmond or British Columbia — all prosper together. But when it comes to Richmond, we’re looking at the ride-hailing, we’re looking at short-term rentals, and we’re looking at different kinds of services. We also need to understand some of them need to be addressed. That way, the proper benefit of the bill can be implemented.

That’s why, again, I’m going to go back to talking about how we can increase and strengthen tools for local government. So we’re really asking ourselves: how can we ensure that local government can find ways to address those people who are violating the rules, who are turning units into inappropriate usage or, I should say, taking them out of the housing stock so that we have less homes to really appreciate for young people and for seniors?

With all that being said, I do want to emphasize the importance of why I support Bill 35. I really believe that political…. I’m hoping all of our colleagues from across the aisle will also stand up, as well, so that we can all join together and fight for homes for all British Columbians.

A. Olsen: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 35, the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act. I think it’s important to acknowledge, just out front here, that these changes that are being proposed — at least the ones that we can see and the ones that have been spoken about — have been supported and are supported by the B.C. Green caucus.

We called for many of the initiatives that have been outlined in this bill earlier this year in alignment with calls from the Union of B.C. Municipalities in order to better support local governments in addressing the impact of short-term vacation rentals in our communities. I have been hearing for the last number of years, since I was elected in 2017, anecdotally and in a lot of information from our communities, about the impact that short-term vacation rentals have had on the housing market and on the housing supply.

Oftentimes when we talk about housing supply in the political sphere, it’s about building new units. This is an example, I think, of one of the areas in which we may be able to take advantage of units that are already built. Part of the challenge with, of course, building new supply….

I’m not saying that there won’t be new supply built. Of course, that’s what will happen. But if building new supply is the only way that we’re going to get supply online, then it’s going to take a very long time for us to achieve what the people of British Columbia, the future people of British Columbia, need in terms of finding stable, secure housing.

Even more to that, or in addition to stable, secure housing or the product of stable, secure housing, is a sense of belonging in the communities that they’re living in.

[1:25 p.m.]

I think with that sense of belonging, the sense of being able to be part of the community that you’re living in, seeing yourself being a part of that community — not just today and tomorrow but for weeks, months and years to come, decades to come — means you’re making more than a real estate investment in that community. It means you’re making a much deeper investment in the socioeconomic fabric of that community. You’re volunteering for community organizations. You’re stepping up when the parents advisory committee needs volunteers to support the grads or whatever initiatives that they have.

There’s a wide variety of organizations that I come into contact with as an MLA who are seeing the stability of their organization be eroded because of the mobility that exists in our society. There will always be mobility. I’m not suggesting that there won’t be that mobility.

I do want to highlight that when people are in tenuous housing situations, when they’re renting where they can find a place to rent rather than where they want to live, when they’re unable to grow deep roots in a community, it plays out negatively in all parts of their life. It makes it more difficult to find a job that you can commit to long term. It makes it more difficult for your children to be able to make lifelong friendships like I’ve been able to benefit from. I have benefited from living in the community that I was brought home to as a baby.

One of those reasons why someone like me, who grew up on an Indian reserve in this country, first got elected, across the line, in the municipal government, was because of those lifelong relationships that I was able to benefit from. I was able to contribute and give back to the community because my housing, the place that I live, the place that I belong to, was secure.

One of the great challenges that we’re facing with a housing affordability crisis is the displacement of people, the inability to grow deep roots into the community that they’re living in. They’re fearful of the fact that they might one day be uprooted and have to move somewhere else. They might have to move to a place that they can afford because the rents are increasing.

In that context, then…. Of course, their transportation costs will increase, as they spend both more money to buy themselves a vehicle and get themselves insurance or more time on transit, in which investments have languished in recent years.

As we see these threats that people are facing in their lives, the inability to afford the place that they’re living in, the fear that the place that they’re living in…. The costs continue to increase. The further they get away from the places that they work or the places that they recreate or the places where their friends are, the more pressure that comes on to those families and on to those British Columbians from the increased costs of transportation.

When we take a look at supply, part of the equation is going to be: how many more units…? Again, the economic framing of housing is in units. How many more units can be built?

This bill highlights the opportunity to, perhaps, find some…. We’ve heard some numbers be thrown around. I think that it is inappropriate, at this stage, to throw numbers around about how many might be available or how many this bill might make available. That happened when the Strata Act changes came in earlier this year. Numbers were thrown around, assumptions were made, yet the only thing that was really built was expectation.

Knowing exactly how many units came on the market because of that bill is very difficult. Knowing how many units of housing are going to come on the market because of Bill 35 is going to be difficult to understand.

However, we have been experiencing a decade and a half of economic disruption from these, largely tech, companies. We handled and dealt with this with respect to self-directed passenger transportation. Uber, the Kleenex brand of self-directed…. Airbnb also. They talk more about in­dustry disruptors than individual companies.

[1:30 p.m.]

I think that it’s important to recognize that as government moves slowly and market disruptors move quickly…. Their whole business model is about moving quickly and breaking things. What has been broken, when it comes to the disruption of moving housing, homes that could be made available for people to live in, to establish their nest, to establish a place to build a life, security…. What we see when that gets broken are all of the symptoms that we see happening when people can’t find a safe place to lay their head at night.

One of the most critical things that human beings need in order to be well balanced is a good night’s sleep, a safe place to go, a safe nest to be able to build a life out of. By the pure commodification of housing — housing market ruling all, housing market being a primary indicator of the health and well-being of our economy. When we hear that language, when housing units are the primary thing that we’re trading, we’re not talking about, as the government indeed called their new housing plan, Homes for People.

I think it’s important to acknowledge that when we start talking about housing as a home rather than as a purely economic unit, we’re beginning to talk about that place in a way that creates that security. I’m very appreciative of that. We have seen a disruption, largely by tech companies, as I mentioned, and the short-term vacation rental platforms were exactly that: disruptors. The government has been incredibly slow to move.

We at the B.C. Green caucus, going back into the confidence and supply agreement since 2017, have been advocating with this government to take action to regulate and enforce those regulations at a provincial level. Instead, what we’ve seen is this fragmented approach, leaving it up to local governments and not giving them the tools or access to the tools that they need in order to be able to do the job. We see community after community taking their own approach to it. It’s a highly ineffective and highly inefficient way to do it.

At first blush, when we take a look at this legislation that’s in front of us, we can see some really important initiatives that are going to be put in place. Unfortunately, many aspects of this bill are still left to regulation. We are in a situation, again, where important pieces of this legislation are enabling, leaving it up to the minister to negotiate the final terms and bring them in, in regulation.

We heard the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness profiling yesterday that the enabling legislation allows great flexibility. That’s true; it does, but for members in the opposition and for members of the public, it also creates instability, because we have no idea, until those regulations are brought in, of what they will be.

It gives us no time, on the opposition benches, to ask questions about why the government made one choice over another. It gives us no time to be able to test the quality of the decision that was made, to push it through those tests that we provide, as members of the opposition, to ensure that it can withstand those tests.

Unfortunately, we have a situation where the broad strokes of this legislation appear to be heading in the right direction. Unfortunately, it will be up to us to try to ask crafty questions in the committee stage to get to the bottom of what the intention of the minister is going to be. Thankfully, the minister, in this case, has appeared to be speaking very forthrightly about what the intentions are, and we hope that that continues to play out.

We are pleased to see legislation that comes forward that listens to the Union of B.C. Municipalities provincial advisory group and that has factored in some of the recommendations that we made in our call earlier this year: platform accountability, regional districts having the ability to issue business licences, data-sharing, increased fines. These are important initiatives.

We’re pleased to see the government go above and beyond on the principal-residence requirement and the non-compliance clause. We’ll have to see how those play out as the debate of this legislation rolls on.

[1:35 p.m.]

I think it’s important to acknowledge, as the member that represents the southern Gulf Islands, the critical housing crisis that our communities on the southern Gulf Islands face. I’m grateful for the opportunities that the minister has given me and my local elected government colleagues to meet with the minister and to meet with their staff with respect to the specific challenges that the southern Gulf Islands face.

The southern Gulf Islands are in this unique situation where they are rural communities surrounded by water, only accessible by ferry, making them quite rural. But they’re part of the CRD, which makes them urban. There’s this perspective that…. They get caught in this kind of no man’s land in the middle.

We see initiatives get rolled out by this provincial government, intended to support communities but neglecting the southern Gulf Islands. We saw that with the building communities fund. The building communities fund was a $1 billion that provided local governments the much-needed resources that they needed in order to be able to invest in their infrastructure.

Earlier this session, I called for the provincial government to provide that funding, year over year, until a new fiscal framework had been negotiated with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Local governments need more than a one-time injection. They need an ongoing injection.

What we found on the southern Gulf islands — what my CRD director colleagues in the southern Gulf Islands, Paul Brent and Gary Holman, found — was that the money then earmarked for helping communities went to the regional district and municipalities, which benefited from those funds distributed amongst those communities and also the islands.

There was no direct access to those funds for the southern Gulf Islands, the per capita funding. Indeed, it was intentionally designed to not support electoral areas like it was designed to support municipal governments. That was incredibly unfortunate, and that left potential resources off the table for local government officials.

We’ve met with this government on several occasions. I say “we” — I and my local government colleagues. They’ve written letters. They’ve passed motions with the Minister of Finance about the speculation and vacancy tax for Saltspring Island. I recognize that each of the islands is different. In the community of Saltspring Island, their elected leaders there have specifically requested from this government, two annual cycles in a row, to be included in the speculation and vacancy tax.

Yet this government continues to be reluctant to give the communities a tool they feel that they need. When we talk to the provincial government about this, when we talk to the Minister of Finance, they provide a response back to us that says: “Just ask.” So we asked. “We’ll consider you next year.”

We’ve got all this pressure around Saltspring, in particular, a community with 11,000 or 12,000 people in it. All of this pressure, all the communities around Saltspring, are a part of the speculation and vacancy tax. We’ve got this one little area that’s not. That’s what those local government officials have been asking this government to act on, and they’ve been reluctant to do so.

The former B.C. NDP government that created the Islands Trust created it on the principle of preserve and protect. If that was the case, that has been what my local government colleagues have been pleading for. That’s the message that I’ve been bringing on their behalf to this place, to continue to live out the original vision of that trust. One of those ways would be to listen to the local government officials.

Another one of these issues — I’ve talked to the minister about this recently — is the pilot program for secondary suites. Again, the local governments on Saltspring Island and the southern Gulf Islands have been left out of the initial first year of this program. I’ve been seeking assurance that they will get access at some point — this is a three-year program, as it has been explained to me — but again, they’re excluded from the outset.

I’ve been told the purpose of this program was to support communities that need housing in more urban areas, where the housing needs are more acute.

[1:40 p.m.]

I can’t think of a place where the housing needs are more acute than on each of the southern Gulf Islands, where one or two homes for people make a massive difference. We’re not talking 1,000 or 2,000 homes. We’re talking one or two homes that can make a difference as to whether or not the Mayne Island child care facility, which this government invested in, has ECEs that can live on the island and work in it.

I remember the Mayne Island community coming to me and saying: “Will you support our request for funds for early childhood education spaces?” I said: “Absolutely. I’m all for it.”

I know members on the other side of the House who live part-time on Mayne Island were very supportive of it. I raise my hands to the minister for supporting it.

As soon as that was built and as soon as it was opened, I heard immediately from the Mayne Island child care centre that the next advocacy was…. “We need help getting ECEs. We need to find a place for them to live.”

We have a school on Mayne Island that has an old house on it. They’re fundraising right now in order to renovate it so that the school can have a teacher. A basic need of a school is to have a teacher.

We’ve got this housing unit sitting there, and it’s being fundraised in order to turn it into a place. That’s fine. That’s one way of doing it. However, this is an example of where one unit, where one secondary suite, on Mayne Island, funded by that new program, would have a remarkable difference as to having a spot for an ECE to provide child care, for having a teacher able to live on the island and work in the community school.

We meet every month, the southern Gulf Islands forum. It’s a forum of the CRD directors, the islands’ trustees, the local Chiefs of the nations that are within the southern Gulf Islands. We meet on a monthly basis. We also meet twice per year for four hours. The vast majority of the time that we’ve spent has been talking about the housing woes on the islands.

I need to take some space in this discussion, in this debate about this bill, to just put on the record…. When this government is designing housing policy, it need not leave the southern Gulf Islands out because it’s not urban enough. Indeed, the housing pressures that we’re experiencing on the southern Gulf Islands have been exacerbated by short-term rentals.

Both the Islands Trust and the CRD have been looking at each other to find ways to create the regulations that are needed in order to support the workforce on those islands. People, when they get in their car and they drive down to Ganges or when they drive into Village Bay or when they drive to the stores on Galiano, are hoping that there will be people there to make the cup of coffee. They’re hoping that there will be people there to keep those stores open.

That’s becoming increasingly marginal. It’s becoming increasingly marginal whether they can find the farmworkers that are needed in order to make those farms viable in the southern Gulf Islands.

When we create these housing programs and we ex­clude…. When we create housing programs like B.C. Housing created and the decisions that have been made, historically, about the project on Drake Road, as an example, on Salt Spring….

B.C. Housing only does purpose-built. That was the decision. We’re going to do purpose-built. It was three years ago that we started that conversation. I think it was two years ago that they made the announcement. Two years ago they made the announcement. Purpose-built, Drake Road, not a unit available yet.

Building purpose-built, based on the model B.C. Housing does everywhere else in the province, just isn’t possible on the southern Gulf Islands. My elected colleagues, community leaders on Salt Spring, community leaders across the southern Gulf Islands continue to express to this government and to B.C. Housing that the model that works elsewhere in B.C. just simply doesn’t work for the southern Gulf Islands.

Find ways to be able to repurpose, reuse, take advantage of supply that already exists, perhaps houses that are on the market right now. Have a fund that can renovate those spaces and turn them into multifamily. Strata some of them. Maybe they can be rental housing.

[1:45 p.m.]

Find ways to be able to think outside the current box B.C. Housing is operating in. Look at the places that are already built. Look at the places that have water hookups already attached to them and that are already approved. Work with the local government bodies there to find ways to repurpose those to create homes for people, which is the name of the plan. I continue to encourage this government to support those ideas and to think outside the box.

I know the impact of short-term rental accommodations on the southern Gulf islands, in particular. We have them through the Saanich Peninsula as well. This issue has been most acutely felt on the southern Gulf Islands. We know that those STVR platforms have had an impact on the accessibility of housing. They’ve come at a tremendous cost.

As I profiled in the opening parts of this speech…. I talked about the security of housing and the sense of belonging and how we need to return to that.

I also want to talk about the fact that this has had an impact on investors as well. The lack of government action on short-term rental platforms allowed, for the last four or five years, for this business model to be entrenched in our society, for entire buildings to be designed and built and then become, basically, rental platform hotels. Unregulated hotels, basically, is what they’ve become.

A lot of people have invested a lot of money working and operating in that system. Now the government is making a change. I understand. I can hear the feelings of people who are now caught up in that.

I think it’s a lesson for us, as we’re looking at the response that we have here to this particular platform, this particular disruption and future disruptions. The pace of government’s response needs to be quicker. We need to respond more promptly. We need to begin to understand the issues that are being created in real time rather than wait for them to become entrenched and not put in place measures at an earlier stage or not phase in measures.

We have a highly commodified housing market. We have it. It’s intentional. It’s the way it was designed.

I’ve seen the impact of this from the other side of the line. I grew up on an Indian reserve in this country. It has been made clear to me since the very first day that I was able to understand these things how the Canadian and provincial governments created a housing market that generated wealth on one side of the line, and they created a housing program that generated poverty on the other.

It’s important for us to acknowledge. When we talk about the commodification of housing, it is at the root core of our housing philosophy in this country. It is, and becomes, the primary wealth generator for Canadians. Canadians and British Columbians have been doing exactly what governments have wanted them to do since the end of the Second World War — invest in housing.

Housing starts continue to be one of the primary markers of a healthy economy, the number of housing starts, what the housing market is doing, the real estate market. The income that this government makes off of housing continues to be the top of two revenue streams. The top few revenue streams of this government are in real estate.

It’s important to recognize that if we are going to deal with housing unaffordability, a housing unaffordability crisis, to understand the problem that we are facing…. It is a philosophical one embedded in the root of our housing system.

If we are going to stand in this place and say that the commodification of housing has created a scenario where people can’t afford to rent the place that they’re living in…. They’re paying 50 to 60 to 70 percent of their income to rent. That’s causing incredible stress and tension on peo­ple, exasperation, fear. It’s not sustainable.

[1:50 p.m.]

If it’s going to take 20 to 30 years for people to save up in order to get a mortgage, the system that was created decades ago is not working for us. For us to work around the edges of that and not actually attack the core of it, which is that the wealth-generating housing system that has been created in our country is not serving us, if all we’re prepared to do is talk around the outside, then we’re going to continue to face symptoms of this problem.

We need to identify the problem at its core. That is that the commodification of housing is what a lot of Canadians and a lot of British Columbians have bought into, because that’s what these government bodies across the country have wanted them to buy into. It’s at the core of our economy.

Changing that is going to be painful, and it’s going to be challenging, and it’s not going to be done easily. But it won’t be done at all if we don’t identify it and name it and recognize that what we are doing is trying to find a way to have a conversation with people who have everything that they’ve earned put in their real estate.

So when we stand up in here and talk about the commodification of housing, what we’re talking about is what British Columbians and Canadians know about their housing. That is the stability that they have. That’s their retirement.

It’s a wicked problem, and it will not be solved by frittering around the edges. However, that said, I’m thankful that this bill is in front of us. The structure of this bill and the ideas that are put forward for us to debate we support. With that, I’ll take my seat.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister to move second reading.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I thank all the members in the House that took the opportunity to speak to this very important piece of legislation. I know we will have a fulsome discussion in committee stage. I look forward to having a thoughtful and respectful exchange at that point.

With that, I move second reading.

Deputy Speaker: Members have heard the question. The question is second reading of Bill 35, Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act.

Division has been called.

[1:55 p.m. - 2:05 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Second reading of Bill 35 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 67
Anderson	Babchuk	Bailey
Bains	Beare	Begg
Bernier	Bond	Brar
Chandra Herbert	Chant	Chen
Chow	Clovechok	Conroy
Coulter	Cullen	Davies
Dean	Doerkson	Donnelly
Dykeman	Elmore	Farnworth
Fleming	Furstenau	Glumac
Greene	Halford	Heyman
Kahlon	Kirkpatrick	Kyllo
Leonard	Lore	Ma
Mercier	Merrifield	Milobar
Morris	Olsen	Osborne
Paddon	Parmar	Paton
Phillip	Ralston	Rankin
Robinson	Ross	Routledge
Routley	Russell	Sharma
Shypitka	Simons	Sims
A. Singh	R. Singh	Starchuk
Stewart	Stone	Sturko
Tegart	Wat	Whiteside
	Yao
NAYS — 2
Banman		Rustad

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

Motion approved.

Bill 35, Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 36, Police Amendment Act.

[2:10 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 36 — POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 36; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 2:11 p.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: I’ll call this committee to order. We are discussing Bill 36, Police Amendment Act, 2023.

Prince George–Mackenzie.

M. Morris: Thank you, Chair. It is a little awkward doing this on Zoom. I’ll be doing this, along with my colleague from Surrey, for the afternoon here.

Clause 1(b). I have a question. It now inserts the minister’s approval on the choice made by the municipality. Does not subsection (3) in the current act…? An agreement under subsection (2)(b) or (c) states it “must contain terms that the Lieutenant Governor in Council approves.” Would this not provide for the same authority? Would an OIC normally be prepared under the direction of the minister’s office anyways? This sounds like it might be a duplicate.

Hon. M. Farnworth: To the member: is your question based on section 3(b) or section 3(2)(b)?

M. Morris: I’ll get this figured out one of these days.

[2:15 p.m.]

My question is with respect to clause 1(b), where it says: “Subject to the approval of the minister under section 3.1(2)(a), a municipality….” This clause, which is now inserted, appears to duplicate the provisions under section 3 of the current act, where it says: “An agreement under subsection (2) (b) or (c) must contain terms that the Lieutenant Governor in Council approves.”

I’m just curious, because normally it would be…. Any term that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council approves is normally something that the minister puts forward?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There’s no unnecessary duplication. It doesn’t change except for the reference to 3.1(2)(a).

M. Morris: I’m curious. In one area, we have the minister’s approval, which inserts the minister’s approval on the choice made by the municipality, but under the current act, it still provides for an agreement under subsection 2(b) or (c) and contains the term “the Lieutenant Governor in Council approves,” which is the minister, by all intents and purposes. Are those two separate approvals, then, for different things?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, for clarification, is the member asking if these agreements are approved by cabinet or by the minister?

M. Morris: I’m just curious, because there seem to be two levels of approvals here. One is under the new clause that I referred to under sub (b), and the other one is in the act under subsection 3(3), which is an OIC. What does the OIC do differently than what the minister’s approval does under subclause 1(b)?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thanks to the member for the question. It is still one approval by the minister, but the cabinet also has the ability to specify terms that can go into the agreement.

M. Morris: So it’s still one approval, but there are two processes for the approval. The OIC would be the cabinet input, which would be different than the minister’s approval.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Cabinet could preapprove agreements that would need to be in an agreement. That’s a separate process.

M. Morris: Okay. Thank you.

I’ll go to subsection 1(c). I’ve got a question there. Does this new clause (c) indicate that the agreements made up to this point by ministers are not made on behalf of government? Is it not already the case that any agreement made by a minister is made on behalf of government, or has something changed here?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There’s no change. This is just a technical clarifying amendment.

M. Morris: Okay. So agreements previously made by the minister, just to confirm, were actually agreements made on behalf of government.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct.

E. Sturko: Dealing still with section…. It says 1, but section 3 of the Police Act that we’re reviewing right now. What information will the minister base the decision for approval or disapproval on?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That’s not in this section. That will be in the next section, in 3.1

E. Sturko: We can go through that at a later time.

In clause (b), it says “subject to the approval of the minister.” So that’s why I was asking for what information you will base this approval or disapproval on.

Hon. M. Farnworth: What you’re talking about is just a reference to section 3.1(2)(a), which is in the next section.

A. Olsen: Would this bill and these amendments have been necessary had the situation in Surrey not occurred the way it has occurred over the last few years?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is intended to bring clarification to the act as it has previously existed.

A. Olsen: The specific aspects of this bill that are reflecting…. The later clauses in this bill that deal with Surrey weren’t in any way the motivation behind this bill coming forward?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think it would be fair to say that without Surrey, we wouldn’t know about the clarity issues in some of the sections of the act that need to be changed, and that’s why these changes are coming forward.

A. Olsen: There was a special committee that reviewed reforming the Police Act. There were 11 recommendations which were made to this minister, that were tabled in a report more than a year ago, about a year and a half ago now. I’m just wondering why it is and whether or not the changes that were recommended in the Reforming the Police Act were considered in….

We’re bringing forward amendments to the Police Act. None of the amendments that are in here were reflected in the report — or few of them were, if any. I’m just wondering why it is that we’re not seeing a comprehensive bill here that covers the other areas that have been exposed by the minister’s own committee.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The report the member references….

The work is being done in the ministry. I’ve indicated on a number of occasions publicly that we are taking a phased approach on that and that there will be other legislation coming forward that deals with those recommendations, because, in part, it requires some significant consultation around those recommendations — particularly with UNDRIP, for example — and with local government.

But we’ve said that a phased approach is being taken, and that’s what is happening.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

M. Morris: I’ve got a couple of questions on clause 2, and I believe my colleague from Surrey also has some questions on clause 2 as well.

I’ll start off with this one. If a municipality chooses to provide policing services with their own department or chooses to contract with an existing department, does the minister consider timelines that the municipality may need to present these options to their constituents as part of a municipal election platform, for an example? The timelines are kind of vague within the legislation here.

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, I don’t consider…. The minister does not consider municipal timelines.

[2:30 p.m.]

The only thing the minister would consider is that the provision of policing and law enforcement by that proposed model that they would want to — whether or not it would adversely affect the ability of the minister or the local government to fulfil their respective duties under sections 2 and 15(1).

M. Morris: So….

The Chair: Member.

M. Morris: Sorry, Chair, you’ll have to…. I’ll offer my apologies for the rest of the session here. I’ll try to honour the protocols here.

How much notice would the minister provide municipalities when they will be crossing the 5,000 population threshold? Does the minister provide advice to these municipalities of their options, the projected cost of retaining the RCMP under a municipal contract? What process takes place here?

Hon. M. Farnworth: So a couple of things. We monitor B.C. Stats in terms of the populations and, obviously, when the census comes out. We start to engage with them about 18 months to two years out in coming up to that 5,000 threshold.

I can also tell you that, for example, at UBCM, they are always raising with me as Solicitor General, and no doubt they did when you were Solicitor General, that: “Hey, we’re starting to get close to that 5,000 mark.” But we engage with them early on.

M. Morris: Are there provisions to invoice these municipalities for policing services under an interim RCMP municipal agreement until a municipality has officially made their decision?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. No, there is no agreement. They are responsible from the day they cross that 5,000 threshold for policing services.

E. Sturko: Will every current local government with over 5,000 persons have their agreements in place? Will they have to be nullified or need to be redone if they were not via consent of the minister on behalf of the government or in any other way? Is any part of this legislation retroactive to municipalities other than Surrey?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, nothing retroactive to any other municipality.

E. Sturko: What information will the minister base their decision for approval or disapproval on?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be based on material provided to me — so, for example, what plans they have or records that we may require.

[2:35 p.m.]

It could be things such as staffing levels they’re looking at, that they are proposing, what the crime stats are in the area. Are there any emerging trends, for example? Those are the kinds of things that would be taken into account.

E. Sturko: Were staffing levels and crime statistics taken into account when the decision was made with regard to the Surrey policing transition, from both?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Those specific questions are the subject of the JR, so I’m not in a position to be able to provide information here.

E. Sturko: Well, can the minister please provide an index of subjects that will be required to be flushed out in order for a minister to provide a sound basis for their decision?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That will vary from community to community and will be based on the size of the community — the location will play a big part — but also on the model that they are proposing. Then that is assessed by my director of police services and the ministry.

E. Sturko: Is there no set standard in terms of looking at, for example, a model that would go from our national police force to municipal police forces? Is there no index of criteria that the ministry would be using to assess these plans?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, because it varies from community to community. In fact, that’s true right across the country. There’s no sort of checklist. It varies, from community to community, what specific needs are, where they’re located. All of those things come into play.

E. Sturko: Can the minister please confirm, then, that there was no framework in place at the time when the decision was made to green-light the Surrey policing transition — no framework of criteria that would need to, with certainty, be fulfilled in order for that green light, that transition to take place?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I was exercising, at the time, my authority under section (2), and the question the member is posing relates to the JR issue. I can’t provide further information on that.

E. Sturko: Can the minister, then, confirm that the judicial review of the Surrey policing transition is going to go ahead or is underway at the moment?

Hon. M. Farnworth: As to whether it proceeds or not, that’s up to the city of Surrey. They’re the ones who filed the JR.

E. Sturko: The concern I have at the moment is that many of the questions that I would like to ask on behalf of the public seem to not be able to be answered as a result of a judicial review going on into this process.

[2:40 p.m.]

If we won’t be able to have the public’s questions answered as a result of potential ongoing court proceedings, can we ask that this legislation be stood down so that we can have all the public’s questions answered at the time when that decision is made?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No. The bill isn’t going to be stood down. The JR is in the hands of the city of Surrey, and they’re quite free to ask questions related to the various sections in the bill. But the decision to do the JR was the decision of the city of Surrey. The legislation before us is completely separate from that JR.

E. Sturko: If it’s completely separate, then why will the minister not provide answers and clarification of the questions that I’m asking?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are two separate processes underway, and the questions that you’re specifically asking relate specifically to Surrey in terms of the JR.

E. Sturko: Can the minister please explain why the authority to approve or disapprove rests with them alone?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Because under the Police Act, I’m the minister responsible for maintaining and ensuring adequate and effective policing.

E. Sturko: Will regulations contain the explicit information required that will provide the basis for decision-making, one way or another, for which police force that a future community would be choosing?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer would be no. There’s no regulation-making authorities in these changes that are being proposed.

A. Olsen: Has there ever been another incident in the history of the province where we’ve seen a situation where a decision to change policing services has been made, and then a different decision to stop that process has been made that would require, I guess, section 3.1(4)(a) and (b)?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer would be no, not that we’re aware of.

M. Morris: I’m a little concerned over the minister refusing to answer some questions because of the JR. I’ll have to put some thought to that.

The terms “adequate” and “effective” are subjective terms. I’m just curious as to how the minister determines if a municipality is or is not providing an adequate and effective level of service?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be on the advice of the director of police services as to whether adequate and effective is being adversely affected.

[2:45 p.m.]

M. Morris: I understand that. I just…. What metrics are available for the director that the minister is aware of that provide some kind of structure around determining what adequate and effective policing is that the minister makes his determination on to either direct or order some municipality to go in a certain direction?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It could be a number of factors that are taken into account. Staffing levels, obviously; crime rate; the nature of the community, for example. Let’s say a resort community, because of significant population fluctuations during the course of the year may be taken into account.

Those are some of the things that that the director of police services would be looking at.

M. Morris: Again, some of the things…. We’re talking about some pretty serious decisions that the minister has, or the authorities that the minister has, in order to now direct a municipality on how they’re going to be policing their community.

The clause brings up the minister’s responsibilities for their respective duties under section 2, to determine adequate and effective levels of policing. Like I said at the beginning, these are subjective terms.

How does a community know what the terms are or what the references are that the minister uses to make those evaluations down the road? I’ll get into some statistical data coming up here, but I’m just curious. Does the director have a set of metrics that he or she uses in order to provide this direction to the minister to make these fairly significant decisions?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The adequate and effective that my colleague refers to in terms of the legislation is standard wording that’s in this province and, in fact, every other province across the country.

What we do is work with the local community, because they bring a plan to us. Then we work with them on that plan. As I said a few moments ago, when communities are coming up to the 5,000 mark, we’ve been starting to work with them 18 months to two years ahead of that time.

M. Morris: I’m still at a loss here. This is a significant factor. This is one of the things that I considered when I was sitting in your chair a number of years ago, because adequate and effective were subjective terms.

[2:50 p.m.]

I was relying on the published crime stats your ministry puts out on a regular basis, on an annual basis, that analyze crime rates and caseloads and serious crime — all those types of things.

I’m just wondering if this is one of the key ingredients that the minister uses to determine whether or not adequate and effective policing is provided at a particular police department.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We look at a range of issues. There’s not one issue that decides things.

As I said a moment ago, we look at things such as staffing levels. We look at things such as crime rate. We look at things such as the nature of the community. We look at, obviously, the size of the community. All of those things come into play.

Particularly as a community is approaching 5,000, when they are moving from where the province is paying to where they’re paying, we work with them to make sure that the plan they have is the right plan, that it’s able to be implemented going forward and that it will ensure adequate and effective policing.

M. Morris: I’m still not…. I understand there’s a variety of things that we look at here. I’m very curious and determined to find out what the criteria is that the minister bases these very serious decisions on, with respect to Surrey, especially. This is what started this particular bill and brought this particular bill forward, the issue that Surrey identified in providing clarity to the Police Act.

In providing clarity to the Police Act, it should be providing clarity to what the respective duties are for the minister under section 2, in determining what adequate and effective policing is, because we have a variety of detachments and police departments in the province, with crime rates that are very low to crime rates that are extremely high, that haven’t seemed to hit the minister’s radar.

We have caseloads that are low in some cases, like Oak Bay and other police departments — caseloads that are in the teens. Then we have detachments like Prince George and Penticton, where the caseloads are well in excess of 100 or 120 or 150 cases per police officer. If we’re providing clarity to the Police Act, what is the clarity being provided to determine, to put the metrics around, the section 2 definitions that we’ve been referring to?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s all of the things that the member has mentioned. In fact, the variation is some of…. All of those things are taken into account. The other items that I mentioned — such as the size of the community; the location of the community; impact on adjacent communities, for example; impact on provincewide policing — form part and parcel, because every community is different.

It’s not like saying, “Okay, there’s a framework that says at this point, it must be this,” or “At this, it must be that.” It’s the work done by the director of police services within the ministry on the plan that’s put forward, taking into account things that you’ve just mentioned, the things that I have just mentioned, all of those things.

E. Sturko: The minister had said in his response to my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie that a determination is made, whether a policing service would be adequate and effective, by looking at things like staffing plans, HR plans.

Let’s go with a hypothetical, and the hypothetical is that, let’s say, there was a policing transition taking place in B.C. somewhere, some other community. It was going to be leaving the RCMP, and the other was going to a municipal force potentially somewhere in B.C.

[2:55 p.m.]

To determine whether or not it would have an impact on other communities, would you have to have HR plans available for both police services in order to make a determination on which one will be adequate and effective?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s awkward dealing with hypothetical situations. But the reality is, if what the member put forward….

In terms of the question, you would be dealing with a police department as it exists today with a staffing level as exists today, and then you would have a proposal for it to transition to another police department. It would be wanting to know: how does that impact on other communities? Does it impact on the rest of the province, for example?

E. Sturko: Would it be important to know the number of officers required for the incoming hypothetical police service and to see a completed HR plan in order to determine whether or not it would have an impact on, for example, if it was in the Lower Mainland, neighbouring Lower Mainland police services or even in the greater police community across British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s question and the approach that she is taking. However, that’s getting very, in essence, into what the JR is looking at.

[3:00 p.m.]

E. Sturko: This is a hypothetical scenario. I was told that I could not….

Even though this particular piece of proposed legislation, this bill, deals with my home community, Surrey, British Columbia, and it deals with one of the most important policing issues that we’ve ever faced in our community, I’m not allowed to ask specifically about that because of a judicial review.

I’m proposing a hypothetical question now. This is a very concerning issue that needs to be answered. How on earth could a minister, if they didn’t know the actual number of officers required for this new hypothetical police force, determine the impact on neighbouring towns in the province? Without knowing whether they were looking for maybe 200 more people or 2,000 more people, how would they know whether that would draw from RCMP detachments, VPD, other municipal police forces?

This is at the heart of understanding whether or not this minister has the ability to make a decision on what is adequate and effective policing in British Columbia.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, I appreciate the approach the member is taking, but the hypothetical that she is putting forward is the exact path of the process which is the subject of the JR.

E. Sturko: Again, I’m going to voice my deep concern, as a member of the opposition, that not only is the minister not able to answer direct questions about what is at the heart of this bill, the Surrey policing transition, but there was no other reason for this legislation. I actually saw the minister himself on television talking about it: “Surrey, just wait till this legislation comes.”

Now here I am actually representing my community. I’m the MLA for Surrey South, and I’m here asking questions that pertain to the policing transition — not allowed to be answered. I asked, then, for this bill to be set aside until we find out whether or not it will be impacted by a judicial review — not allowed.

Then I asked some very important and pointed hypothetical questions. Okay, we’re not talking about Surrey. I’m sorry that potentially it is similar to the Surrey policing transition, but I think the public would have the right to know.

Is it important for this minister to understand the full extent of staffing requirements, HR plans and how other communities would be impacted — particularly if he were going to be making a decision based on whether or not it’s adequate and effective policing — and to invoke his power under whether or not it’s considered safe?

I would think that at the heart of this ability to impose a decision on a community, one ought to know, should know, must know, how many police would be required and if there should be an HR plan from both the pre-existing, incumbent police and the one that’s coming in, and how, if a minister had to make a decision, this is going to be safe. Potentially, it would destabilize policing in British Columbia. Potentially, it would rob members from other municipal detachments and destabilize, for example, the Lower Mainland.

To not be able to get an answer is not acceptable. I would ask again either that this question be answered or that this bill be set aside until after the JR.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll make two comments.

As I said, I appreciate the approach the member is taking, but there is a JR on it. We did not put that JR in place. The city of Surrey put that JR in place. If that JR were not there, I’d be more than happy to be able to provide the answers that the member is looking for.

Second, no, we’re not setting aside the bill. To do that would create even greater uncertainty. That’s not, I think, what anybody wants to see.

[3:05 p.m.]

E. Sturko: Well, I don’t understand how Surrey residents can accept uncertainty in understanding how on earth the minister would have exercised his power, under the Police Act, to impose a decision, if we can’t have any information on whether or not he would even think it important to know all the HR information or to have clarification on how he makes his determination into whether or not policing will be destabilized in regions like the Lower Mainland or in other areas of British Columbia, as a result of not knowing what those HR implications potentially are, because of not having full information at the time of decision-making.

My real question to the minister, as this legislation got tabled after the JR: did this minister put this legislation in after the JR, knowing that he would then be able to not have to answer questions on behalf of the citizens of Surrey?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer is no. Frankly, it’s ridiculous to suggest that. The idea that they’re going to draft an entire bill in the course of two days just does not happen. I made it clear, back in July, that I would be bringing forward legislation. So no.

E. Sturko: How can the citizens of Surrey — or anyone in this province, for that matter — trust that the minister has not abused his power, has not arbitrarily made a decision without a proper review and analysis of information, when he will not answer questions as to whether or not, even hypothetically, he believes it would be important to have all of the HR information and know exactly how many police officers would be required in a hypothetical policing transition in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Right since the very beginning, I’ve taken my role as Solicitor General very seriously. We do not make arbitrary decisions. I have extremely professional individuals working within my ministry that deal with these subject matters when they arise. To suggest that somehow it’s arbitrary, I think, is wrong. I just completely disagree with that assertion.

E. Sturko: In looking at an overall framework, if the minister were looking at making a decision based on the unique circumstances of any community in British Columbia, as he earlier mentioned, looking at it uniquely and not necessarily based on an actual framework but on criteria, would having complete human resources plans be a part of those decision-making processes?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer would be yes, if a plan was also being developed under the direction or the supervision of the director of police services which ensured that adequate and effective policing was maintained while that was underway.

E. Sturko: In that case, you’re saying that in the absence of an HR plan, the director of police services would step in and then make an HR plan, and that would be directed, then, for them to use.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The director of police services would be engaged, supervising something and offering direction. That’s how they’d be involved. It’s not the director of police services preparing a particular plan.

I’d also add that we are way outside, now, this particular section of the bill.

E. Sturko: Well, bringing it back to the section, we’re talking about the determination of adequate and effective policing.

I’m trying to hammer down for the public, particularly because we have had some major decisions made in this province based on the criteria of adequate and effective policing, particularly here in my community. These questions are directly related to how we define and how we figure out how we sort out what is adequate and effective policing.

Let me just try to clarify my understanding of what you just said. If a hypothetical community wanted to do a policing transition, they don’t need an HR planner to know how many police officers might be needed, regardless of whether or not that may or may not destabilize a region or a province, as long as they continue to work and figure things out as they go along, with the director of police services. Is that the correct understanding?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No.

E. Sturko: So would you feel confident in making a decision about, for example, whether or not a police service was adequate and effective, whether or not it may lead to the destabilization or instability of policing across the province? Would you feel comfortable and confident in making your decision in the absence of an HR plan?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I make a decision based on the information provided to me by the director of police services based on a whole range of information that they gather by working with the parties involved in a potential transition.

M. Morris: I’m troubled by some of the responses that I’m hearing. We are still trying to get to the crux of adequate and effective policing services and the criteria under which the minister makes his decision.

The elephant in the room, of course, is Surrey. The minister has stated publicly that he has brought this bill forward as a result of the situation with Surrey detachment.

[3:15 p.m.]

I’m going to ask some questions here that are fairly pointed, and I hope the minster responds.

Your ministry publication on Police Resources in British Columbia, 2021…. Under the heading “Municipal Police Statistics for 2021 — RCMP Municipal Units: 15,000 Population and Over,” on page 9, it lists 31 detachment, 31 municipalities. It lists their populations, their authorized police strengths, the crime rates and caseloads per officer, amongst other data.

The data indicates that the crime rate in Surrey was 65 crimes per 1,000 population in 2021. The average crime rate for this group of municipalities was 83. So of the 31 municipalities, 20 have higher crime rates than Surrey, and eight of these municipalities have crime rates double that of Surrey.

Under the same heading, it indicates the average criminal caseload per officer for these 31 municipalities is 63. The average criminal caseload for Surrey per officer is 47. There are 23 municipalities on this list whose officers carry higher caseloads. In fact, there are several municipalities where officers are carrying double of what Surrey’s caseload is.

Another publication put out by the minister is the British Columbia Policing Jurisdiction Crime Trends, 2012-​2021. On page 12 of that publication, that indicates the crime rate in Surrey has steadily declined from a rate of 87 crimes per 1,000 population in 2012 to 65 in 2021.

Based on that…. I know the minister doesn’t want to get into the weeds on Surrey because of the JR. I disagree with that because this is the time that we need to air how the minister makes his decisions.

This indicates to me, as a former police officer…. Be­cause these are the same statistics that I would use to assess the effectiveness and adequacy of my detachments under my command when I was policing, this seems to me like Surrey is running a pretty good operation here.

So I’m curious. The minister has publicly stated that he’s very concerned about the public safety aspect of Surrey moving forward with the RCMP. How does he base a decision…? We can throw Surrey out for now, but based on these statistics, I am curious…. I don’t know any other information available to me — other than that redacted report that the minister provided, with all of those blank pages on that — that we can measure, that the public can see how this bill is going to work, moving forward.

Help us through this as to what criteria you have used to determine that things are so serious in Surrey that the RCMP, the national police force of Canada, can no longer provide an adequate and effective policing service for the city of Surrey.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s comments. I want to make two points.

This is not about whether or not the RCMP are doing a good job or a bad job or any other police agency is doing a good job or a bad job. They all are doing the best job. This is about safe and effective policing during a transition. That’s what it’s about.

As I said, there’s a whole range of issues when a community wants to transition. So going from 5,000 up. It’s working with the ministry, and it varies from community to community right across the province. It’s not just one thing, as I said, that’s taken into account.

M. Morris: This is not a transition of a merging municipality coming over the 5,000 mark or increasing to the 90 percent contracts by going over the 15,000 mark. This is a community that has an established strength of 850 police officers, roughly, and that has got policing statistics that support the notion that it’s a very well run and effective police service. The crime rate is quite low in comparison to the majority of other over 15,000 RCMP detachments scattered throughout the province here.

That criterion, if I was looking at it…. If I was sitting in the Solicitor General’s chair like I used to, I would be looking at this information to try and help me evaluate adequate and effective policing services.

The other thing that I would like to know is: what are the factors that have contributed towards the minister’s appraisal that public safety is in jeopardy by moving forward with the national police service as the contract police for the city of Surrey? It could be for any other detachment. There are 23 of them here that have higher crime rates. What other criteria would the minister be looking at?

As a police manager, as I was…. I looked after the northern 80 percent of the province. Some of the criteria I looked at were: how close, proximity, were backup re­sources, specialized resources? All of those factors played into how I would manage the resource levels that I had.

We have Surrey. We have Richmond. We have North Vancouver. We have Langley. We have a number of other large — Burnaby — and significant detachments in close proximity to Surrey or in close proximity to each other. You could smother the area with added resources and police officers in the event of some mishap that required those kinds of resources. We don’t have that available to us in places like Prince George or Kamloops or Fort St. John or some of these other municipal detachments that we have here.

I am desperately trying to figure out what criteria the minister uses to determine adequate and effective police resources when all the published information that we have, through the crime statistics, show that Surrey is very well policed. It’s got an adequate level of resources, and it’s a very effective service in keeping the crime rate down.

What other factors are there that were redacted in that 500-page report or that he would consider for Burnaby if Burnaby was going through a transition to another police force? This is what the public needs to know. This is what we need to know to properly assess the validity of these amendments for the bill.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the questions from the member. Many of them are actually, really, estimates questions. He is asking about the decision as it specifically relates to Surrey. That’s not what the bill is about.

[3:25 p.m.]

When it comes to the redacted information…. I know the member knows that that is police information. It’s not information that I am empowered to release. The member knows that. That is RCMP information. I can’t make that any clearer than I just have.

A. Olsen: In following the questions and the responses here…. I’m troubled by the exchange.

As was mentioned by the member for Prince George–​Mackenzie, the use of the words “adequate” and “effective” is subjective. Those are subjective words. They leave a lot of definition to be filled in by whoever it is that is hearing those.

Further to that, in 3.1(2)(b), there is also subjective language. If the minister decides to reject a proposal brought to them by a municipality, the minister may “reject the means proposed by the municipality if the minister considers that the provision of policing and law enforcement by the proposed means would adversely affect….”

Now, part of the challenge here with the responses coming from the minister is…. I think that what my colleagues and I are interested in understanding is…. What information is going to be required in order to inform the minister’s decision?

In 3.1(2)(b), “if the minister considers….” This is seemingly leaving it just up to the minister, based on the feelings of the minister at that moment or what the minister is considering at that moment. So without putting some definition….

I’m going to go back to, I think, the beginning. The first question that came from the member for Prince George–Mackenzie was around the definitions of “ade­quate” and “effective.”

We know that there are words that are used and that there are specific definitions for them. Can the minister clearly define what adequate and effective is? I think it would help provide some clarity for our members here from Surrey.

I recognize that the minister, actually, doesn’t want to engage. The minister is feeling limited by the engagement on Surrey. However, as I pointed out at the beginning, in section 1, this is about policing in other communities.

We can’t have it both ways. We can’t stand in here and say that this is about changes that need to be made for communities that are approaching 5,000 and that this is how their policing is going to be sorted out and then, when a question comes…. “Oh, there’s a JR now, and we can’t talk about it.”

I’m just wondering. The problem here, with the way that the language is used, is…. It’s left up to whoever is reading it to define. It’s left up to the minister to determine what they consider….

I think what I and my colleagues are looking for is the clarity that needs to be here. This mess was created by a lack of clarity, a lack of information and a lack of definition around how the minister was making decisions and acting.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member, and I’ll restate what I said, which is that the issue around the definition of adequate and effective policing is right across the country.

It’s not specifically defined because it varies from place to place. It varies from community to community. It varies on a whole host of things that must be taken into account when a decision is made — for example, staffing levels, emerging trends, what the demographic of the community is. Crime stats would be part of it. The nature of the community. Is it, for example, a rural community that is pri­marily agricultural, or is it a rural company where you have work camps? All of those things are part and….

I’m trying to answer the question. If the member thinks it’s funny, safe and effective policing, he should say so.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

All of those things come into play, and at the end of that, the work done within the ministry by the director of police services and his staff, working with that community, working on the plan that they have put forward…. All of those things are part and parcel of how a minister, the Solicitor General, will make that decision. Those decisions that are made and the decision that is made by the minister have to be seen to be fair.

That’s why the JR process is in place, so that those who have been subject to the decision have the ability, if they choose to, to seek a judicial review.

A. Olsen: I do know that the member from…. I jumped in the middle here.

I’ll just ask this, then. How is this any different than the decision-making tree or the decision-making framework that the minister currently resides under?

It seems to me that fair and adequate policing is something that was established prior to this, and the minister can make these considerations. What part of this isn’t already within the minister’s purview, as the minister is the sole person with the responsibility to ensure that communities have safe and effective policing in their communities?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: What this does is it clarifies the process. That’s what we’re dealing with in the changes that are being brought forward. So clarifying that process.

In the section that we’re on, it shows deference to the local government, to the municipality, in subsection (a). Then, at the same time, it also allows the Solicitor General to now take, clearly abled, into account subsection 15(2).

The Chair: Sorry, Minister. Subsection (1)?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah.

M. Morris: If we’re on the road to trying to get clarity to the process, for some reason that clarity is not emerging.

I’m having trouble still trying to assess how the minister makes the decision to go in whatever direction the minister is going to go when it comes to adequate and effective levels of policing.

I only have my own experience as a police manager. Coming up through the ranks, I looked after 40-some detachments in the northern 80 percent of the province. Many of them were municipal detachments. Many times I met with the municipal governments to assess adequate and effective levels of policing. We struggled through the process. We looked at crime rates. We looked at caseloads per member. Those were the two key areas that I looked at, because that tells a story.

Then you look at violent crime. If you’ve got a high crime rate and you’ve got high caseloads and a high violent crime rate, I would be doing my utmost to put more re­sources in there to ensure that there are adequate resources to address that.

When I sat there, I got my advice from the director of police services, and we talked about these things on a regular basis. The police services were assessing the adequacy and effectiveness of policing based on those same criteria.

That’s all I had to rely on when I looked at Surrey and when I look at other detachments here. When I look at the statistical information for Surrey detachment, it is well served. It is an adequate and effective level of policing on the ground in Surrey.

I’m still trying to find why or how and what other criteria the minister used to get there. I’ll go back…. I’ll look at…. The minister doesn’t want to talk about Surrey, so let’s talk about Burnaby.

In that same document that I referenced earlier on — the municipal police statistics, 2021 — Burnaby is at the top of the list. It has a crime rate of 52 crimes per 1,000 population and a caseload of 43 criminal files per RCMP officer in that detachment.

In my experience as a police manager and as an investigator, when you start getting down into that 50 range of criminal cases per member, that’s pretty good. That’s a workload that members can work with. To me, that doesn’t present any kind of a flag to indicate I’ve got to go and knock on the detachment commander’s door in Surrey and say: “You need to change. You need to get some more resources in here, Mr. Mayor.”

Surrey is not much different than that. But when I look at other detachments here, there’s one with a crime rate of 208 crimes per 1,000 population and a caseload of 120 criminal files per police officer. To me, when I see that, that sets off some bells. I’ve got to go and have a look at that, find out what their minimum resourcing levels are and what we can do to try and rectify that and provide some relief for the constables and the police officers on the ground and make the community safer for the people.

[3:40 p.m.]

There’s another one here, as well, where the crime rate is 205 and the caseload per officer is 155. To me…. I’m sure that the minister has access to that same document. I’m curious as to what steps that police services have been taking and bringing that to the minister’s attention, with respect to an adequate and effective level of policing.

Those are municipal responsibilities. There are a number of provincial responsibilities, as well, that have ex­tremely high caseloads that are under the full purview and control of the minister. Fort St. James has a crime rate of 286 crimes per 1,000 and a caseload of 93. There are a lot of persons crimes up in that particular jurisdiction.

When I look at that, there’s quite a difference between what Surrey has and what Burnaby has and these other detachments. Looking at everything…. I look at the availability of backup resources. When you’re in Prince George, you rely on a couple of hundred officers here in the vicinity, so you’ve got some pretty good resources available.

Fort St. James doesn’t have that availability. If they called out every man and woman that was on the detachment, they’d only have a dozen or so people showing up on scene, and it would take hours for other resources to get there. We take that into consideration.

When the minister talks about the availability of re­sources, the impact these transitions will have on the province, because that’s part of the effective part of his duties, there is no detachment commander in British Columbia that will allow their detachment to lose resources below a minimum level of staffing.

If a member wants to transfer to Surrey or Burnaby or wherever they want to go, that member will not be allowed to transfer until such time as backup resources come in. Everything is working together here. I am really curious as to why….

The minister said several times publicly that he is very concerned about public safety in Surrey under the national police force moving forward. If we are having trouble with the national police force providing resources and service to Canadians, and Surrey is where this is all going to blow apart, we’ve got to ask some serious questions here.

I think it’s incumbent upon the minister to make sure that we are aware of what the criteria is of his decision-making process. To bring the clarity that this bill is supposed to bring, I’m hoping that the minister can say that: “I’ve looked at the statistical data for Surrey. I’m not concerned about those issues. It didn’t lead me to make my decision here.”

He’s saying that perhaps it’s an HR issue; it’s a staffing issue that the RCMP provided him with criteria that he can’t release. The RCMP statistical data has been available for the public out there. I’m really curious as to why the minister is reluctant to reveal the information that he used to make his decision.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I understand the point where he’s coming from.

I will just say this: none of that relates to this bill. I have outlined, I think, a number of issues in terms of what goes into the decision-making and how it impacts this bill. But what the member is talking about does not relate to this bill.

M. Morris: Well, on the contrary, I disagree. I think it does relate to the bill because it’s all based upon the duties of the minister under section 2, the adequacy and effectiveness of policing.

All the statistical data I’ve had access to, that’s publicly available, indicates that Surrey is very well-policed. It’s got an adequate number of police officers there. It’s effective. The crime rate is down. The caseload per officer is down. Crime is not running rampant on the streets, as we see in a number of other jurisdictions across the province here. I think it is pertinent to this particular case.

[3:45 p.m.]

I’m really wondering what the other criteria is that the minister is deferring to arrive at the conclusion that public safety is at significant risk in Surrey moving forward with the RCMP because if that is the case, then we are in trouble with many of our other detachments around the province here. We need to know. The public needs to know. We need to know.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That has nothing to do with the bill that we have before us.

Deputy Speaker: Member, on clause 2.

M. Morris: Yeah. Thank you, Chair. We’re still on clause 2. We’re still trying to get a definition or an understanding or clarity to adequate and effective policing, which is the duty and responsibilities for the minister in moving forward with this clause and with the other amendments in the act here.

If we can’t get by what the definition of adequate and effectiveness is and how he bases his decision to make these pretty substantial decisions — respecting Surrey, but this could be any detachment that we have that might be going through some kind of a transition in the future.

I think it is pertinent to the case, so I’ll just ask one more time. Is the minister prepared to reveal all the elements that he uses to determine adequate and effectiveness?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ve already outlined a number of factors that are taken into account when it comes to making a decision, factors that go to the director of police services, go to the staff within my ministry and then come up to me.

I’ve outlined those quite comprehensively, and the rest of it that the member is talking about really does not relate to this bill. He says he disagrees, and I disagree with him. We’re going to agree to disagree.

E. Sturko: In a previous answer to a question posed by my colleague, the House Leader for the Third Party, the minister was talking about the determinations and decisions that were being made and referenced that that was one of the purposes of having a judicial review. If a community felt that the decision-making was unfair, there would be an opportunity for judicial review.

If a judicial review took place in a different city, and the outcome of that review was that the decision made by the ministry was unfair or somehow flawed, would that mean that the outcome or the decision could be overturned?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the JR process, they determine….

The municipality, if they feel that it wasn’t reasonable or fair, has the ability to go to a JR process. The court or the judge reviews that decision. Depending on what they find, the decision either is in favour of the local government, the municipality, or it’s not. If it was ruled in favour of the municipality, it would come back to the Solicitor General to make a decision based on what was before them.

E. Sturko: Just to confirm, then, if a municipality goes through the judicial review process because they deem a decision made by the minister to be unfair or based not on correct information, then…. If the court ruled in their favour, that court decision would go back to the ministry, and there’s a chance that they may repeal the previous decision that they made.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There is a JR process underway right now. That process will work itself through. I’m not going to comment at this time on something that’s still underway, while that JR process is active.

E. Sturko: Not specifically to the JR process taking place in Surrey. But if there was a JR process taking place in another community in the future….

The community felt that the decision that was being imposed by the minister was unfair. They then received a favourable decision from the judicial review process. Is there an opportunity, then, that the minister would overturn his decision and that they could renegotiate, potentially, a different path?

Why I’m asking you is because related to this process…. I would like to have some clarification here as to whether or not…. So a decision, even if deemed final…. If there is a court review that says this was an unfair process, can it be reversed? Is the decision by the minister in this section final, with no judicial or administrative processes to change that decision?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Was the member referring to clause 5 or clause 7 in her question?

E. Sturko: I’ll just go back this way to clarify why I’m asking this question.

As we were going through clause 2…. We were discussing adequate and effective policing. The minister had supplied an answer to the House Leader of the Third Party that included reference to a judicial review in cases where decisions made by the minister were deemed to be unfair by a municipality.

My question is…. In a situation where a judicial review is undertaken…. If the court decided with the municipality, is there an opportunity, then, for that decision to be overturned?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The JR process will unfold, At the end of it…. It will follow the course of law, and the prov­ince would apply whatever law exists at that time.

E. Sturko: Hon. Chair, through you to the minister: can you please clarify, then?

Depending on whether or not the minister could get this bill passed in time, then he would be able to ignore the outcome of the JR. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Could the member tell me if she is asking specifically about clause 7 as it relates to Surrey?

E. Sturko: No, I’m not asking specifically as it relates to Surrey. I’m asking specifically as it relates to this new legislation. If, for example, under….

I guess it’s subsection (2) here. If the minister rejects the means proposed by the municipality — say they had an election or something like that — and then they wanted to appeal that decision, is there any mechanism?

If they did go to court, for example, and have a judicial review, would the outcome of that review impact the decision? Is there any ability for them to, based on what­ever the outcome of that decision would be, seek a new consideration for their plan going forward?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The JR process will unfold according to law. The province would apply whatever law exists at the time. Nothing in this section impacts the JR process.

The Chair: Member on clause 2.

E. Sturko: Thank you, hon. Chair. Yes, again on clause 2.

[4:00 p.m.]

What if new information came to light, or new information that was initially submitted changes?

For example, if a municipality decided to go with a transition away from their police of jurisdiction based on a false budget — maybe only a 10 percent tax hike and $40 million in cost for the transition, to later find out it was going to be $500 million and much greater than a 10 percent tax hike, hypothetically — would there be any chance of changes or any process to stop, change, review or reverse the decision of the minister, or do they just simply have to spend themselves into ruin?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, I appreciate the creativity of the member opposite me, but this is awfully close to the situation in Surrey. I think the member knows that. That is not what this section is about.

M. Morris: On clause 2, still, there was reference to the respective duties of the minister under section 2 but also the municipalities under subsection 15(1). I look at 15(1). If a municipality is complying with 15(1)…. I’ll kind of read a little bit of it here.

“…a municipality with a population of more than 5 000 persons must bear the expenses necessary to generally maintain law and order in the municipality and must provide, in accordance with this Act, the regulations and the director’s standards, (a) policing and law enforcement in the municipality with a police force or police department of sufficient numbers (i) to adequately enforce municipal bylaws, the criminal law and the laws of British Columbia, and (ii) to maintain law and order…” in the community.

It also has to provide for accommodation, equipment and supplies, like the detachment vehicles, the radios, the computer systems and whatnot, and for the detention of anybody that is arrested to be held in jail there.

I’m curious. Has the minister ever been advised in recent times that we have municipalities that are not complying with their responsibilities under section 15.1 of the Police Act?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, that’s not related to this bill.

M. Morris: It is. The bill, under clause 3.1(2) of this new amendment, talks about that the minister can “reject the means proposed by the municipality if the minister considers that the provision of policing and law enforcement by that proposed means would adversely affect the ability of the minister or municipality to fulfill their respective duties under section 2 and 15 (1).”

I’m curious. The duties are well laid out under section 15.1 of the Police Act. Is this one of the considerations that the minister will take into consideration in ordering a community or a municipality to change police forces or to comply with an order of the minister?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In response to that, if a municipality were looking to change its model of policing, the question would be whether or not they could do it without adversely affecting requirements under section 15.

M. Morris: Has the minister or the director of police services undertaken any work to determine whether any detachment, whether it be Surrey or Burnaby…? Has it come to the attention of the director and to the minister, through the director, that there is a detachment in jeopardy of not meeting their obligations under 15(1)?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In answer to the member’s question, I would make this point. This is not about whether a community is meeting its responsibility under section 15, but rather it’s whether or not communities that are under a proposed transition — whether their proposal would adversely impact section 15.

M. Morris: Okay. The minister would then be relying on some significant information in order to come to any conclusion that a municipality, in the future, could not meet its responsibilities under section 15 of the Police Act.

What steps would the minister take under normal circumstances to advise a municipality that they were in jeopardy of not meeting their obligations under 15(1)?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think that the member is mixing two different things. This is not about communities that are not in a transition. It’s not about audits.

I’ve laid out the criteria that are taken into account. As I said, this is about whether or not communities that are in a potential transition — whether or not they impinge on their requirements under section 15, and if they adversely impact.

M. Morris: We’re looking at RCMP municipal detachments between 15,000 and up. The command structure under the RCMP also monitors those kinds of things. If there is a detachment within a municipality that is not meeting their obligations, and the municipality has not been stepping up to the plate to provide sufficient resources….

There are a number of things. I recall meeting with municipalities several times over the years regarding this, so before the ministry is even involved, the RCMP management is involved in addressing those concerns.

Are you aware of any municipal detachment that might be facing transition? Or, if you want to speak about Surrey in this case, where RCMP management has stepped in and gone to the municipal government and said: “You’re getting close to breaching your responsibilities under section 15 of the act, and you need to take these various steps”? Is the minister aware of any RCMP management intervention in this area?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That question is not relevant, and even if it was, that would be confidential RCMP information which I would not be allowed to disclose.

M. Morris: I’m just asking if the minister is aware of any intervention by management for any detachment or any municipality with respect to that. That part of the question still stands, but I’ll also add this.

[4:15 p.m.]

Under section 40(1)(b), the director of police services is required “to maintain a system of statistical records required to carry out inspections, evaluations and research studies.” Can the minister advise us if there are any records of inspections, evaluations or research studies that the director has provided to the minister as part of the minister’s decision-making process with respect to the municipality’s responsibilities under section 15?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We’re not amending section 40. This is not relevant to the amendments to the bill that we have in front of us.

Deputy Speaker: Member, on clause 2.

M. Morris: Yeah, I’m still on clause 2, Chair. Thank you for that.

I’m still trying to figure out the clarity this bill is supposed to provide with respect to the minister’s decision-making powers granted under clause 2 and the definitions of “adequate and effective policing” under his duties, but also, as mentioned under that clause, the responsibilities of the municipality.

I’m just trying to get to the bottom of how a municipality is notified that they may or may not be meeting their obligations and responsibilities under section 15, which leads to the decision-making process under this clause that the minister has.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, this has nothing to do with the process under section 15. This is about a transition process, and that’s what the focus needs to be on.

M. Morris: I go back to where it references the duties of the minister and the duties of a municipality under this particular clause. It’s all integral to the decision-making process under this particular clause that the minister has — these new powers that the minister has.

We need clarity as to what the minister considers and how much effort he puts into determining whether a municipality has not lived up to their responsibilities and obligations under section 15.

What criteria does he use? Who does he speak to with respect to that? Who does the director speak to? Has the director provided any research reports under section 40, as an example? Has the minister spoken with the managers of the police force and the municipalities with respect to his concerns over not meeting their obligations under section 15?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. There are two ways in which section 15 applies.

The first is an existing police service that is not able to provide law and order. In that case, section 17 would apply. That section is not being changed.

What is being added is an amendment which will allow the minister to consider potential impacts based on the municipality that is proposing a different police model, based on the potential impacts of the proposed model that’s being brought forward.

M. Morris: I’ll just ask one more, and then my colleague from Surrey South can probably step in. I’m just going to read the amendment here under clause 2, sub 3.1(2).

“After receiving a request under subsection (1), the minister may do either of the following: (a) approve the means by which the municipality proposes to provide policing and law enforcement; (b) reject the means proposed by the municipality if the minister considers that the provision of policing and law enforcement by that proposed means would adversely affect the ability of the minister or municipality to fulfill their respective duties under sections 2 and 15 (1).”

That’s why we’ve been trying to get clarity on this. This is a significant power that the minister has: to reject the means that are proposed by the municipality. I’m still not clear on how the minister determines whether he would reject that information or not.

I guess I have one more question before I turn it over to my colleague from Surrey South. If the decision by the minister with respect to this particular clause is rejected by the municipality, what recourse does the municipality have to ask for a review of the decision? Is it just the JR process, or are there any other laws of natural justice that prevail within the act and the ministry that would look at this?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be the JR process, Member.

E. Sturko: Does this legislation in clause 2 apply to all of B.C.?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

E. Sturko: Noting that it applies to all of British Columbia, I’m going to ask a question again that was earlier rejected — on the premise that it was too close to ongoing processes that are taking place in my home community.

[4:25 p.m.]

I think if this applies to all of B.C., British Columbians should know: if a court decision is in favour of that municipality, if the JR decision falls in favour of that jurisdiction, will that result in the potential to overturn the decision by the minister? This is legislation that does, after all, apply to all of British Columbia.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The JR process is underway, and nothing we have here changes that or modifies it.

E. Sturko: Are you declining to provide an answer for that question based on Surrey’s JR?

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said, the JR process will un­fold. Whatever process is in place, this does not modify that process. However a JR process unfolds, we will apply the law that exists at that time.

E. Sturko: Can the minister please inform the House — this is under clause 2, sub 3.1(3), about providing information — exactly what “information, plans or records” will be required to be provided to inform a de­cision by the minister?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, I’ve already answered that question. It was one of the first questions that the member asked.

E. Sturko: Will additional requirements for records to be provided by local governments impose additional costs on those local governments?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think any local government that was thinking of transitioning to another policing model would be providing the information along with that proposal to the director of police services. It may well be that the director says, “We need some additional information,” and the local government would provide that. I would expect that they would have that information.

E. Sturko: Did the government do any consultation with local governments prior to introducing this legislation to determine what impact cost would be in terms of, now, this requirement to provide the information, plans, records that the minister requires?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, we did consult with UBCM.

As I said in my previous answer, it is information that we would expect that they would already have in terms of the development of a proposal.

E. Sturko: Did you speak with UBCM specifically with regard to the costs that might be associated with these changes in legislation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I would expect that if a local government was deciding, in the future, to go down a transition path, they would be talking with the director of police services within my ministry in terms of the kind of information they would be looking for and would be providing that information, so there would not be an expectation on our part that there would be additional or onerous costs.

[4:35 p.m.]

E. Sturko: The question was: can you explain in detail what type of consultation regarding the financial implications you had with UBCM?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We reviewed a draft of the proposed bill with UBCM.

E. Sturko: During that review of the draft, were the financial implications discussed?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, they did raise the question of costs.

The view from the ministry is that when you start to go down a path of saying, “We want to transition,” they would be engaged with the ministry in terms of: “Okay. What kind of information are you looking for?” That would, no doubt, form part and parcel of the proposal by the local government in terms of what they want to do.

I mean, it would be, in that sense, no different than saying: “Hey, we have a project, and we want to see it go ahead. What information do you need?” The expectation is that you provide that information.

E. Sturko: Did the discussion with UBCM and the consultation about financial implications include discussions about the future implications of this legislation that would impact their municipal policing costs when other municipalities leave the RCMP for their own municipal police and the impact that has on divisional administration costs?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes. UBCM raised that issue with us, as have local governments. We have also informed local governments that those costs are done on a per-capita basis. They would only change if, let’s say….

[4:40 p.m.]

This is from an RCMP transition. If the number of RCMP were, for example, to have left the province of British Columbia, then that would impact those costs. If those officers are staying in British Columbia, then there would not be an impact to those communities.

E. Sturko: Was a full analysis done, then, in terms of how many of these positions that currently are, for ex­ample, at the Surrey RCMP…?

If that police detachment is dissolved and those members are to be distributed to other detachments, are you saying that every member’s position is going to be transferred to other detachments throughout the province and that there will be no loss of positions for the RCMP in British Columbia?

As you know, based on what you just said….

The Chair: Through the Chair, Member.

E. Sturko: Thank you, Chair.

Based on what the minister just said, that’s the way…. It would prevent a div admin cost going up if they’re going to not have any of those positions leave the province.

So will the minister confirm, then, that no positions will be eliminated, that they will be all accounted for by distributing those position numbers amongst all the RCMPs, and has a full analysis been done to determine what cost impact it really will have on other municipalities?

From what I’ve been told, there could be a significant impact on them, between a 10 and 15 percent increase per member. So I want to know, on behalf of taxpayers, what type of analysis was done.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That’s not relevant to the bill. What I explained to the member…. She asked how it works and the way that UBCM asked. We answered UBCM, and we told UBCM how those costs are determined, and it is on a per-capita basis.

E. Sturko: I do think it is relevant, because we’re talking about new legislation impacting police transitions, deciding the way in which policing will be done in municipalities, deciding the fact that power can be taken away from a municipality to make its own decision. If the minister deems that effective and adequate policing, that the standard is not met, it’s hard to determine how that standard is being met without the transparency that that would require.

It’s relevant because we were talking about if there are cost implications — for example, when the minister is expecting and now legislating that information plan documentation be provided. But also in the larger context of this bill as a whole, there are cost implications.

What, in terms of this legislation, type of analysis was done to have the minister so confidently able to say that it will not result in cost implications for municipalities across B.C.?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll repeat again for the member. We’ve explained the process. We consulted with UBCM around the legislation.

They’ve asked questions on the cost of getting information that the director of police services or the minister might require.

We have met with local governments on a number of occasions — both in terms of their formal structure, in terms of their policing committees — as well as independent or individual local governments at UBCM on the issue of the E division costs.

It has been explained to them how it works — when that is on a per-capita basis — and that it really does come down to whether the officers stay in British Columbia or leave British Columbia.

That’s the process that would be in place, and that’s the process that local government has been advised of.

E. Sturko: Based on whether or not officers stay in British Columbia or leave British Columbia, if you could just clarify once and for all for me, then: is the intention to keep all those positions in British Columbia?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: This isn’t about a specific community. It’s about a model, and that’s what the legislation is about.

In answer to the member’s question, police officers are able to go anywhere in the province, and there are communities all over the place. So it comes back to what I said earlier in terms of how the E division component or the E division admin costs are dealt with, which is on a per-capita basis.

We’ve explained that to local government, and that’s how it works.

E. Sturko: I’m just going to ask one more question, and then I’m going to pass it on to my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie.

The documents that the minister will be requiring — are they going to be made public, those that can? I understand that you’ll say, “Oh, police information” and I get it. You know that I get it, but what can be made public.

Will there finally be some transparency for communities moving ahead into the future so that people can actually see what the minister is basing their decision on?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. I know the member gets the issue of sensitive police information, and that’s what gets redacted. My expectation is that information we received from a local government or in terms of a transition or a proposed transition that they would make…. All the information that can be released, would be released.

The ministry obviously consults with police in terms of information that is sensitive and has to be redacted, and that’s how I expect that the process would be.

E. Sturko: I thank the minister for the answer.

I’m going to pass it over to my colleague from Vancouver-Langara.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Langara, we are on clause 2.

M. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do appreciate that.

I have listened in to some of the review on clause 2, and specifically around the references to the duties under clause 2, section 3.1(2)(b). I appreciate that the minister has commented again that this is to provide a general framework.

Of course, under the existing Police Act, the section 2 that’s referred to in the provision I just referred to says that “the minister must ensure that an adequate and effective level of policing and law enforcement is maintained throughout British Columbia.”

When we look at that current provision under the Police Act, and as it’s incorporated as part of this amendment as well — because there’s no change to this provision, of course, section 2, that is — can the minister walk us through the thresholds as to what is considered as an ade­quate and effective level of policing and law enforcement throughout British Columbia?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ve already answered that question.

M. Lee: In answering that question, what level of threshold is expressed?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ve already answered that question.

M. Lee: When we look at the provision under section 2, “adverse effect,” in this provision itself, can the minister define the test “adverse effect?”

Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be “negatively impacts.”

M. Lee: Is there a materiality threshold applied to “adverse effect?”

Hon. M. Farnworth: It means I have to ensure my decisions are reasonable and procedurally fair.

M. Lee: The standard of reasonable that would be applied by the minister — what standard is that? Is that a reasonable person, or what threshold is that to be applied?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That would be a legal question for a judicial review to determine.

M. Lee: That may be something that may be the subject of judicial review, but surely a minister who operates under this act will need to know how they apply the test and determine whether the proposed means would ad­versely affect the minister’s ability to perform his or her respective duty under section 2 of the Police Act.

Is the minister suggesting that he or she would need to turn to the court of law in British Columbia to determine whether there has been an adverse effect?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question, which, you asked, was a legal, technical question. I gave you a legal, technical answer, and my answer would still be that it would have to be reasonable and procedurally fair.

M. Lee: I don’t believe I’ve heard the answer about what standard of reasonableness is being applied here. In the absence of a clear answer from the minister, it is open for interpretation.

[5:00 p.m.]

Is the minister concerned about the judgment that’s being deployed to determine by any minister under this act as to whether there’s been an adverse effect?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I note that we are getting quite technical here, and I understand that.

My response to the member’s question. It is a standard of reasonableness under administrative law that’s required, which means that my decision must be reasonable and administratively fair. That would be decided through a legal process.

M. Lee: I appreciate that when the minister refers to the tests that would be applied to any minister of the Crown by his or her decisions under statutory decision-making authorities, that there are administrative law standards. And, certainly, there’s deference given to government ministers of the Crown in exercising their statutory powers.

Just in terms of what is viewed to be patently unreasonable, the determination for when a minister, under this amendment, would be exercising his or her authority to reject, which is the word that leads into this provision under this clause — “reject the means proposed….”

Certainly, municipalities that put forward those proposed means would want to have some understanding as the basis under which the minister made a determination or consideration that the proposed means would adversely affect the ability of the minister or the municipality to perform their duties under sections 2 and 15(1).

[5:05 p.m.]

The adverse effect is…. The minister refers to it as a technical term. The use of the words “adversely affect….” It is a term that is utilized in other legislation of our province.

There are, for example, under securities law in British Columbia, materiality thresholds. There is some consideration, when we use this term, to determine whether a minister’s ability or a municipality’s ability to fulfil their duties under sections 2 and 15(1) are met.

When this amendment is being tabled under this bill, is there any additional guidance that’s provided to municipalities as to the threshold that is being applied to the duties set out in sections 2 and 15(1)?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be the municipality working with the director of police services prior to proposing a model.

M. Lee: When the director of police services works with an individual municipality that is contemplating a proposed means to change the policing mechanism…. The director, then, would be providing some level of input, response, feedback, guidance to the municipality as to the standard under which that ability of the municipality to meet its duties under sections 2 and 15(1), the respective duties…. That would be provided to the municipality. That’s what the minister is suggesting or indicating.

Presumably, then, the director of police services, under this act and this amendment, would be applying this term of what would be an adverse effect on that ability. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The expectation would be that a local government, for example, that was seeking to make a change would work with the director of police services, who superintends policing in the province, in a collaboration that would result in a proposal or a plan that could be approved.

[5:10 p.m.]

M. Lee: The so-called workup of a proposed plan between….

The director of police services, in his or her role of superintending police services in British Columbia — mindful, then, of this new amendment to this provision in Bill 36, would be, presumably, very cognizant of what an adverse effect would be, meaning that the director would have clarity around the thresholds we’ve been talking about here in this committee stage on this bill. So both in this new provision that’s being added but also, of course, in the existing provisions under section 2 and section 15(1).

Ultimately, of course, this amendment puts the responsibility on the minister in terms of if, in the minister’s consideration, there is an adverse effect.

Just to clarify, there is no delegation of authority here that the minister is suggesting to the director of police services, is there?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ve not suggested there’s a delegation. There is no delegation of authority.

M. Lee: As the director of police services works up what the proposed means are by which the municipality wishes, for consideration…. As they’re building this up, what are the checkpoints with the minister, under this act, to review what is being proposed? Is it after the proposed means have been provided, or is it any point in between, as it’s being conceptualized?

Hon. M. Farnworth: For the member, the director of police services is responsible right now for superintending policing and law enforcement functions in British Columbia. Working with the local government is something that they would be doing with a community that said it wanted to change its model.

M. Lee: Understanding the role of the director of police services in the way that the minister just responded to…. When is the determination of adverse effect made by the minister under this new provision, sub (b), to be made?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be after receiving a request under subsection (1). The minister would get that, whatever the director of police services has to say, who also would have reviewed all the information under subsection (3).

M. Lee: I’m looking back at the reference the minister made to 3.1, the request for approval of the means.

[5:15 p.m.]

What I’m wondering about is…. If the director of police services is working with the municipality and giving the feedback in his or her role as superintendent, and that is occurring while the proposal is being formulated by the municipality, then at what point…? If the guidance is being provided by the director of police services, how do we get to a point where it’s going to be determined by the minister that it has an adverse effect?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The process the hon. member described is a best-case scenario, where local government is working with the director and following recommendations in terms of developing a proposal. They could just as easily submit a proposal without following directions. They could choose to ignore directions or to not even work with the director of police services.

[5:20 p.m.]

M. Lee: Thank you for that response. I’m sure that may invite further comment from the member for Prince George–Mackenzie or the member for Surrey South, who have a good appreciation for the role of the director of police services in terms of the duties and responsibilities.

It is helpful, of course, given the nature of this bill, for this minister to be walking through the process. I think it’s helpful if the minister is able to contemplate, let’s say, what might be — I think the minister just used the words — a best-case scenario, so to speak, where there is direct involvement between the municipality and the director of police services.

Also, as the minister is suggesting, there would be other instances where a municipality does not directly involve, necessarily, the input or perhaps even, as the minister just indicated — I don’t think this was the minister’s word — ignores the input or feedback from the director of police services.

There’s a range, it seems, under this amendment for the types of processes that might occur between the municipality and the minister and the director of police services. I think that explains, perhaps, the provision that the minister did refer to, which is subsection 3.1(3), as well, in terms of the information requirements that the minister may require in order to make the decision under subsection 2(b), which I’ve been focused on.

This obviously gets to some of the aspects around process and timing as to how these processes unfold. I know that it’s the minister’s view that this bill will provide greater clarity to the process that should unfold when a municipality is considering a change in their police services. If that’s the case, then in terms of the timing of this information requirement, presumably….

As we were just walking through other aspects of how the director of police services might be involved in the municipality, presumably, if there is a “best-case scenario” with the municipality, where there is a dialogue that is being well received, let’s say, by the municipality…. Presumably, this type of information is already being shared with the director of police services. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the case of subsection (3) and the information there, I would say yes. In the best-case scenario, it would be shared.

With that, hon. Chair, noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:23 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until Monday, October 23, at 10 a.m.

The House adjourned at 5:25 p.m.