Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, May 2, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 320

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)

Hon. K. Conroy

P. Milobar

J. Sturdy

S. Furstenau

B. Stewart

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor

General (continued)

R. Merrifield

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Morris

D. Clovechok

A. Olsen

M. Lee

TUESDAY, MAY 2, 2023

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: In the main chamber, I call continued debate on the Committee of Supply

for the Ministry of Finance.

In committee room A, I call continued debate on the Committee of Supply

for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

[1:35 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

FINANCE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B);

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $338,869,000

(continued).

Hon. K. Conroy: Just to let the member know, I have with me my deputy minister,

Heather Wood, and the CEO of the B.C. Assessment Authority, Jason

Grant.

P. Milobar: Just a few questions for B.C. Assessment to start the day off.

Some have been referred by the Housing Minister, over here, and others

are just general, as well, recognizing that the Third Party will likely

be coming in, in around 45 minutes or so to start asking their questions

for about an hour or so.

First off, B.C. Assessment. In terms of this year’s assessments,

my understanding was that there was, essentially, a kind of a caveat

that went out to the public after the assessments were released, because

people weren’t sure what was going to happen with the interest rates

starting to move upwards fairly quickly. The assessments were done ahead

of those interest rate changes, and people were warned that, in fact,

what their house is assessed for…. We might be in this strange situation

where, in fact, it was worth less than what the assessed value was, but

it would work out over the next year or so.

Can the minister confirm that that’s an accurate portrayal of what

happened with assessments this year? Now, the market may have, because

it didn’t cool as much as was anticipated, actually seen rates still be

at or slightly higher than assessed value. But the initial response from

B.C. Assessment warning the public seemed to be that the assessed values

might be seen to be a little bit inflated, given how quickly the market

was starting to shift around a little bit in those early days of

interest rate hikes.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The assessments that are released in January every year are always

based on the previous July 1 market value.

P. Milobar: I understand that, but at the time, there seemed to be messaging

by B.C. Assessment that people should not panic. There was an awareness

that they would likely be reflective of a higher than potential market

value of the house this year, unlike previous years, where, typically,

assessed values are lower than what a property might sell for on the

market.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Advance public information campaigns about what to expect and

upcoming assessment releases are not new. They’re done quite frequently,

over the years, and they’re done regardless of the market, whether it’s

going up or down.

The B.C. Assessment Authority always shares information with the

release of the assessment roll so the public understands what to expect.

It’s common practice. It’s about transparency.

P. Milobar: Okay. I was just trying to establish that this year people should

be expecting that their assessments might have been higher than the

market value, but I’ll move on.

In terms of multifamily and what would be deemed more rent

specific…. It’s owned by a landlord or a larger company, but it’s

multifamily. It’s for rental. It’s technically a business, but it’s

still residential. It would be zoned residential, those types of zoning

areas.

Now, B.C. Assessment has one way where they start to try to

formulate highest and best use and things of that nature or around

businesses in general. When it comes to a rental property for housing,

when an assessment is being made, does B.C. Assessment take in the rent

profile of the building? Do they take in what is going on with rents in

the rest of the neighbourhood? How exactly does that apartment style

building, which is a rental, for living, wind up with its assessed

value?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The B.C. Assessment Authority looks at it the same way the market

looks at it. The market determines the value of the building. So B.C.

Assessment looks at the assessment and reports that value.

P. Milobar: Well, that’s interesting. No wonder B.C. Housing is under a

forensic audit, then, I guess, because they just bought a building in

Kamloops for 2½ times the assessed value, predicated on what the market

value is. It’s interesting.

That was one of the questions that was sent here by the Housing

Minister: to check with B.C. Assessment on how they would do their

assessments. It’s remarkable that B.C. Housing seemed to find the only

property in B.C. that was 2½ times lower than assessed value when it

comes to values.

In terms of B.C. Assessment, though, and their work for this year,

we have the Premier promising that all lots will be deemed to be

fourplexes. There’s a lot of concern in municipalities around what that

might do in terms of upzoning, in terms of land values, in terms of what

that would mean for people with existing properties.

Has B.C. Assessment started to undertake work in this year around

the Premier’s announcement that this will be what we’ll be facing with

fall legislation, because of the timelines that B.C. Assessment would be

under for assessments? Obviously, they may have to be starting to do

some work now, in advance of potential legislation coming

forward.

[1:55 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I just want to, for the record, correct the member. The Premier

did not say people would have to change their single-family dwellings to

fourplexes or three-plexes or duplexes. What the Premier was suggesting

is that legislation will be coming in the fall, and it will allow

people, if they so choose, to go from a single-family home to a duplex,

a triplex, a fourplex if they choose to do that. That would definitely

help with housing issues in communities right across the province, if

people choose to do that.

It’s important to note that the legislation’s not in place yet. It

hasn’t been tabled. So B.C. Assessment doesn’t have to do anything

differently right now. They look at any factors in the market. It

remains to be seen if this will actually change the market. If it does

change the market, then they’ll make those adjustments as required, but

it will be up to the market to reflect any changes. That’s how B.C.

Assessment does their reflections when it comes to making

assessments.

P. Milobar: When B.C. Assessment is assessing highest and best use of a

residential property, if one is zoned for fourplex and one is zoned

single family, does one generate a higher assessed value, all things

being equal, based on highest and best use?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The market decides highest and best use. B.C. Assessment doesn’t

decide that. If the market recognizes the highest and best use, then

B.C. Assessment reflects that.

P. Milobar: Well, if you currently have a 50-by-120-​foot lot, which

would be a standard lot in many parts of Kamloops, a 6,000-square-foot

lot, and there’s a fourplex on that, and right next door, there’s a

900-square-foot bungalow that is single family, in the exact same

neighbourhood, B.C. Assessment would assess the fourplex, based on its

use, at a higher assessment value than the bungalow right next

door.

Is that not the practice across all of this province, based on the

fact there are four dwelling units on 6,000 square feet instead of one

smaller dwelling unit on 6,000 square feet?

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m learning all kinds of things.

To get to the member’s question, in the example the member gave,

it would be seen as an as-built if there were four units on a single

piece of property. So each of those four individual units would have

individual titles. That’s how the market would view it, and that’s how

B.C. Assessment would view it. That’s common practice,

whereas the

single house would be a single-family house and would be assessed as a

single-family dwelling.

[2:10 p.m.]

P. Milobar: Well, the market wouldn’t view it that way, as four individual

titles, if it was a rental. If it was somebody who was just renting a

fourplex, it’s not four individual titles. It’s one unit. It’s four

rental units, no different than an apartment building. But it’s

troubling the minister is saying that the market decides highest and

best use, and that’s what B.C. Assessment operates under.

I find it hard to believe that the bowling alley in Burnaby that

now is needing to be sold because they can’t afford the taxes based on

highest and best use — even though they’d like to continue operating as

a bowling alley — that they’re being forced out because of B.C.

Assessment’s valuation of them for highest and best use.

So how does B.C. Assessment, other than market forces, determine

what is highest and best use? Is it not what is within zoning, within

official community plans and within zoning maps of municipalities that

B.C. Housing then determines highest and best use for a property, as

opposed to the market and/or the owner of the property desperately

wanting to pay more in property taxes so begging B.C. Assessment to

skyrocket their value based on highest and best use of housing that

doesn’t exist in the air above them and other areas like

that?

[2:15 p.m. - 2:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, B.C. Assessment is required to assess properties based on

market value, not on current use. Actually, the government recently

provided tools to local governments. That was through the property

assessment strategy review act, which was tabled last fall to help local

governments address certain challenges for small business

owners.

P. Milobar: I understand all that, but we’re going around in a bit of a

circle. The bottom line is that very few municipalities have enacted

that. Highest and best use is deemed by B.C. Assessment based on zoning

profiles, OCPs and what is going on in terms of the development in and

around those areas.

The problem is that there’s a big concern out there that B.C.

Assessment, if there’s a provincewide implementation where every lot….

Now, the minister…. If I said “must,” that’s not what I meant, but it

would have the ability under the Premier’s direction that he’s given —

that he’s intending on implementing legislation that will give everyone

the ability, the right, if they so choose, to make their single-family

home lot into a fourplex.

Now, that happening…. Yes, technically, if all properties get

assessed highest and best use, it would raise the assessed value of all

lots. The problem is that the single-family home owner who just wants to

still live in their bungalow — their assessed value will be going up

based on it turning into a fourplex, and their neighbour may be quite

happy with that because they want to turn their house into a fourplex

and tear down, or whatever, an old property.

But the person next door doesn’t want to, and they will be deemed,

under B.C. Assessment rules of highest and best use…. It is automatic

that they can, if they so choose, put a fourplex where a single home is.

That is the concern the public has out there.

What does B.C. Assessment…? The minister said, shockingly, that

they are not doing any work yet on this. It’s going to be a mad

scramble, if the legislation comes in the fall, to try to meet the July

deadline the following year for assessed values if there’s not any work

being done on it.

How can people have any confidence that their assessed values

won’t go up based on what B.C. Assessment typically does for highest and

best use? And given that…. Whether the person would like their home to

be zoned for fourplex or not, it will be, under the Premier’s

plan.

[2:25 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Zoning changes may affect the value if the market recognizes these

changes. However, if everyone’s value goes up, the tax rate goes down.

The taxing jurisdictions collect only what’s required. B.C. Assessment

does what they do based on the market.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to my colleague for the opportunity to ask a question or

two about B.C. Assessment, in particular. This will be an issue that

I’ve talked to the minister about in the past with regard to her

previous role around Crown land lease rates, both residential and

commercial lease rates.

There was a mention earlier, I believe, that B.C. Assessment is

obligated to look at leases as fee simple. I think that everybody agrees

on that. They’re also obligated to look at the assessments of lease

properties and to take into consideration the conditions that are placed

on those properties, the limitations that are on those properties. It

doesn’t really look like that’s actually happening.

We’re seeing, in places like Paradise Valley and Squamish, with

residential lease properties, that they’re being valued pretty much the

same as a fee simple ownership property. As the minister knows, that has

a direct result on their rent every year because the policy is a

percentage of value. I think it’s a pretty blunt instrument that is

being used here, and B.C. Assessment is not necessarily considering

those conditions that limit the value.

Would the minister consider amending that directive to B.C.

Assessment so that the assessed values more accurately reflect,

ultimately, what impacts their rent on an annual basis? It clearly does

affect value yet is not being considered.

[2:35 p.m. - 2:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question.

B.C. Assessment is following legislation in place for how

leasehold properties are valued. As the member well knows, there’s a

well-established appeal process that his constituents can follow if they

don’t agree with how their property has been valued.

J. Sturdy: Yeah, I think that’s fair to say. They have been through this

process many times, and because of the constraints of the legislation

that suggest that these properties need to be assessed at the same

value. For example, if it has three years left on the lease or it has 25

years left on the lease, it’s the same evaluation as it is with the

neighbouring property that’s a fee simple piece of property that you can

borrow against. It’s all considered the same, so there needs to be a

little more flexibility there.

Beyond that…. Maybe it does take a change in legislation or some

consideration, anyway, because it’s inequitable. It’s unfair, and it

creates real challenges for people both at a commercial level as well as

a residential level be­cause of the government policy around how

rents are set, which is on a percentage of value. We’re seeing

situations in the value-added wood sector where rents on Crown land are

doubling because of assessed values on leased land, so this has real

impacts on businesses as well as residents.

Is there any intention of the minister to assess this problem and

make some changes that are more reflective of reality and consider some

of the issues like, for example, the term time left on a lease, when

it’s being considered by B.C. Assessment?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: B.C. Assessment operates a mass appraisal system that operates

right across the entire province, so they need consistent rules across

the prov­ince. The member’s issue is how lease rates are

determined on Crown land, and that issue lies with the Ministry of

Forests.

P. Milobar: Just to let the minister know, we’re going to turn the floor over

to the Third Party for a few questions here — they have a time

commitment — and then we will be coming back to B.C. Assessment for just

a couple of questions before we go on to other GCPE

questions.

S. Furstenau: Just for the minister and her staff’s information, the topics I

want to ask about are the output-based pricing system for carbon and

some issues around the small business employment health tax. I think

that’s probably all we’re going to get through. Those are the two

topics. I’m not sure if the minister needs time to get other staff in

the room or if that’s sufficient.

Hon. K. Conroy: If the member would like to ask her first question while we’re

bringing staff in, we’ll relay it to them and get the answer

quicker.

S. Furstenau: That’s great because there’s a bit of

preamble with the first

question just to kind of set the context and try to get some

understanding.

Budget 2023, subsequently in Bill 10, government introduced

output-based pricing system that replaces the existing taxation scheme

for large polluters. The new system will exempt large emitters from

paying the carbon tax upfront and instead require them to pay a carbon

price on emissions that exceed established performance standards. The

standards, I think, will be unveiled through regulation but have not yet

been seen. So I’m not sure what the standards are.

Emissions will be evaluated at the end of the year based on

required reporting and then must be verified by an accredited third

party. Sounds like professional reliance to me, but anyways, that’s

another topic. The process has not yet been totally clarified, so

looking forward to clarification on that.

Companies can also invest in offset projects to compensate for

their excess pollution. And, of course, this raises questions because

carbon offsets, simply as a clerical accounting mechanism, really

creates the conditions for emissions and pollution to rise, and I think

we should all be really focused, with a lot of intention and urgency, on

getting emissions down.

What Bill 10 does not establish…. My understanding is it doesn’t

establish emissions thresholds or complete framework on verification and

validation processes. And these details are quite crucial to assessing

the merits of B.C.’s new system, which I think we should be quite

concerned with.

The language around the output-based pricing system portrays it as

a means to protect industry competitiveness and prevent carbon leakage,

but the very real concern that we have and that many others share is

that heavy emitters will ultimately pay less under this system. I think

for the people of British Columbia, what they’re paying in carbon taxes,

if they find out that the biggest polluters in the province actually get

to pay less, I think there’s a real fairness and justice issue in

this.

And on carbon credits, there was an investigation in The

Guardian recently that found over 90 percent of offsets are

phantom credits that don’t actually reduce emissions.

[2:50 p.m.]

We know that the carbon credit system can be gamed, and I think

with the state we’re in with climate change, we don’t want any openings

for gaming these systems.

Another study done by the University of Berkeley showed that top

carbon offset registries have “consistently allowed developers to claim

more climate-saving benefits than justified.” So the concern is if

B.C.’s new greenhouse gas pricing system for the largest polluters is

going to be heavily reliant on carbon credits to lower emissions, I

think it really puts in jeopardy the entire net-zero plan and, also,

B.C.’s commitments to their emissions targets, which have been laid out

in law.

My first question is: will large emitters ultimately pay less

under this new output-based pricing system compared to the current

carbon taxation model?

B. D’Eith: I’d like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

B. D’Eith: In the gallery right now, we have one half of the grade 11 class from

Thomas Haney in Maple Ridge, with Todd Goodman. I had the pleasure of being

with them outside. We had a picture and were able to talk about the

House.

Just so that they know what’s going on right now, we’re in budget

estimates, and the Leader of the Third Party just asked a question to the

Minister of Finance. She’s the Leader of the Third Party. So the opposition

will ask questions to the minister, and that’s how the process

goes.

Would the House please make the class of Thomas Haney feel very

welcome.

[2:55 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question. The goal is to get greenhouse

gas emissions down, to get the heavy emitters to reduce their greenhouse

gas emissions. What OBPS does is it gives the heavy emitters incentive

to reduce their emissions.

I think that’s all of our goals. It’s about making sure that the

heavy emitters reduce their emissions. They reduce their emissions; they

pay less. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. I think that’s

a good thing, because they’re reducing their emissions, and that’s the

goal. The goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The OBPS system will ensure they’ll pay more for producing more.

They’re already working to get those emissions down. We know that. We’ve

heard that. They understand the system is coming into play, so they’re

working at that, which is what everybody’s goal is. Based on the

modelling done and the framework that has been released to date, the

analysts show that heavy emitters would be paying at least as much under

the OBPS, as far as fees go, as they would under the current carbon tax

model, while they get up to speed with how they’re going to bring their

emissions down.

But as I said, we know — I’ve had it from my colleagues, had it

from industry — that emitters are looking and saying: “Okay, we need to

get our emissions down.” They recognize it. You talk to some of the

companies, they have just as great…. They’re looking at ESG qualities,

and they recognize that, as corporate companies, that’s what needs to

happen. That’s what we’re looking at with this system.

[3:00 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: I wholeheartedly agree with the minister. The goal is to get

emissions down.

The nice thing about the current carbon pricing system is that

it’s really clear. It’s really simple. It’s a price per tonne, and it

applies to everybody equally, so the incentive is built right into that

system. The whole system is meant to be an incentive. The more you

pollute, the more you pay. The less you pollute, the less you pay. It’s

clear. It’s easy to understand. There isn’t a complicated framework that

goes with it. There isn’t a difference between individuals and small

businesses and medium-sized businesses and big industry and heavy

emitters.

I think that the concern I have about this system is that it’s not

clear and simple. It’s not a straightforward system that is easy for

everybody to understand. The concern raised about it is, again, this

ability to purchase carbon offsets to kind of find ways to game the

system. That’s the concern I have, and I don’t really understand why

we’ve departed from what was a straightforward carbon-pricing system

into this output-based pricing system.

I’ll ask just a clarification question on it. Would industry

operators be allowed to trade carbon credits with other operators in

order to ensure compliance with performance-based standards? In this

system, in this framework that’s being developed, can there be trading

of carbon credits between different operators in the industry? Would

there be a limit to the number of offsets that can be purchased? And, I

think importantly, how is there going to be assurance that the credits

being purchased for offsets are reliable, given the investigations

recently that 90 percent of these offset credits don’t appear to be all

that reliable?

That part of it…. Instead of taking the simple, “You pollute this

much, you pay that much” — it’s really clear — getting into the system

where you can buy offsets and your emission standards and all these

things…. What’s the assurance that those carbon offsets are reliable?

And how much can there be of trading these offsets between operators

within industry?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: To clarify for the member, we really liked our carbon model, as

well, and we got an international award for it.

However, there was a requirement to align with the federal

government that didn’t work with our CleanBC program for industry, so we

needed to develop our own output-based pricing system. Our made-in-B.C.

output-based pricing system will ensure that we meet commitments for

greenhouse gas emissions reductions of carbon leaks, as I said, as well

as the emissions.

Our system will allow B.C. operators who are exceeding the

standards to generate offsets, which they can then sell to other B.C.

operators. I think it’s fairly simple; it’s not a complicated thing.

It’s if you create too many emissions, you either can buy offsets or you

can pay.

[3:10 p.m.]

You have to reduce that so that you don’t pay as much. If you have

less emissions, you benefit from being able to sell some of those, what

you’ve been able to save, so it’s fairly simple.

The decision on offsets is one that we are currently considering.

The reliability of credits is monitored by the Ministry of Environment

under their legislation.

S. Furstenau: I appreciate the minister’s responses. I’m going to just switch,

and I think it’s probably going to be my last question because we had

the time booked. I see that the official opposition just shrugged his

shoulders — maybe the second-last question.

I want to talk a little bit about the conditions for small

businesses. There are pressures on small businesses that we hear a lot

in our offices. We hear a lot from constituents, from the people who are

operating small businesses.

They’re really hoping to see some relief to the growing burdens

they’re facing in small businesses. One example is the employment health

tax. It has an exemption up to $500,000 before the tax is applicable on

any employee remuneration. This tax is scaled, with different

percentages being applied between $500,000 and $1.5 million, and then

anything over $1.5 million. The Ministry of Finance has indicated the

exemption of $500,000 was originally put in place so that 85 percent of

businesses in B.C. would not need to pay the tax.

But with the increase in minimum wage, and no proposed increase in

the exemption amount, some small businesses are going to find themselves

going just over that line of $500,000 or choosing to reduce hours for

their employees or lay off an employee to not go over that $500,000

line, which really puts them into a very different economic situation.

Restaurants we are hearing from are especially impacted by this change —

already vulnerable, recovering from the tumultuous last three

years.

My question for the minister specifically…. We’ve proposed that

the threshold be raised to $1.5 million overall. I think that would help

small businesses and not discourage businesses from growing that little

bit. Right now, there is really an incentive to not grow because once

you go over that $500,000 threshold, you’re in a new tax

bracket.

In addition to considering raising the threshold generally, would

there be a consideration to index the exemption limit to minimum wage?

If there is an increase to minimum wage of 6.9 percent, would we see a

commensurate increase to the threshold of the same amount that the

minimum wage has gone up so that businesses wouldn’t automatically find

themselves, having no increase in staff or even revenues, above that

threshold where they have to pay the EHT?

B. D’Eith: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

B. D’Eith: Thank you very much. With the indulgence of the House, I have a second

introduction of the Thomas Haney class of grade 11. It’s Todd Goodman’s

class. Welcome to the people’s House. It was very nice being able to have a

picture with you outside.

You just heard a question from the Leader of the Third Party. What’s

happening right now is the opposition is asking questions to the Minister of

Finance in budget estimates, and that’s what you’re watching. It will now go

back to the official opposition to ask more questions.

Would the House please make our students welcome.

[3:15 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Hon. K. Conroy: The government continues to monitor the impact of the EHT on

businesses, and it’s done every year around budget time. Government

looks at small businesses for their…. They analyze the threshold

parameters of the various taxes as part of the budget process. So that

is done every year.

[3:20 p.m.]

It is true that more than 85 percent of businesses in B.C. don’t

pay the tax at all, and fewer than 5 percent actually pay the full

amount.

So if a business…. If their amount goes up by a small amount, it

would be a very small amount that that would be increased by. So it goes

up by a very small amount. And again, only 5 percent actually pay the

full amount.

S. Furstenau: Just to restate the question, though, is there a consideration of

indexing the threshold so that when there is an increase to minimum

wage, there would also be a commensurate increase to the threshold for

EHT?

Hon. K. Conroy: Just to restate the answer, we look at a number of initiatives

when it comes to small businesses and taxes. We will do that during the

budget process. We do that, and it’s always been done.

P. Milobar: I think my colleague from Sea to Sky is tied up in some other

areas, so we’ll just move on to GCPE instead of going back to B.C.

Assessment, if that works for the minister.

I’m not sure. Is there staff changeover? Do you want me to ask a

question or just wait?

The Chair: We will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:22 p.m. to 3:26 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee back to order.

P. Milobar: Now, GCPE and governments are supposed to operate under

non-partisan advertising standards, but that’s been questionable over

time immemorial, I guess. But really, in terms of the budget, it appears

there is around $29 million this year in the budget for GCPE.

Can the minister split out what the total amount is for

discretionary advertising, and what is the total amount for statutory

advertising in this budget?

[3:30 p.m. - 3:35 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Discretionary advertising in GCPE is $3.537 million.

P. Milobar: Okay. I’ll assume, then, there’s no statutory

advertising.

Can the minister list if there are any individual ad campaigns

that are receiving funding through Budget 2023? What are the respective

budgets for these ad campaigns that would be, I’m assuming, going

through several months?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Just for the member’s question prior to this one…. For all of

government, the statutory advertising is $1.576 million. It’s across

government. That’s not in the GCPE. It’s in individual ministry budgets.

I just wanted to make sure the member knew that.

For the GCPE information campaigns that the member was asking

about, which are in progress and planned for this fiscal year…. We’ve

posts related to corporate priorities.

P. Milobar: The minister actually — it was a good segue there — touched on my

next question in her answer.

That is: what is the split between local media ad buys — the small

newspapers, the small publications, the smaller radio stations, TV, more

Metas of the world and Twitter and those types of publications? I guess

they’re not publications but posting areas. What is the split of

advertising dollars between more B.C.-based business versus those

Hon. K. Conroy: We’re getting that information, but it’s taking a little longer

than we thought it would. If the member would like to ask another

question in the interim, just to keep things going.

mining from the ads that they run and use that data to help inform and

distribute future ads?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: You learn something new every day. No, we don’t engage in data

mining.

P. Milobar: Looping back to the $1.576 million that has been deemed

non-statutory…. That was pulled out of other ministries. There’s

$600,000 of internal recovery within contingencies. Is that to help

cover off the staffing that would be related to that advertising being

done in other ministries?

R. Leonard: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Leonard: I’d like the House to welcome the grade 10 and 11 class of Mrs.

Tansky, from the Phil and Jennie Gaglardi Academy in Comox. There are 25

students here today along with some chaperones and Mrs. Tansky, who comes

every year with some students to appreciate how we work, how government

works here, and to give them a taste. I hope that they appreciate the

splendour of this building and the good works that are accomplished

here.

If the House would please welcome Mrs. Tansky’s class from the Phil

Gaglardi Academy.

[3:50 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Hon. K. Conroy: Okay. I have everything. I’ve got all the answers.

The second question the member asked: the amount the member is

referring to is actually internal recoveries related to TNO ,

Today’s News Online . It’s not contingencies, the specific

amount the member referred to.

I have the breakdown of advertising. Newspapers — it’s 13.9

percent of newspapers right across the province. Digital is 38.5

newspapers’ websites. Black Press has a website right across the

province, so it includes ads on those newspapers’ websites as well. TV

is 21.8 percent. Radio is 15.2 percent. And I’ve just learned something

new. Out-of-home advertising — which means you’re not in your home, so

that means billboards or bus shelters — is at 10.4 percent of the

advertising.

P. Milobar: The minister said the government doesn’t engage in data mining

recent Premier’s telephone town hall that was done. I believe it was in

conjunction…. The Minister of Finance might have been on that. I saw

some of that was billed as a budget update, some of it not. I’m not sure

if the minister participated in some of those or not. I’m assuming that

campaign, those phone town halls, were coordinated by the

GCPE.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, I did participate in the town halls. They were done as a way

of sharing information about our budget and asking questions, because

that was the goal, to ask questions that people had an opportunity to

submit. It was done by GDX and Citizens’ Services. It was supported by

GCPE, but it was done by GDX.

Just so the member knows, we are restricted from doing any data

mining, from gathering any personal information on those calls, so of

course, we didn’t. They were all done with the CRTC rules that protect

privacy and allow people to opt out if they choose. I mean, it was very

much an opportunity for people to ask questions, either by voice or by

online questions, and a great opportunity to have those questions

answered.

We had 30,000 people on one night’s call and 28,000 on the other.

It was people from right across the province asking questions about our

budget and the direction we’re moving in. It was a great opportunity for

people to engage in that. We heard from people after the fact that they

wished they’d pressed the button to actually engage and hadn’t, but they

listened and asked questions to me after the fact when I ran into

them.

It was a great opportunity for us.

P. Milobar: I understand the want from our government, to want to reach

out.

I guess my next question, though, is I received word from several

constituents wondering how unsolicited text messages inviting them to

these telephone town halls, from people that would most obviously not

have any interconnection with the government and/or especially the NDP,

would suddenly be getting unsolicited — to a cell phone, especially, not

a land line — invitations to things like this.

Does GCPE regularly engage that way? How are they collating a

distribution list, when it’s people’s personal cell phones that are

getting unsolicited text messages from a number? In the case of people

in Kamloops, they were getting texted from a phone number out of Vernon

— you know, had never texted these cell phones previously. It was the

first time they’d ever had contact with this number making the invite,

so they have concerns how government is processing and using the data

they actually have on these people to try to then spin that into

government communications product.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: First of all, I want to make it clear that people had the

opportunity to opt out. This was not meant to engage with just New

Democrats, BCU members, Conservatives or Green Party members. This was

meant to engage with all British Columbians — an opportunity to answer

their questions — because these were their questions.

We weren’t just saying: “We’re going to talk about what we want to

talk about.” We were answering people’s specific questions, and that was

really important. It was a good way to do that. Again, we don’t have the

data, per se; the provider does. They do the random dialling. They use

the phone book, but they also do random digital dialling. The provider

did that, not us. That information wasn’t shared with us as a

government.

People don’t need to worry. We don’t have access to their cell

phones or their phones. A lot of them came from the phone book. We

followed all of the CRTC rules.

We have done this before. We did it with Minister Dix, during

COVID, and the PHO. It was very successful. We thought this was another

opportunity to answer people’s questions. It wasn’t about us giving our

spiel. It was about answering people’s questions. I know there were

people from all walks of life and all political parties that engaged;

you can tell by the questions that were being asked. I think it’s really

important that we give people that opportunity.

P. Milobar: The minister can try to spin it and say that it wasn’t about the

government doing their spiel. But last I checked, the official

opposition wasn’t asked to participate, to provide our perspective to

taxpayers in the province. The official Third Party wasn’t invited to be

a participant, a panellist, so to speak.

It was very much the government, the Premier and the Finance

Minister trying to convey to the public their take and their perspective

on the budget. Yes, people were able to ask questions. The answer, as

we’ve witnessed through estimates throughout this House, can be spun in

many different ways, with very little opportunity to go back and

forth.

The crux of the question was really concerns around how people are

having their phone numbers accessed and that databases are being used.

Obviously, this is a fairly sophisticated firm that was doing this,

under contract from the province. It would have been very expensive,

given the sheer numbers, on a couple of the calls that the minister

referenced.

Again, I didn’t see the government offering up either

participation of the official opposition or funding to the official

opposition to try to fund a similar type of town hall outreach to

provide a different perspective of views on the budget either. Frankly,

it was fairly government self-promoting.

To that end, how much did these telephone town halls cost the

government and the taxpayers of British Columbia?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: What do you say? I’ll give him the exact numbers. Each telephone

town hall cost $37,975. That’s including tax. That puts it up a little

bit. When you think that we reached almost 60,000 people, it’s less than

$1.50 a person, which is pretty cost-effective.

I would equate it…. It’s actually no different than when the

former Premier, Christy Clark, went on TV a number of times and did her

promotion of the government. Opposition was never invited to give our

viewpoint. No other party was invited to give their viewpoint. That did

happen a number of times.

Government has an opportunity to…. At least with our opportunity,

we were answering questions. This was not a half-hour session of

listening to what we were doing. It was actually us answering questions.

Again, I knew they were questions from people of all political stripes

and from right across the province, which was really great to

see.

P. Milobar: I’m sure there was even less political spin than that answer when

it came to the answers on the telephone town halls.

It’s always interesting when it’s: “Do as I say, not as I do.”

This government, when they were in opposition, seemed to have a lot of

problems with advertising. I’ll get into some of those other statements,

previously made, of: “Do as we say but not now as we do.”

That appears to be around a $76,000 contract. Was it sole-sourced,

or did it go out to open bid?

Hon. K. Conroy: It was a standard competitive process.

P. Milobar: To clarify, was that put on B.C. Bid, or was it someone within

GCPE that was reaching out to preferred vendors to ask about their

availability?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: There’s a limited number of vendors that do this kind of work. We

reached out to three of them. Two provided bids. PrimeContact secured

the bid.

P. Milobar: We seem to have a staffing component of the GCPE, to buy $3.5

million worth of ads in a year, of $23.2 million. It’s costing in wages

and manpower, wo­menpower, $23.2 million to place $3.5 million

worth of ads in a year.

Now, GCPE also has a budget of $29.3 million. Can the minister

explain: is that $2.6 million being used for polling by the

government?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Two things I’d like…. One I’d like to clarify. I want to just

clarify that there are five people who work in the GCPE who deal with

advertising. Last year we….

What I think the member is referring to is

how much is budgeted to spend on research, and it’s $432,000.

P. Milobar: I’m confused. There’s, it appears, a staffing complement of $23.2

million. But the minister is saying there are only five people that work

on advertising. What do the rest of the people in GCPE do, in general

terms? I don’t need exact job titles but then to make up the difference

between five people and $23.2 million.

Hon. K. Conroy: There’s a lot here. I mean, they produce and coordinate digital

content related to priority files of government; provide strategic

direction on engaging audience using online communication channels. That

would include strategic digital content, video production, community

management. They could use concept and design for government priorities

and projects to maximize the effectiveness of materials.

Making sure we’re communicating with our audience; support for

public-facing government-branded materials; graphic design for all the

ministry offices; maintaining the B.C. government identity brand;

marketing; advertising; campaign development; media buying; strategic

communications planning; market research; brand development and

management; copyrighting; ensuring appropriate advertising budgets are

in place; advancing cross-ministry strategic communications; priority

projects; coordinating communications expertise; corporate input on

significant announcements that relate to the government’s platform or

individual ministry mandate letters.

They provide editorial advice, editorial services; specialize in

writing and message development; coordinate strategic communications for

executive council in the Premier’s office; centralized planning

management and execution of public events; oversight of centralized

cross-ministry corporate calendar; coordination of B.C. government

communications activities; media relations and management of media-based

events; provincial, regional and ethnic cultural media support;

translation services; media monitoring; transcription and distribution

to internal and external clients.

I mean, there’s…. Does that give the member the gist? I mean,

there’s a lot more. I could keep going. I mean, there’s a lot more than

just advertising.

P. Milobar: No. I wasn’t trying to be flippant. I didn’t even want the public

to think five people were making $23.2 million. So thanks for

that.

Just imagine, I wouldn’t even have this many questions if the NDP

had followed through on their 2013 commitment — if we’re going back down

memory lane, as the minister did earlier — that the Auditor General

would review every ad before it went out to ensure it was non-partisan

in nature.

[4:20 p.m.]

But I get that time marches on, and the NDP didn’t want to live by

that 2013 commitment once they formed office.

I noticed that the polling number, the dollars spent on polling,

has increased dramatically. It has more than doubled since 2021,

actually. In 2021, it was about a $200,000 budget for polling, and now

it’s at $432,000.

I’m wondering if the minister can clarify. On March 8, there was

OIC 157, which appointed Paul Noble as director of research and

analytics, government communications and public engagement, Ministry of

Finance, for a term ending October 7, 2023. The salary is between

$96,400 and $128,100 per year.

I don’t take issue with someone being paid, and I get that these

are professionals and everything else. The question really is: is that

$96,400 to $128,100 range included in the $432,000, or is it over and

above that?

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m just going to answer a number of questions that the member

raised without realizing he was raising them.

Just to clarify on ad standards, all of our ads, all GCPE ads, are

reviewed against the non-partisan criteria established by Advertising

Standards Canada. They approve our ads to make sure that they’re

non-partisan.

[4:25 p.m.]

Also, the member referred to the research budget. The budget

doesn’t change, but in 2021, it was underspent significantly because of

COVID, so that’s why there’s a difference there.

As far as the OIC the member talked about, the budget, the salary

for that person is separate from the research budget.

P. Milobar: Well, there’s a lot there in that answer.

First off, the justification to go to $400,000 on polling back in

2020 was because of COVID. That was all pre-election polling. In fact,

the minister at the time said: “ That information gets used in program

development. That’s how it has been used, and that’s how I think it’s

always used — making sure that we understand where people are at so that

we can be a responsive government.” She also said polling was done by

government to understand how programs are being perceived by the public,

in regards to COVID. That was $400,000 during COVID.

The next year, budgeted was $200,000, in 2021, not spent,

underspent. Budgeted was $200,000 in 2021, recognizing that the first

wave of COVID information needed to diminish. Polling, more

importantly…. This isn’t about advertising. This is about polling on

public policy dollars.

The minister can call it research all she likes. It’s polling. In

a time leading up to an election, it was $400,000 under the guise of

COVID. Immediately after that, it dropped back down to $200,000. This

year it has jumped back up to $432,000, plus a new director being hired

in the $100,000 range, on top of that, to oversee.

Now, the minister talked about — how she phrased it — coordination

efforts with the Premier’s office as part of GCPE duties and

responsibilities. So how much is that within the budget to coordinate,

and how much of that ties in with polling and other information that’s

either going out from GCPE or being captured by GCPE through polling,

which is research, back through the coordinated staff with the Premier’s

office?

Hon. K. Conroy: That’s a fairly detailed, specific number the member is asking

for. It’s going to take some time to find it. We’ll get that back to

him, and we can move on to other questions just for

time-wise.

P. Milobar: One other clarification too. I noticed the minister said,

“advertising standards,” but didn’t say to ensure that they’re

non-partisan in nature or that they’re directing people to a government

service. That was something that was left out.

No, sorry. The minister referenced non-partisan but didn’t

reference the whole piece about directing people, in an ad, to a

government service or how to access government support or help or a

program, which was something that, again, the NDP railed on, in

opposition, that needed to be a part of every government ad —

directing.

I say that because there are billboards all over Victoria that

say, “Child care is affordable,” and that’s it. That’s all it says. It

doesn’t say how to link or anything else. It doesn’t say how to access

child care. It doesn’t say how to get to a program or

anything.

So there are some growing questions, especially as we get closer

to election windows, on how this government chooses to spend the dollars

of the taxpayer — especially, as I say, pre-2020 election, polling

dollars went up to $400,000.

[4:30 p.m.]

We’re in the window of an election year coming up within the next

16 months. It has to happen. Magically, polling is back up to

$432,000.

Now, this coordinated person with the Premier’s office…. We’ve

tried through FOI, and we can’t seem to get any answers. I know this is

going to seem somewhat frivolous, but we have heard varying numbers, and

some were quite shocking.

I’m hoping the minister can provide some insight into the various

machinations that GCPE would have gone through, I am assuming, to

coordinate with the Premier around his podiums, nicknamed the

explodiums, and their hydraulic systems and everything else that goes

into it. We’ve heard some very large dollar figures attached to those.

Can the minister confirm (

a) what those costs were, and (

b) if they were

over a certain price point, were those sole-sourced, or were they open

bid?

Hon. K. Conroy: GCPE did not purchase or design a podium for the Premier. The

podium is provided as a component of a standard kit as part of a service

agreement with a third party that GCPE holds a standing arrangement

with, as they would with anybody who needs adjustments when it comes to

podiums.

P. Milobar: Okay. In terms of going back to the non-partisan ads and adhering

to the standards, my understanding is those standards only apply to any

ad purchase that’s over $250,000. Any ad buy that’s under $250,000 is an

internal review. Is that the case or is everything an external review

around whether or not it’s a non-partisan ad regardless of the price of

the advertising buy?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The non-partisan ad standards in­clude both internal and

external reviews of government information advertising expenditures by

ministries under STOB 67, information advertising. The standards were

developed following a review of current practices and guidelines in

other jurisdictions, as well as the recommendations for implementation

of non-partisan advertising standards by the Office of the Auditor

General and three private members’ bills that were introduced in 2013,

2016 and 2017.

The B.C. government has engaged Advertising Standards Canada to

conduct two-stage, independent, third-party reviews against non-partisan

advertising criteria for advertising campaigns exceeding $250,000 — that

includes the production and placement costs — at the draft creative

stage, followed by a final review when creative materials are ready for

publication or broadcast. Results from all independent, third-party,

non-partisan advertising reviews with a value over $250,000 are posted

online.

For information campaigns below $250,000, an internal review

through a third-party contractor takes place to ensure the ads meet the

non-partisan criteria. Advertising of any value must meet all the

non-partisan advertising criteria before it can be released for

publication or broadcast.

P. Milobar: Now, looping back in with the research that the government does

this year with their $432,000 plus $100K for its new director of

research, I guess the question would be: did we not have somebody in

GCPE overseeing polling and research previously? Is this an additional

hire, or is this an unfilled position that was sitting there desperate

for someone to come in? Can we get a little more clarity as to why there

needed to be an OIC, in particular, for one individual hire within

GCPE?

Hon. K. Conroy: For the member’s information, there is an OIC for every single

person hired in GCPE — just for clarification. This position was

identified some time ago and has remained unfilled until

recently.

P. Milobar: I’m just wondering, then, why it would be a position that has a

fixed date in terms of October. It seems it’s only a six-month

appointment from March to October, and then it doesn’t continue on. It

would seem continuity might be important in a position like

that.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: This is a common practice.

P. Milobar: We’ve had a long list, $2.715 billion, of supplemental estimate

items that recently were dealt with by this chamber. I’m just wondering

how much, if any, was spent on polling. Well, I’ll call it “research,”

just so the minister doesn’t say, “nothing,” because it wasn’t polling

in her mind. Was research done in regards to any of the items on the

supplemental estimates list?

Hon. K. Conroy: There’s no research on any of these items specifically.

P. Milobar: Has there been research done, or is it budgeted to be done, around

decriminalization?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: At this time, there is no research planned on

decriminalization.

P. Milobar: Just a couple more items on this area. How about anything done or

contemplated to be done on the housing plan or the catch-and-release

justice system?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We’re just getting some exact information for the member, but I

have a question for the member. We have representatives from the Crowns

here today. We were going to be doing the Crown estimates. So I just am

wondering if we could get an understanding of which Crowns we will still

need, either before the end of the day or tomorrow, so we can give them

a courtesy heads-up, if that’s possible.

P. Milobar: Sure. It’ll likely be BCLC and the Infrastructure Benefits. Those

will probably be the two that would be most critical to deal

with.

What’s that?

Interjection.

P. Milobar: No, I think we can move on from that. We only have a few hours

tomorrow anyway, so it will be tight for time. Apparently. That’s what

I’ve been told. We’ll see. I’ve been known to stretch it if I have to,

though. Just ask the Environment Minister.

While we’re waiting for that answer, then, maybe I can just loop

back and clarify around the decrim. I’d asked about planned or done, and

I heard the minister say that nothing has been planned in terms of

polling/research towards decriminalization. But if she’d said it, I

missed it. Could I just get clarification on whether or not anything was

actually done with polling/research around decriminalization?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I just want to clarify with the member. Part of the reason we do

the research is so that we can listen and learn and take action on

priorities that matter to people.

We will be doing periodic research, which asks general questions

on public safety, crime and housing, again, asking the public what’s

important for them. We did hold focus groups, and focus groups are part

of research. So that’s why it’s all categorized as research, because

it’s a much broader topic. So focus groups are very much a part of

research. We asked what supports people wanted to see when it comes to

mental health and addictions, with a focus on

decriminalization.

P. Milobar: I’m wondering if, again, “done” or “is planned” or “is underway”

in terms of polling/research on the issue around the Surrey police

transition has been done as well.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, we did research on the Surrey police situation.

[5:00 p.m.]

P. Milobar: That’s interesting. We have a $150 million plan now for one form

or another of policing in Surrey. Did that $150 million, brought forward

for Surrey by the Solicitor General, go through Treasury

Board?

Hon. K. Conroy: All financial matters go through Treasury Board.

P. Milobar: The minister is saying that it has already gone to Treasury Board.

It has already been approved, the $150 million that the minister has

committed to Surrey, if they stay with the Surrey Police

Service.

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes. Again, all financial matters go through Treasury

Board.

P. Milobar: Well, Madam Chair, I guess I’m a little confused. We have a highly

charged, dragged out process around the Surrey police force or the RCMP.

It has been 4½ years now.

The government has just acknowledged that they have been polling

in advance of making a final announcement of a report, which has been

heavily redacted, on what direction they’re going to go in, with $150

million for one form of policing and zero dollars for another form of

policing. I guess we can all guess what the research might have

indicated to the government.

I’m a little surprised. My understanding is…. In the Solicitor

General estimates, the Solicitor General said the $150 million had not

gone to Treasury Board yet.

Could we get further confirmation from the minister around

this?

Hon. K. Conroy: You can direct your question to the Solicitor General.

All financial matters go through Treasury Board.

P. Milobar: Can the minister inform the House, then, on what date she

approved, as the head of Treasury Board, the $150 million for the Surrey

police force and whether or not there are actually additional dollars

over and above the $150 million?

The Solicitor General, again, has indicated the $150 million might

not be the end number. They’re open to negotiation and discussion with

Surrey.

Hon. K. Conroy: We don’t disclose details of Treasury Board decisions.

P. Milobar: I’m simply asking for a date that this was approved. I’m not

asking for the details of the decision-making. We already know

government internal polling, paid for through GCPE, helped inform this

decision by government, given that they were out polling on the Surrey

police transition.

We have a document, which is 80 percent redacted by the

government, that is supposed to provide us the basis of this government

decision. The Solicitor General — now, maybe it’s because he’s still a

rookie in this place — has indicated that it went to Treasury Board. I

would assume the only member of the government from the ’90s, the

Solicitor General, who was in cabinet then and is in cabinet again,

understands how Treasury Board works and how that process works. He has

indicated that this had not gone to Treasury Board. We have the Finance

Minister saying it had.

[5:05 p.m.]

I think the residents of Surrey and the council of Surrey, at a

minimum, if not all the taxpayers in British Columbia, deserve a little

bit more clarity on something as important as a five-year commitment of

$30 million a year, which may or may not have gone to Treasury Board and

which would likely have to be funded through this minister’s

contingencies, as she ultimately has responsibility for in this

budget.

We’re simply asking for a date that this went through Treasury

Board. Is the minister trying to say that even the date of a Treasury

Board decision is confidential?

Hon. K. Conroy: I can’t speak to what was or wasn’t said in other estimates.

Again, the member needs to refer his questions to the Solicitor

General.

We don’t disclose the agendas of Treasury Board.

P. Milobar: Well, again, I’m not asking for an agenda.

The minister can point to former ministers. I’ve been advised they

would give up something as simple as a date of a decision. In fact,

there are a few former Finance Ministers kicking around these chambers

these days.

I’ve been around this questioning line on Treasury Board decisions

over and over again with ministers, Finance and other ministers, over

the years, in my few short years I’ve been here. Ultimately, after we do

this back-and-forth for about an hour, the minister says: “Well,

actually, I can give up a date.” A date isn’t actually, again, betraying

anything to do with minutes, anything to do with what the discussion

was.

I’m not asking if any of the members from Surrey, who might have

been on Treasury Board, who are MLAs, were in the room for the vote and

the discussion and what they had to say about that or not. I get that

the minister might not want to convey that. I’m simply asking for the

date the decision was made.

This is a report that the government has been sitting on for

months and that Surrey has been waiting for. We’re well into this year’s

budget fiscal year already. This is money that obviously isn’t

identified in the regular budget. It would have to come out of

contingencies.

[5:10 p.m.]

Again, what was the actual date that the final sign-off on

Treasury Board happened for the funds within the Surrey policing plan

that was presented by the Solicitor General? Again, no discussion

points, not how many meetings you had to come to a conclusion or a

decision, just the date.

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, we don’t disclose agendas from Treasury Board.

P. Milobar: Well, I guess we can see why this has been voted the most

secretive government in Canada. It is not a confidential piece of

information. Dates get released by government all the time if they

choose to, if decisions had actually truly been made, both in cabinet

decisions as well as it relates to Treasury Board decisions.

The fact that we’re dealing with a document that the Solicitor

General told us, “Why don’t you go read it?” during question period,

when it’s been redacted by 80 percent, shows how much this government

doesn’t want the full story to be out there. It breeds actual

uncertainty, and it breeds skepticism in the public, and it will

probably undo a lot of the polling that might have been done ahead of

time for the government, when they want to keep on playing this game of:

“We can’t tell you something as simple as a date.”

I guess I’ll ask the minister this question. The law was changed.

The legislation was changed, enabling the minister or the head of

Treasury Board to make unilateral decisions without a full Treasury

Board meeting taking place. Was the decision based on a Treasury Board

meeting or the minister herself just signing off on the payment within

the Surrey policing transition plan?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: No, the decision did not go under the delegation framework that

the member refers to.

P. Milobar: Sorry, just with the Crowns, I totally had forgotten. My colleague

had a couple of pension-related questions for BCFSA, and I was hoping to

sneak those in by end of day today. It just tweaked in my head when he

walked in.

I do apologize for that. I wasn’t trying to be…. If they have

left, if they’re able to come back tomorrow, if they don’t have to

travel out of town, then we can always fit it in tomorrow. We’ll see

where we get to that. We can wrap that part up by the end of the day, if

need be.

In terms of the funds that were approved by Treasury Board for the

Surrey policing and that report…. Again, I recognize the minister won’t

get into the weeds on what the Solicitor General’s decision-making was

or wasn’t in terms of which police agency to go with and which would

receive money or not receive money. That would have formed the basis of

the Treasury Board approval, one would assume, though.

We’ve also heard from the Solicitor General that that is not a

defined number yet at this point — the $150 million. It could be for a

longer period of time. It could be bigger dollars in the same time

frame. It could be bigger dollars in a shorter time frame. That is all

still being worked out.

It seems a little odd that Treasury Board would have felt that

they had enough information to go ahead and make an approval and start

talking publicly about it, given that when I just questioned the Health

Minister the other day about a cancer centre in Kamloops, he couldn’t

give me an answer as to even an order of magnitude of dollars because

nothing’s gone even remotely near Treasury Board yet. Yet here we have a

preliminary number, by the sounds of it, from the Solicitor General

floated out there.

Again, this is quite serious, because it’s not just the Solicitor

General. He’s also the Deputy Premier. We’re dealing with the Finance

Minister. I mean, these are the highest levels of ministers of the

Crown. The Attorney General would probably be the other of the trifecta

of ministerial oversight.

It’s troubling when we’re hearing these slightly different

versions again. It’s troubling for us, but there are close to one

million people in Surrey wondering what the heck is actually going on,

moving forward, on a police transition that has taken 4½ years to get….

Now not even a definitive answer out of the province as to what is going

to happen.

Can the minister confirm, first off, that these funds will have to

be coming out of contingencies and new programs and, secondly, if $150

million was the approval number for Treasury Board, or was it a higher

number?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes. In general, new allocations, or things not budgeted for after

the budget is tabled, can be funded out of contingencies.

P. Milobar: Thank you. That’s why I’m trying to get a date on the Treasury

Board decision on this. We’re trying to determine whether it’s part of

the existing budget or if it’s part of the contingencies in terms of

that. Again, it sounded like the minister explained what contingencies

are used for. But specifically, the $150 million for the Surrey

transition, the recommendation by the Solicitor General for that — is

that coming out of contingencies, or is that contained within the

existing budget?

Hon. K. Conroy: I said, “in general,” and, again, I’m not disclosing information

coming from Treasury Board.

P. Milobar: I’m not asking for information from Treasury Board, respectfully.

I’m asking whether or not the $150 million referenced by the Solicitor

General for the Surrey police transition is in contingencies or if it’s

contained in the general budget.

Hon. K. Conroy: It was not contained in the general budget.

P. Milobar: Thank you. If it’s not contained in the Solicitor General’s $584

million policing budget that’s within this budget document, can I get

confirmation, then, that it’s contained within contingencies, or is the

minister saying it’s not actually identified in contingencies yet

either?

Hon. K. Conroy: In general, that’s what contingencies are for.

P. Milobar: Again, this government wonders why peo­ple have skepticism

on this whole plan and program for the Surrey police service versus RCMP

and why the mayor and council and residents are getting frustrated by

this government.

We have a report that’s 80 percent redacted. No clarity on

that.

[5:25 p.m.]

We had the Solicitor General, when asked whether it’s been through

Treasury Board, say: “I’ll make a couple of points. First off, I do not

— and no minister ever will — talk about the deliberations that take

place at Treasury Board.”

He wouldn’t acknowledge or not acknowledge whether the money’s

actually been approved, and I appreciate that. That’s why I asked staff

to send me up the Hansard, to read it into the record, to make

sure I was getting proper and accurate….

Interjection.

P. Milobar: No, I haven’t, actually. He hasn’t verified that it’s there

either, if you read through the rest of it.

This minister, who’s actually in charge of the treasury, will not

acknowledge whether or not the money is in contingencies, saying,

generally speaking, that money that will be spent that’s not contained

in the general budget comes out of contingencies — giving the answer of

a definition of what a contingency fund is. It is not confirming for the

residents of Surrey that the government has earmarked $150 million,

potentially more, according to the Solicitor General, out of

contingencies.

It’s a pretty straightforward question. These are budget estimates

to try to figure out where the money is in this budget for government

commitments. The government has very publicly committed $150 million to

the city of Surrey if they do X. The simple question to the minister is:

has that $150 million been assigned — $30 million of which would be this

fiscal, I’m assuming, since it’s a five-year commitment — out of

contingencies?

Hon. K. Conroy: The member, and we will get the Hansard , all along has

been saying: “The minister referred to an exact amount.” Now the member

just quoted what he said in Hansard , and the minister did not

refer to an exact amount. In fact, the minister said what I have been

saying all along: that we will not have a discussion about what is

discussed at Treasury Board in this chamber.

So if the member would like to continue asking questions about the

Surrey police, he really needs to refer those questions to the Solicitor

General, who is the one that is taking the lead on that file.

P. Milobar: As I said, I was paraphrasing my understanding of what was said in

the other House, which is why I asked staff to get me the exact wording.

Now, the minister did not confirm it had been through Treasury Board

either, to be clear to the minister. He didn’t confirm that it had been

to Treasury Board either. The people of Surrey would like confirmation

that the money they’ve been promised is actually there.

The minister can, say, refer me to the Solicitor General. However,

the relevant vote, subject to debate, contingencies and new programs, is

directly under the control of the Minister of Finance. There is no $150

million for the Surrey police transition, which the Solicitor General

has promised, without the okay by the Finance Minister. She is in charge

of the spending of contingencies. The minister has already confirmed

that it is not part of the Solicitor General’s existing police budget in

this year’s budget.

I’m simply asking if the $150 million has been approved and is

being funded out of contingencies. If it’s not being funded out of

contingencies, could the minister show us where the money is coming

from?

This is a commitment of spending that this government has made,

very publicly, to a city with almost one million people in it. I think

they deserve a clear answer of where exactly in this budget the money

for this transition lies. One would assume it’s in contingencies, but

the minister seems to not even want to acknowledge it’s in there, which

makes one think it actually hasn’t been approved at Treasury Board

yet.

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, I think I have confirmed this, but all financial matters go

to Treasury Board for discussion. New allocations or things not budgeted

for after the budget generally could be funded out of

contingencies.

P. Milobar: Generally can be funded out of contingencies, but there are other

areas that things can be funded, if the government chooses, in terms of

internal transfers, especially as it relates to capital funding. I’m

simply asking, again, not for a dance-around answer. One would think it

would be a pretty simple answer for the government.

There are contingency funds. People expect those to be funding

things, as the minister keeps saying — what a definition of a

contingency fund is. She has established that the money is not in this

year’s annual police budget for the Solicitor General. A commitment has

been made for spending to Surrey, if they choose to go down a certain

course. So I think it’s important for them and their

deci­sion-making to know that the money is truly there and

committed by this government.

I don’t understand why it’s so hard for the minister to just

acknowledge it’s coming out of contingencies. I’m not asking about

Treasury Board. Everything in this budget, as the minister has pointed

out, has gone through Treasury Board, yet we don’t hear: “Well, I can’t

talk about that commitment government made because it went through

Treasury Board.”

We’re asking where in this budget would lie the commitment, the

funding, the dollars that were committed by this government to Surrey,

if they choose to go with the Surrey Police Service…? Where in this

budget that lies. I’m asking for confirmation that it’s in

contingencies, and I have yet to actually have that

confirmation.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: All financial matters go to Treasury Board to be approved. That’s

what I’ve been saying since I started answering the member’s questions.

The member is surmising, putting words into my mouth that I have not

said.

I’ve said that all financial matters go to Treasury Board to be

approved. Any initiatives that are new or not tabled with the budget,

these types of new initiatives, would be funded under

contingencies.

P. Milobar: Well, the confusion for Surrey…. This is the government’s making

of confusion, frankly. You have the Solicitor General, who says: “I do

not and no minister ever will talk about deliberations that take place

at Treasury Board.” Fair enough.

This minister acknowledged on my first question that it actually

had been approved at Treasury Board but wouldn’t give any other

information. My first question was: has it gone to Treasury

Board?

The problem, and this is where I’m trying to find $150 million and

get a very clear answer, is that the Solicitor General also

said:

“What’s also important is that we’re not going to go into the city

of Surrey and say: ‘Oh, here it is. Take it or leave it.’ We want to

work with them on what they’ve identified as their numbers. My ministry

will sit down with the city of Surrey, go through the report and the new

information that they need in terms of their decision-making process.

We’ve made it clear we want to work with them on those costs so there’s

not a burden on the Surrey residential, or the Surrey business,

taxpayer.”

That sounds like dollars are still being discussed, and there’s no

finite dollar figure yet. There are other, similar quotes to the

questions in his estimates.

Again, I guess I’m trying to get a very clear answer on this one

specific spending commitment by the government. Has $150 million for the

Surrey police service been approved to be spent out of contingencies?

Now, this is no different than me asking a question of $432,000 being

spent out of the GCPE budget for polling. That would have been approved

by Treasury Board, technically, as well, as part of the overall GCPE

budget.

If it was going to be funded out of Treasury Board, or out of

contingencies, and I said, “Is $432,000 coming out of contingencies?”

that probably wouldn’t be a hard question for the minister to answer

either, directly. That is the context of asking this

question.

[5:40 p.m.]

Has $150 million in contingencies been committed to the Surrey

police service transition, be it $30 million this year and $30 million

every year after that, or $150 million just this year, and it sits in an

account and gets drawn down? What is the sum coming out of contingencies

for the Surrey police service?

Hon. K. Conroy: Just to clarify with the member, this is very different than the

member asking me about a GCPE item that is obviously in the budget. What

the member is asking me is not in the budget, is nowhere to be found in

this budget, so it’s very much out of scope.

[5:45 p.m.]

The GCPE number is in the budget. It’s there. Every­thing

that the member was asking about in GCPE is specifically in the budget,

which I could relate to, I could talk to. It’s in the budget. So just

sharing with the member why that is very, very different from what he is

asking now.

Again, contingencies are used for items new or not in the budget.

The Solicitor General and I are very much on the same page. We both are

agreeing with each other that we do not disclose details of what happens

at Treasury Board.

P. Milobar: Again, I’m not asking for details of Treasury Board. This isn’t

any different. This is the spending estimates, the budget estimates on

spending for the provincial government. Contingencies have a few billion

dollars in them that are not defined. Is the minister now saying that

throughout the whole fiscal year, no questions can be asked about

contingency funds that this government has in their budget?

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m saying I’m not going to disclose information discussed at

Treasury Board.

P. Milobar: Well, every decision, as the minister has pointed out, for

spending has to go through Treasury Board, which means every decision to

spend any contingency money will have to go through Treasury Board.

Again, based on the minister’s answers, is the minister saying that the

several billions of dollars that are in contingency funds contained in

this budget, that she has direct control over, that she is not prepared,

throughout the course of this year, to answer any questions on those

decisions of spending or amounts because it came out of a contingency

fund versus a line item in the budget?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: To the member’s specific question on can we not have a discussion

on contingencies, I just want to clarify.

[5:55 p.m.]

The role of the Minister of Finance is to set out overall fiscal

and policy direction in government, including contingencies vote.

However, the specific programs and initiatives that are funded through

the contingencies vote should be discussed with the individual

ministers.

P. Milobar: Well, I’ll just read Vote 48, which this minister is responsible

for, and then I’m going to turn it over to my colleague to ask some

BCFSA questions. Vote 48, contingencies and new programs,

says:

“This vote provides for additional funding for items budgeted in

other votes to accommodate the financial consequences of unanticipated

and contingent events. Unanticipated events include developments during

the year that could not reasonably be anticipated when the budget was

prepared. Contingent events include developments that could be

anticipated but not with enough certainty to make a reasonable estimate

of budget costs or where final costs are dependent on a pending decision

by government or another party.

“This vote also provides for funding related to pandemic response

and economic recovery, new initiatives under the CleanBC plan, ex gratia

payments and the funding of new programs initiated during the fiscal

year. Costs may be recovered from the federal government or other

parties external to the provincial government for activities funded by

this vote.”

That’s under the control of the Minister of Finance, Vote 48

around contingencies. I was simply trying to get a very simple, clear

statement from the minister for the people of Surrey, who are going

through a lot of uncertainty and turmoil right now, as to whether or not

there was truly money identified and accounted for in this budget,

through contingencies or in the permanent budget. The minister seems

unwilling to provide that certainty for Surrey, and that’s fine. That’s

her choice. But that’s simply all I was trying to do.

With that, I’ll turn it over to my colleague from Kelowna West to

deal with some BCFSA questions.

B. Stewart: Thank you for allowing me to bring up some questions in terms of

the regulator, the B.C. Financial Services Authority.

I just want to confirm that they are the regulator for a pension

called the Interior Lumbermen’s pension plan No. 85224-2.

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes. In fact, the BCFSA is responsible for that pension

plan.

B. Stewart: I just want to ask the question in terms of the oversight provided

by BCFSA over these pension plans and just in terms of the overall

breadth of what they aim to do as the regulator.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The Pension Benefits Standards Act protects the interests of

members of B.C.’s registered pension plans. Employers who participate in

defined benefit plans, which this one is, are required to fund the

benefits promised to their employees unless the employer is

insolvent.

B. Stewart: Recently, I’ve been approached by quite a number of logging

contractors that are both active and in retirement. They’ve recently

received notification from the Interior lumberman’s pension plan that

they may have some liability for unfunded liability.

I guess really the question…. I will be specific. Two of

companies, Jim Lind Logging and Lindwest Holdings, were contracted under

government contracts with Crown Zellerbach, Fletcher Challenge,

Riverside, Tolko and, in 2004, were notified by the Ministry of Forests

that they wanted to buy back those contracts.

It wasn’t initially how it was offered. At the end, they were

bought out and, subsequently, the government also paid severance to the

employees as they wound up their operations in West Kelowna.

The pension plan currently — the numbers I’ve been notionally told

— has about 70 active logging contracting companies, 140 retirements.

The Lind family is well established in the West Kelowna area, but they

received this letter, November 4 of 2022, indicating that there was an

unfunded liability because, partially, the reserve account had been

allowed to drop down to a level of about 69 percent.

These people sold to government. Severance was paid, operations

ceased and the equipment was sold. Here we are some 18 years, 19 years

after the fact, and they’re getting a letter indicating that they’re

potentially liable, or they’re going to receive some sort of invoice or

determination sometime early this coming summer in terms of what their

liability is.

You can imagine contractors that have sold and been out of

business. There are a lot of things between that period of time that

could have happened. There are a number of things in this letter that

talk about whether it’s defined or direct benefit, but more importantly,

as the regulator, it seems that something has happened where the

oversight of the plan has not been monitored properly.

My question to you is: how often do they look at these and report

to yourself, as the ministry and minister?

[6:05 p.m. - 6:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The BCFSA’s responsibility is to administer the act, and the act

is there to protect the members of the pension plan actually receiving

the pension. They also have the responsibility to review the plans every

three years, and they have ongoing discussions with the trustees of the

various pension plans.

Now, it’s the trustees that have the fiduciary responsibility to

their members, and their members are those people that are receiving the

pension — not the employers but the members receiving the pension. It’s

the trustees who have taken the steps to protect their members in this

case.

B. Stewart: I appreciate that that is the hierarchy and the responsibility.

However, the question really is that in 1978, this plan was brought in,

to make certain that employees that were working for independent

contractors had some benefits. It was targeted at the time. Of course,

the oversight was through BCFSA. That is important.

What I can’t understand is that the letter…. I’ll just read you a

paragraph here. It’s not signed; it just is identified as from the plan.

It says:

“The plan continues to have a solvency deficiency in respect of the

benefits earned under it before 2017, including the benefit earned by

your organization’s employees. The plan’s trustees have implemented

numerous measures to address this solvency deficiency. However, they

have now determined that all employers who left the plan when it had a

solvency deficiency must pay the portion of the plan’s current solvency

deficiency attributable to their employee benefits. If that portion is

not paid, the benefits payable to that employer’s employees must be

reduced to the planned solvency ratio, currently estimated at 69

percent.”

Besides the Linds, who sold their business over 18 years ago and

have been out of the business…. You can imagine this unforeseen

liability. I guess my question really is…. I’ll just mention another

name. I met with a fellow by the name of Scott Horovatin. The family is

a multigenerational logging family. The father has passed away, the

mother is living in the house, and now they feel that they’re being

threatened and may lose some of their homes that they have, just to pay

this deficiency.

I guess what I’m really asking is: what type of accountability is

on BCFSA to ensure that these individual plans are meeting their

solvency requirements and not coming up, almost two decades later,

asking for money from these people that are long since out of the

business and may not, or likely don’t, have the money?

I could show you court cases that are ongoing right now with small

contractors being sued by the insurance plan. I just don’t think that

this is right. It seems to me that BCFSA should have caught this a long

time ago and raised the alarm bells.

If you could help me understand, how are these logging

contractors, which have worked in these communities for generations,

expected to come up with this deficiency? It’s probably because the

oversight by the trustee has been insufficient.

[6:15 p.m. - 6:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for raising this. I know it’s a difficult

situation.

Trustees have that fiduciary duty to administer the plan in the

best interests of the members and in a manner that complies with the

act. In doing so, sometimes the trustees have to make tough decisions to

balance the plan’s challenges with its long-term

sustainability.

The superintendent of pensions and staff at the B.C. Financial

Services Authority have actually been working with this plan for a

number of years, many years, to help address its funding

challenges.

Since 2016, several requests by the trustees for funding relief,

within the constraints of the act, have been granted. But in February of

2021, the superintendent’s staff determined that continued funding

relief wouldn’t address the plan’s long-term funding issues. So the

superintendent asked the trustees to develop a strategy to address those

issues. It’s up to the trustees to address the insolvency

issues.

BCFSA acted, as they were required to do, to direct the trustees

to deal with the solvency deficit so members could receive their

pensions as was expected. Just so the member realizes, this is a defined

benefit plan. So the legal obligation to the members is to pay them the

pension that they are expected under a defined benefit plan. Again,

BCFSA has done their due diligence in trying to ensure that the trustees

deal with the insolvency of the pension plan.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:25 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

PUBLIC SAFETY

AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); A. Walker in the

chair.

The committee met at 1:33 p.m.

The Chair: Good afternoon, everyone. I call Committee of Supply,

Section

A, to order.

We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the

estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor

General.

I now recognize the minister to move the vote.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $1,013,019,000

(continued) .

R. Merrifield: In the same report that I referenced earlier, the coroner’s death

review panel on IPV, or intimate partner violence, there were three

recommendations that were made.

I’m just going to read one of the recommendations, which is No. 3,

and it says: “enhance IPV data access, quality and collaboration,

including a provincial office of domestic violence that will coordinate

dialogue between the office of the chief information officer, justice

and public safety sectors to clarify the legislative authorities for

sharing information between providers and service agencies to support

victims of intimate partner violence and their children.”

Could the minister just give me an update on the provincial office

of domestic violence as to where it’s located and where in the budget

it’s funded?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The office was transferred to my ministry. The program was

transferred to my ministry in 2017-2018. That means that it aligns the

domestic violence programs within the ministry, allowing for a

harmonized approach between my ministry and the gender violence programs

and domestic programs and other forms of gender-based

violence.

We are spending approximately $54 million in funding to support

the 400 victim services, including the $10 million for sexual assault

centres. So it’s now all in my ministry.

R. Merrifield: Where is the provincial office of domestic violence

located?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It will be located in the community safety and crime prevention

branch. That’s where all the policy work for the programs takes

place.

R. Merrifield: Could the minister then tell me exactly what is the allocated

budget to the provincial office of domestic violence?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Is there a stand-alone office? No. Is the function still there?

Yes, and it has been since 2017. The funding and the policy work

continues that was in place, along with increased funding in terms of

sexual assault centres, as amongst other programs.

R. Merrifield: Thank you, Minister, for the answer to the question.

The minister has talked about additional funding for sexual abuse

victims, which is fantastic. However, domestic abuse, intimate partner

violence, is not always sexual in nature, so there are very different

aspects to that.

The coroner’s report actually describes that the function of this

office was to be a coordinating branch. As I have been punted around

three different ministries to try and ascertain the collective

collaborator who is actually coordinating all of these efforts, it’s

become apparently clear that nobody is, that there are separate efforts

being made.

[1:40 p.m.]

I won’t discount them in terms of what the minister just talked

about, but there’s not that domestic violence provincial office that is

actually looking at all of these different aspects and understanding how

they are working together. If there’s some urgency in my voice right

now, it’s actually because the situation is so urgent. We saw domestic

violence and intimate partner violence actually decrease from 2009 to

2016. Since 2016, we have absolutely been on a horrific trajectory, and

the lowest increase was actually 13 percent. That was the lowest

increase since 2016.

We know that the pandemic of 2020-2021 was horrific for those that

were victims of intimate partner violence. They were literally locked

inside their homes with their abusers. So if there’s some urgency in my

voice and some pleading with the minister that this actually be a

coordinated effort, that all of the different ministries would have a

coordinator to come together and bring all of these different aspects

together, that would be greatly appreciated.

My final question will be this. Will the minister commit to

funding this particular office that was described in great detail in the

coroner’s report and actually given voice in the coroner’s report as to

what it was supposed to do and the function? Will the minister commit to

not just the functions being diluted throughout the different agencies,

but actually a coordinator of all of these functions today?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for her question, and I understand the urgency

and the passion to which she brings that issue because I think we all

share that. We know that domestic violence, intimate partner violence,

gender-based violence is a terrible thing, and it’s

unacceptable.

I also want to assure her the work is being done with the gender

equity office and the gender-based violence action plan, coordinated in

my ministry. That work is underway. There’s an ADM committee where all

relevant ministries are involved.

There’s also an external advisory committee. So we’re working to

ensure that not only the policies, but the programs that need to be

placed, are in fact happening and that people are working together. And

when I say gender-based violence, that includes intimate partner and

domestic violence. I hear what the member is saying, but I also want to

assure her that the work that is required is underway.

M. Morris: Just a little follow-up to my colleague’s questions as well.

Domestic violence is a serious situation in many communities, as the

minister is aware. And again, I go back to the communities of Kwadacha

and the very remote communities where there are few, scant resources

available for the members when they attend these kinds of complaints and

no resources available for follow-up.

I’m wondering if the minister or the police services or somebody

has been looking at this to figure out what kind of a task force,

perhaps, or what kind of resource can be made available to reach out to

those isolated communities to provide that service.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. We are aware, and we know the

challenge that the member is talking about. There’s ongoing work within

the ministry on the broader issue. But in terms of the specific issue,

as the minister is relating to northern, in particular, remote

Indigenous communities, we are actually actively working on procurement

at this point to be able to put in place additional sexual assault

services specifically earmarked for Indigenous communities.

D. Clovechok: Around the safer communities action plan, my colleague asked if I

had a question, and I do. I’m wondering, given the communities that I

serve, which are, as you know well, Revelstoke, Golden, Invermere,

Kimberley, all with four detachments, staff is small. Invermere is an

11-member detachment. The other ones aren’t that much bigger. Yet

between May and October our population, because of tourism, increases

30,000 to 40,000 people. That puts an enormous amount of stress on these

detachments. We’ve got a couple of reservists that are working right now

trying to fill in those gaps, and we’ve got positions that are not

filled.

You add the tourism onto the decriminalization of hard drugs….

Albertans — and I say this with all due respect to Albertans; not only

Albertans, but everybody else — are already coming to our area. And it’s

the Wild West.

That’s going to put an enormous amount of pressure, we think. This

is an experiment. We don’t know what’s going to happen, but it’s going

to put an enormous amount of stress, potentially, on our members where

there already are stresses with 30,000 or 40,000 tourists. I’m just

wondering: under this safer communities action plan, is there any plan

to increase those law enforcement positions? I know it’s hard to find

members, but it’s going to have an impact on our communities.

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question. I appreciate the challenge

that communities such as his face, particularly in the summer season. We

work with the RCMP….

I know a lot of the communities you represent are just under the

5,000. They’re also under the 15,000.

In terms of the rural areas and some of the smaller communities,

that’s why the provincial business line…. As I said, when we work with

the RCMP on determining caseload, particular challenges in particular

areas…. We’re working with them on identifying priority areas. They will

do seasonal increasing in particular areas. Again, we work with them on

that.

There are the search teams that are in Prince George, Kelowna,

Kamloops. I think Kelowna would be the one, probably, for your

particular area. They’re able, the four members located there, if

there’s a need, to put them out there.

There is the ability, within the RCMP, to get extra

re­sources to deal with, on a seasonal basis, in some of the

communities you’re talking about…. As well, the additional officers that

we’re looking to hire, on the provincial business line I talked about,

can assist in the rural and smaller communities in your

riding.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that. I totally understand the math behind it

all.

One of the things that the municipalities are looking at now, in

terms of decrim, is putting bylaw officers in place to enforce whatever

bylaws are passed.

The biggest concern that I’ve heard, and even from the RCMP, is….

When you take these bylaw officers, who may not have the police training

or may not have any training, for that matter, other than bylaw

training…. You’re going to put them at risk. When you’re going into a

park or when you’re going into a beach, like Kinsmen Beach in Invermere,

where someone is shooting up…. It puts them at risk.

I’m just wondering what your vision would be for communities like

my communities to deal with those issues when the RCMP are out doing

what the RCMP do. I think there’s going to be a gap there

somewhere.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. This is something the

special committee on police reform looked at.

I can tell you, in terms of the continuum of enforcement….

Obviously, if bylaws are doing enforcement and things are going fine,

that’s fine. But if they’re finding that there is a challenge, then,

obviously, police are there to do what the police do, in terms of

ensuring that laws are being followed. That’s why we want to make sure

that the resources are there to be able to meet those seasonal surges

that occur in communities like yours.

Okay. I won’t comment on hordes of Albertans coming.

Interjection.

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I know. I know.

Those are the kinds of things police are able to act on, and

that’s why we want to see those additional resources there. As I said,

there are existing ones, in terms of the surge capacity, but there is

also the ability for seasonal resources in areas such as

yours.

M. Morris: I was posted in Alberta once. I had Alberta plates on my vehicle,

and I was treated like a tourist every time I came back to my home in

the province here.

I want to carry on with our First Nations topic for now. I just

want to go back, though, to a question. I don’t know if I understood the

answer.

I’m just wondering if there’s some kind of document or paper

available that the police or police services use to determine the

metrics necessary for caseload management per police officer.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The short answer is…. It’s not a piece of paper. Rather, it’s a

process, with the RCMP looking at all of the things that, in fact, the

member has raised: population movements, caseload, demographics, crime

rates, remoteness. All of those things, together, are forming, part and

parcel, how the decisions are made. But it’s not specifically a piece of

paper.

M. Morris: Years ago I was in a position where I was able to get some money

through the RCMP. I was a district officer at the time.

I commissioned a study that ended up being entitled “A 30 Year

Analysis of Police Complexities and Costing,” or something like

that. It laid out a number of those factors. The report was published by

the University of the Fraser Valley in about 2004 or 2005, I believe. A

lot of those metrics were included in that particular report. So I just

throw that out there.

Can the minister name the First Nations communities where

additional RCMP resources will be added and the timeline for those

resources to be in place?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The work is underway with the RCMP on determining where those

resources will go, as I said in the earlier answer. That operational

decision is the RCMP’s, but we are superintending that to make sure that

they’re going to the communities that need it. We’re very much involved

in that, but we don’t have a list as of yet.

M. Morris: I think the minister said there are 52 positions planned for 2023

and 125 for 2024. Pretty aggressive staffing levels.

Out of the 52, for example…. Where would the minister determine

the priorities? I know the police are responsible for this. I’m sure he

must have a pretty good picture of where the priorities would be right

now. Where do First Nations remote communities come into play as far as

the priorities go?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are three, and I’ll say they’re equal priority areas. One

doesn’t trump the other. They are rural policing, major crime and

highway patrol. That’s what we want to work with the RCMP in

determining, saying, “Look, these are three priority areas for us. Let’s

work in terms of now. Within that, where do we base the new

resources?”

M. Morris: I can certainly understand that priority list.

How many positions are currently funded federally for First

Nations policing in B.C.?

Hon. M. Farnworth: They are funding 117.5 positions.

M. Morris: So 117.5. It has increased slightly over time.

How many First Nations communities do we have in B.C.?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are 204 First Nations in the province.

M. Morris: How does British Columbia fare in comparison to other provinces in

Canada with respect to the numbers of federally funded police officers

for First Nations?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I think it’s an important

question today, and it is definitely going to be an important issue

going forward.

It’s an issue that I have raised at a number of FPT meetings with

the federal government, starting with getting them to actually fund —

because we’ve had this discussion in the past — the positions that

they’re supposed to be funding.

I think there’s a difference between how the First Nations

policing operates in this province compared to other provinces. In part,

it’s a relation to the history in British Columbia. In Alberta, there

are some significant First Nations policing reserves and First Nations

policing detachments. We don’t have that here in British Columbia

yet.

[2:05 p.m.]

What I can tell the member is that in the meetings I’ve had…. We

referenced Prince George in an earlier question. Whether it’s at the

First Nations leadership group or whether it’s at UBCM, I’m seeing an

increased desire for either more, as it’s referred to, tribal policing —

to be able to do their own policing — or more RCMP First Nations

policing.

It varies from nation to nation — the path that they would like to

go. In many cases, it’s dependent on capacity. Within the ministry, we

are working with different nations on the approach that they would like

to take. Some have said they want to go to their own policing. Okay, we

can work with them on that. But many others are saying: “We want to have

more First Nations RCMP officers.” Again, it’s a question of getting

those First Nations recruits and candidates in place, and that’s not

easy.

In my discussions with my federal counterparts, both the previous

minister, Blair, and Minister Mendicino indicated they want to see, at

the federal level, significant improvements and an increase in First

Nations policing.

M. Morris: Good to hear. Of course, it’s an ongoing struggle. I remember many

of those meetings I attended myself. In fact, there was a First Nations

policing review, a federal review, that was done a number of years ago.

I think it was probably about the time we switched roles, somewhere

around then. They asked me what my thoughts were, and I just drew out of

my experience. I said we probably need 500 more, which I don’t think is

an unreasonable amount.

In my role as an HR officer for southern Alberta, I was very much

involved with staffing a lot of those First Nations areas and having to

fill in on the First Nations tribal police forces that we did have.

There are a number of things that surface when you have First Nations

policing. I experienced it, as well, in Fort St. James, with a special

constable program that we had way back in the ’70s.

You would have individuals, from their own communities, policing

their own communities. The enormous pressure that was placed upon them

by family members and others in the community almost rendered them….

They were incapacitated. A lot of them were demoralized to the point of

never returning to policing again.

I think all those things need to be looked at. When you have a

large community like Surrey or Prince George, people can return to their

communities and operate with­out too many of your schoolmates

reminding you of what you did when you were in grade 12. I hope that is

taken into consideration.

Has the minister ever presented to the federal government as to

the numbers we feel are necessary — not the level of funding, because I

know there are various funding formulas for this, but the numbers of

First Nations policing that we need to fulfil the current First Nations

policing model.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We have not asked for a specific number. What we have asked for is

increased flexibility, in terms of the funding, to be able to operate in

the context that we have here in our province. Part of the message and

part of the work that we’ve been doing has been dealing with those

issues of, okay, which nations and the capacity — the way that they

would like to go forward.

The point you raise is a real…. In many ways, if you live in a

small community and you know everybody, you do face enormous pressure.

We know that’s a challenge.

It’s interesting. One of the things that came up at the last FPT

related to…. Alberta was raising the concern, and it was one that we had

not realized. It’s something, if we see an expansion in First Nations

policing…. It was a very interesting one.

[2:10 p.m.]

One of the major reserves outside of Calgary was losing officers

to the Calgary detachment because, and I was quite surprised to hear

this, the First Nations police did not have a pension plan. The other

police all had a pension plan.

So the Alberta minister was asking the federal government: “Look,

change it, so we can….” The nation wants to have policing. They’ve got

people who want to do policing, and they’re losing policing. So that’s

an example to me and what you have outlined in terms of small

communities.

The way we have to think about the challenges that First Nations

have in terms of policing and the resources that are required, the

capacity, the geographic location, the demographics, the rate of crime….

All of those things have to go, in my mind, into how we move forward in

terms of First Nations policing getting more recruits, getting them in

the right community so that they don’t end up, as you said, becoming

demoralized and then turning away from what should be a rewarding career

for a lot of young people.

M. Morris: Very good and valid points. The other part of that, as we all

know…. We see the scrutiny that police officers are put under right

across Canada. It doesn’t matter what jurisdiction they’re in. The

expectation is that anybody who is a police officer almost has to be a

perfect citizen in all respects. So that’s tough enough as it

is.

The accreditation required for an individual to maintain the

trustworthiness of the public as a police officer and enforcing criminal

law and the social justice issues that hit any community are enormous

and significant. It’s a big package that needs to be looked at down the

road here.

Does the province still have tripartite positions in the province,

and are those 117.5 all tripartite positions?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We have 59 community tripartite agreements with 132 First

Nations.

M. Morris: Just a nod of the head. Does that include the 117.5, or is this

above the 117.5?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It includes.

M. Morris: I know there are a number of small First Nations communities with

two or three or four members stationed there, and the cost of building

facilities in those locations is enormous. What is the minister’s

position on this? Is this included with the plan to add more resources

in these communities to ensure there’s accommodation for the members

when they get there? The office is sized appropriately for the new

members going into those areas?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We are able to access…. We obviously recognize there are always

challenges in this regard. But there is a program in place that the feds

have, which we are able to access, the First Nations and Inuit policing

facilities program. That is able to provide both accommodation and

facilities for First Nations communities when additional policing is

provided.

[2:15 p.m.]

M. Morris: I haven’t heard of this program before. It’s interesting. How long

has it been in effect? Is 100 percent of the capital costs of these

additions included in that agreement?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s been around for a while, actually. It’s part of the framework

agreement we have with Canada, and it’s on a 52-48 cost-sharing

agreement.

M. Morris: Is any of the $230 million that the minister announced with this

program allocated to capital, or would we be looking at another capital

budget to provide for that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Just positions.

M. Morris: I imagine there’s already some thought and discussion going on

right now to provide the millions of dollars necessary. So 52 percent

federal, 48 percent provincial, or is it the other way around for that

agreement?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s 52 percent federal, 48 percent. I also just want to be clear,

this is about the First Nations policing.

M. Morris: If we have a detachment, like…. There are a number of them out

there — Takla, Kwadacha — that are not fully a tripartite. We’ve got

provincial members in those locations as well. So the province would

provide the 48 percent necessary for a tripartite First Nations

position, and then we would have to come up with 100 percent of the

costs for the provincial members that are there, including the

provincial detachment?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. The way it would work on the capital

side is actually literally exactly the way it would work on the human

resources side. So if it’s 52-48 First Nations, it would be 52-48 of the

capital and the same for 70-30 and 90-10.

M. Morris: No matter which way you cut it, it’s a lot of money. I remember

being involved in building a remote detachment when I was a district

officer, and I was floored by the expenses, getting everything into that

small area.

A couple more questions, just on the First Nations. I’ve had a

number of Chiefs and council members and band members from different

locations. Being in Prince George is a hub. Everybody I’ve worked with

in the past, out west and up north and all around, pop in from time to

time for a coffee. They’re concerned about the 2½ grams of drugs that

you’re allowed to keep in your possession. Many of the communities are

dry communities, where they don’t want alcohol in those communities as

well.

They were asking me about the ability of the RCMP to continue on

seizing the small amounts of drugs that they find on individuals on the

First Nations communities themselves. I said I’ll check on that, because

I’m going to have you as a captive audience soon. I just wondered if the

minister can provide any guidance to the First Nations with respect to

that.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, they don’t have the authority under the Health Canada

exemption, but I can tell you that I am very aware of their views on

this issue.

As I said, when…. I think we talked earlier about…. In Prince

George, I said that there were some views that I think would surprise a

lot of people. Those were amongst the views that they mentioned to

me.

M. Morris: I see that as problematic. These small communities are struggling,

and they don’t know who to turn to. One of the tools they use is passing

band council resolutions to ban some of these people from their

communities, and they go into the hubs like Prince George and the

Terraces of the world, and they become the street people that are there.

They suffer heavily from addictions. There are no services for

them.

I spoke to a Chief, who I have high regard for, and he’s had to do

this a couple of times, and he cries when this happens. He wants the

police to help him. It’s a dry community, and he struggles to see these

drugs coming into his communities and the overdoses that they’re getting

in these small communities. They’re tragic. There have been several

people that have died, in his but in other communities as well, as a

result of just small doses. Children are getting access to these drugs

as well.

This is a Health Canada…. Or this is a policy that’s been put in

place. It’s not a law. It’s a policy, if I understand things correctly.

The way that the Chief was asking is if it’s still against the law

everywhere else in Canada to possess 2½ grams…. This is a provincial

policy as an experiment in the larger centres that are being frustrated

by this. He’s saying then that the RCMP should still be able to come in

and seize the 2½ grams or less of these drugs. He said he’s desperate.

He’s looking for any answers he’s got. There’s nothing preventing the

RCMP on reserve lands from seizing 2½ grams or less of any of these hard

drugs?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the issue and the question from the member. I just

want to put in a clearer clarification too. They don’t have the

authority to seize the 2½ grams unless they believe, or have evidence,

that there’s trafficking going on — in which case they absolutely

do.

M. Morris: Interesting point that the minister brings up. I’ve got two sons

that are heavily involved in gang violence — on the police side; I’d

better provide that clarification — and drug trafficking and whatnot.

They have come up with several examples of where traffickers are now

taking advantage of this 2½-gram limit, so that their street traffickers

have no more than 2½ grams on them at any given time.

The same thing is applying into some of these smaller communities.

They will make sure that they only have 2½ grams on them, but as soon as

they get in through the community and it’s distributed, then they will

go back and get another 2½ grams or more. They’ll have a safe house or a

safe location. In many of the remote areas, they’ll drive, stash it

somewhere along the road, and then keep going back to that stash for the

entire time. So it has proved problematic.

I’m wondering if the minister or anybody has put their mind to how

they deal with those kinds of things that are contributing towards

increased trafficking.

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

points.

First, it is a pilot project. Police are very much involved in the

evaluation of it. Two, if there is evidence of trafficking, they

absolutely can make an arrest.

Behaviour is also part of it — that they can do that — and

information, such as what you’re sharing with me, also is part and

parcel of the evaluation that takes place and that the police are

involved in. As you know, it is a pilot, and these are the kinds of

things that, obviously, form part of the evaluation of the eventual

outcome.

M. Morris: What I’m hearing from the minister, then, is that these small

First Nations reserves, very isolated, have no choice but to accept the

fact that their citizens can bring in 2½ grams of fentanyl, cocaine,

crystal meth or whatever it is.

At the same time, they have to leave any bottles of alcohol that

are found. They’ll be confiscated by the band. Oftentimes they’re met —

some of these are fly-in locations — and taken off the airplane and

whatnot before they get into the community. But the 2½ grams of these

very hard, dangerous drugs will be…. The Chiefs have no choice but to

allow them on the reserve.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member raising the issue. I will make this

commitment. On First Nations land, they have the ability to make their

own First Nations laws, and often bylaws. We will look into the issue

and ensure the information we have given you is (

a) correct or (

b) they

do have that ability.

What I do know, and what I can reassure, is that if there is

evidence, as I said, of trafficking or of the behaviour of trafficking,

then absolutely, police can make arrests and charge. On the specific

issue that the member raises, we will look into it for him.

M. Morris: I appreciate the answer, and I know the difficulties around this

issue under the current circumstances. I would add that the police would

love to charge, but they no longer have that authority since the Crown

counsel act of 1974. I remember the good old days when we could swear

our own informations. For several years, Crown counsel, provincial and

federal, haven’t charged for mere possession in the province.

The likelihood of charges resulting from small amounts is pretty

slim to none these days. In fact, charge approval for the more serious

offences is even hard to come by these days as well.

I’m going to switch off from First Nations for a bit, but I’m

going to come back to it later on and talk about cannabis sales on First

Nations. I’m going to go back to the plan and put some general questions

now, related to policing within the province under your community safety

plan.

We’ll start with the RCMP marine section. Is the RCMP marine

section fully staffed and all vessels operational today?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can tell you that we are currently working jointly with the RCMP

and with an independent contractor in reviewing their air and marine

capabilities.

M. Morris: “Reviewing their air and marine capabilities” is a pretty broad

statement. I’m curious as to the number of offshore vessels that the

RCMP currently have operational. I know we had a number of catamarans

added to the fleet back in my day. I know they’ve long passed their

best-before date. I’m just wondering what the plan is in place for them,

and how many are operational today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That’s actually the assessment work that’s currently underway in

what is currently operational: what are their needs going forward into

the future?

M. Morris: Okay. It makes me tend to believe that it’s in pretty sad shape,

perhaps, today.

[2:35 p.m.]

We used to have the Inkster in my district, stationed out

of Prince Rupert, a 75-foot catamaran that provided an invaluable

service for all th