British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, April 1, 2014 (40th Parliament, 2nd Session) (20140401pm-Hansard-v9n7) (20140401pm Hansard v9n7)

20140401pm-Hansard-v9n7

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Tuesday, April 1, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 9, Number 7

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Second Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................................ Hon. Amrik Virk Minister of Agriculture ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Pat Pimm Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development ........................................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Education ..................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Th omson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacifi c Strategy and Multiculturalism ..................Hon.

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business ....................................................................................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..................................................................................................... Hon. Don McRae Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon.

Todd Stone LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Offi cial Opposition ......................................................................................................................................................Adrian Dix Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................Douglas Horne Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ....................................................................................................................................... Marc Dalton Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ...................................................................................................................................................Roderick MacArthur, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) ................................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................

Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) .......................... Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (BC Liberal) ............................................. Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon.

Michael, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP) ............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon.

Peter (BC Liberal) ................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacifi c Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) .............................................

Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Scott (BC Liberal) ...........................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Horne, Douglas (BC Liberal) ..............................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) .............................................................

Nanaimo Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr.

Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Th ompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal) ........................................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Hon. Don (BC Liberal) ..................................................

Comox Valley Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon. Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Hon. Pat (BC Liberal) ...............................................Peace River North Plecas, Darryl (BC Liberal) ....................................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon.

Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................

Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon. John (BC Liberal) ................................................

Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) ..................................................... Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal) ........................................ Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Th ompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Th omson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Th ornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Th roness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Hon. Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon.

Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ............................................................................Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacifi c Rim ..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ................................................................... Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ......................................................................... Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T.

Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Th roness Columbia River–Revelstoke .................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley...........................................................................Hon.

Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .....................................................Douglas Horne Coquitlam-Maillardville........................................................... Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................

Bill Routley Delta North ..................................................................................Scott Hamilton Delta South ...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola....................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ............................................................... Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon.

Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ........................................................................... Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan .........................................................

Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon. John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ............................................................................... Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ................................................. Jane Th ornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ...................................................................... Hon. Pat Pimm Peace River South ............................................................................Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................

Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ............................................................. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon.

Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .................................................... Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................

Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon. Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley..............................................................................

Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ......................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................

Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 49; New Democratic 34; Independent 2

CONTENTS Tuesday, April 1, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House ............................................................................................................................................ 2635 Bill 14 — Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2014 (continued) K. Corrigan Hon. S. Anton L.

Krog Reporting of Bills ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2648 Bill 14 — Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2014 Th ird Reading of Bills ......................................................................................................... .................................................... 2648 Bill 14 — Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2014 Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 2649 Bill 11 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2014 Hon.

M. Polak S. Chandra Herbert S. Gibson D. Donaldson L. Krog G. Holman Hon. M. Polak Bill 18 — Water Sustainability Act Hon. M. Polak S. Chandra Herbert L. Th roness L. Krog Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 2667 Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued) G. Holman Hon. T. Stone C. Trevena K. Conroy S. Simpson

TUESDAY , APRIL 1, 2014 Th e House met at 1:33 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Orders of the Day Hon. D. McRae: Th e galleries are full. It's a beautiful day. Interjections. Hon. D. McRae: People just couldn't…. I call continued debate of the Justice Statutes Amend- ment Act, and in the Douglas Fir Committee Room I call continued estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. [1335] Committee of the Whole House BILL 14 — JUSTICE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2014 (continued) Th e House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 14; M. Dalton in the chair. Th e committee met at 1:36 p.m. On

section 40 (continued). K. Corrigan: We left off this morning with a question about why the minister had chosen to have the audits done by the director of police services on major cases that had gone cold, essentially, for a year — major case investigations that had gone cold — and why they were discretionary as opposed to mandatory, which is what Justice Wally Oppal had recommended in his report on the inquiry into the missing women. I just wanted to follow up on that. We did talk about it earlier just a little bit, and I raised it also in second reading, so I'm not going to spend too much more on this issue.

Th e response, I believe, that the minister gave was that there is an internal report fi rst. Just to follow up on that, is it because of the internal review that's going to happen within police departments that the minister made the decision that an audit would be discretionary in the hands of the director? Was it because of that? Hon. S.

Anton: Th e reason for the discretion is that the director will order an audit if there is an identifi ed non-compliance with the standards, but if the review demonstrates compliance with the standards, it is at that point that the director can make the decision that there is no need for an audit. K. Corrigan: Well, I believe that the minister previ- ously had said that the question of whether or not there would be an audit ordered was going to be complaints- driven, which seems diff erent than what the minister is saying right now. So I'm wondering if the minister could explain. [1340] Hon. S.

Anton: Th ere is a positive requirement that at the end of the year of an inactive investigation, there does need to be a review by the chief of the police service. Th e complaint comment is that…. Of course, anybody can make a complaint at any time, and people do. Th ere is a positive requirement on the police service to do that in the event…. Again, I am just prefacing this with the comments the member made earlier. We do have good police departments in British Columbia, but in the event that one of these fi les languished overly long, certainly a complaint would draw attention to that.

But generally, it is the obligation of the police chief to be paying atten- tion to these fi les. K. Corrigan: When the minister previously said that the process would be complaints-driven, I'm trying to fi gure out exactly how that squares, then. I heard the re- sponse. But is the minister saying that if there is a complaint, more attention would be paid to it? I mean, either the in- vestigation complied or it didn't, and I'm trying to fi gure out where the complaints would fi t into it. Hon. S. Anton: Th ere is a positive obligation on a po- lice chief to review an inactive case.

I'm not exactly sure which quote the member is referring to. I think I have in the past referred to the possibility that a complaint may be made in terms of the review. I think the only circum- stances that would happen is in the very unlikely circum- stance that a review should occur but had not occurred. Th en someone might bring it to the attention of that po- lice department or to the director or to the minister or to some other person who could say to the police depart- ment that it's time to get on with the review.

But as I said earlier, there is a positive obligation on the police department, on the police chief, to create a review, to prepare a review if there is an inactive major case in- vestigation inactive for a year. K. Corrigan: When the minister talked about it being a complaints-driven process, was the minister talking about a complaint to the police department, the com- plaint commissioner or the director of policing? Hon. S. Anton: It is not a complaints-driven process.

Th e act has a positive requirement on the police chief that the police chief must carry through on an inactive inves- tigation if it's been inactive for a year. 2635

British Columbia Debates2636 Tuesday, April 1, 2014 K. Corrigan: Is the minister saying that the minister did not say it was a complaints-driven process? [1345] Hon. S. Anton: Th e process is driven by the act. Th e positive obligation on the police chief is driven by the act. In the unlikely event that a chief ignores the act or overlooks it, it is possible that a complaint at that time would, in fact, remind the chief of his or her obligation under the act. K. Corrigan: Just to reiterate about where the com- plaint…. I'm trying to understand the process.

Would it be expected that there would be a complaint that would go to the police department, to the Police Complaints Commissioner or to the director of police services? Could it be any of the above? Would that be open to a member of the public? Hon. S. Anton: Th at is correct. K. Corrigan: In this

section 45, the prospective 45.03, if the director does say there needs to be an audit and or- ders that an audit take place, presumably because of defi - ciencies that are noted in the internal review…. Actually, I'll ask a question about that. Would the director have the ability to go back and have a discussion with the police chief who had submitted the report if there appear to be defi ciencies? Or would the only thing open to the direc- tor of police services be to order the audit? Is there any kind of fl exibility there? Hon. S.

Anton: Th e act as written determines that if the chief of the police service determines that the review demonstrates that there was not compliance with the standards, then the director may require the audit. K. Corrigan: I'm just asking the minister as a practical matter: could that review of the internal report include going back to the police chief or whoever it is that made the report? Could they go back and say: "Look, it's defi - cient in area C. Give us more information, and if you give us that information, we may not have to order an audit"? [1350] Introductions by Members V .

Huntington: I'm just thrilled to be able to intro- duce a group of students who have spent time touring the Legislature and who have visited my offi ce. I'd like to introduce Mrs. Megan Andersen — or Mme. Megan Andersen, because it's a French immersion class — and 30 grade 5 students from South Park elementary school in south Delta. Would the House make them feel very welcome. Debate Continued Hon. S.

Anton: In order to exercise his or her discre- tion under this section, the director may indeed follow up with the police chief and clarify or get more details of the review in making his or her decision as to whether or not an audit will be required. K. Corrigan: Assuming the director has made a de- cision that there needs to be an audit, then the director can designate as an auditor a person who "(

a) is a prov- incial constable, special provincial constable, municipal constable or designated constable, (

b) is not a member of the police service that conducted the major case investi- gation, and (

c) consents to the designation." Th is ties into questions about a later section, but would it be expected that that person would be on loan? Or would that be somebody who would be paid specially as part of the audit? Just wondering about that. Hon. S. Anton: I believe the question was whether the person would be on loan. Th e answer is no. Th ey are a designated person who can fulfi l the audit function. Th ere is a later

section on the responsibility for audit costs. K. Corrigan: I just wanted to make clear, though…. And we will talk more about the costs. Th e costs, essen- tially, for most municipalities will be the responsibility of the police force. Th e director can designate somebody. Would the mu- nicipality that potentially is losing their offi cer for a while to do an audit…? I'm assuming it could be a full-time thing for a while. Would they have the ability to say no, that they didn't want that person doing it?

It talks about the consent by the person who's doing the audit — they consent — but it doesn't talk at all about getting permission or whether or not the detachment or department would have any say or any control over the fact that this person was going to be gone to do an audit. [1355] Hon. S. Anton: Th e potential auditor is under the command of their own police service. So that consent would not just be their personal consent; it would be the consent of their own service. K.

Corrigan: Th e next subsection, subsection (3), says that "In auditing a major case investigation, the auditor must review all of the following" — the evidence, the re- cords, investigative steps and actions, and any other in- formation the auditor considers relevant to the audit. It actually then goes on to talk about the audit powers. Th e powers are wide. Th e potential scope of the audit is fairly wide. I'm wondering if the minister, in putting this legislation together, did any kind of analysis about how long, potentially, it would take — how many hours, how

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 1, 2014 2637 much person power — to do audits of this type. Hon. S. Anton: Th ere are two things that will have a direct impact on the length of the audit. One is that the audit itself is around standards, so that does limit the audit, to some extent. But the other variable, of course, is the complexity of the initial investigation. Th e standards, obviously, could be more complex if they apply to a bigger piece of work than if it's a more confi ned piece of work. K.

Corrigan: Th e minister is referring to audit stan- dards, talking about public sector auditing — the police standards. Th e police standards that are going to be de- veloped will defi ne the scope and the parameters of the audit. Is that correct? Hon. S. Anton: Th e role of the audit is to determine compliance, or otherwise, of the police standards and how those standards were applied during the course of the investigation. K. Corrigan: I appreciate that, but it doesn't help me understand exactly how comprehensive these audits will be. I guess it's hard to talk about it ahead of time.

Has an- alysis been done on how many cases per year, for example, would fall in the category of likely being designated as something that should be audited? [1400] Hon. S. Anton: Based on a sample of police data, it would appear that there would be in the range of 35 to 50 inactive fi les a year which would generate a review. It's hard to say aft er that how many of those would require an audit, but obviously it's going to be a smaller number. But that's the order of magnitude that we're talking about. K.

Corrigan: I guess the follow-up, then, is that given there is an estimation — and I'm sure it could vary — of perhaps 35 to 50 inactive fi les per year, based on the past and the understanding of the past, do we have any es- timation of how many of those could end up being…? Particularly, I guess, taking a look at those forces where the process of internal review already happens, has there been any analysis of how many audits there could poten- tially end up being in the average year? Hon. S. Anton: Our experience with police standards is that police follow standards.

So the expectation that there would be a review and then a case that required an audit because of non-compliance with standards…. Our expectation is that that would be a rather low number. K. Corrigan: Just returning to a previous question about whether or not the process would be complaints- driven, the minister said on March 3, 2014: "Th e decision on which cases to audit will be largely driven by public complaints." Has the ministry…?

Considering it would be a low number — I hope that would be the case — and that the reports would be com- plete and robust, has there been an estimation of how much any one audit would cost — what the range is? I know, again, that we're talking of possibly a wide range, but can I get an estimation of how much an audit would cost of a major case that has gone cold? Hon. S. Anton: Th ere has been some analysis done on potential costs, but I want to be very cautious about this because it is a new system. How it plays out over time and the complexity of these audits does remain to be seen.

It is thought that a relatively simple audit that took no long- er than a week would cost about $2,500, and that is like- ly a minimum charge which could go up depending on complexity and length of time of audit and so on. [1405] K. Corrigan: Well, the minister was not at the briefi ng that we were at. We asked the same question, and I ask the question now because I want to get it on the record. Th e response that we got was…. Th ere wasn't a discus- sion about $2,500, although I'm sure it wasn't precluded, but there was talk about many cases being in the range of….

I said $50,000, and the response I got was: "Perhaps more, and even more in very complex cases." I'm asking these questions because the government has decided that audits of major case investigations can be imposed on municipalities, and municipalities have to pay for it. It's the provincial government that decides whether or not an audit will happen, but the municipal police force is the one that has to pay for it. I think it's important that appropriate analysis is done.

In this position of asking questions about the act, I have a certain responsibility to municipal governments around this province to have some idea of what is going to be happening to them in terms of costs that they have no control over. I'm not saying the process isn't a good one. But the government has decided to make municipalities pay for the audit, so I think it's important. Let's use a very extreme case: the Pickton case, the Pickton investigation. If there had been a major case investigation in that case, which Justice Wally Oppal said would have been a good idea, obviously….

What would have happened, I would assume, in that case is that, hopefully, it would have found that there were gaps in the investigation, perhaps focused the attention back and restarted the investigation and perhaps avoided later tragedy. Let's say the Pickton case. Is there any thought of a ma- jor case…? In a major, major case like that, how much would that audit cost under this act? Hon. S. Anton: In the case mentioned by the member opposite, that did result in a prosecution, so that itself

British Columbia Debates2638 Tuesday, April 1, 2014 would not have been audited. But what might have been audited had the standards been in the place at the time — remembering always that this is a system which is mov- ing into implementation, not looking backwards…. One of the major issues identifi ed by Commissioner Oppal was the fact that there were missing-persons investiga- tions which did languish and had not been pursued, and those are the kinds of investigations that in the future could be caught by this process. K.

Corrigan: Well, I'm going to turn to a couple of the types of things that could happen in this major cold case investigation or audit of the investigation to get a bet- ter idea of how extensive the audit could be. It says that under audit powers the auditor can "without a warrant or order: (

a) access, at any reasonable time, premises of the police service; (

b) inspect a record or thing in the possession or control of the police service; (

c) require a person to produce..." records. And here's one of particu- lar interest: "(

d) require a person to (

i) answer questions in respect of matters that the auditor considers relevant to the audit." Would that include reinterviewing witnesses? [1410] Hon. S. Anton: Th e audit is around the process of the investigation. It is not a reinvestigation. K. Corrigan: Is the minister saying, then, that the aud- itor could not re-interview witnesses if the auditor felt that doing that would be relevant in terms of assessing whether or not the standards had been met? Hon. S. Anton: Th e

section does talk about a person, so it is conceivable that that could be a person interviewed — but around the investigation, around the process of the investigation. It would not be an interview relating to the investigation. It would be an interview relating to the process of the investigation, because the purpose of the audit is to determine whether or not the standards are complied with. K. Corrigan: Th is

section also gives the auditor the ability to apply to a justice for an order under subsection (3), which essentially allows a justice to issue an order authorizing the auditor "to access premises of a police service and prohibits a person from obstructing the aud- itor's access; (

b) an order that authorizes the auditor to inspect records" and prohibits obstruction of that again — so those things and others. I could refer back to sub- section (1) as well, the ones we talked about. My question to the minister is, then: what was expected? Why was this

section put in place? Is it expected that there would have to be orders from justices in some cases? Hon. S. Anton: Th e expectation is generally that there will be compliance with the request of the auditors, and the expectation is, on subsection (3), that it would sel- dom be called into use. K. Corrigan: I am wondering, on this

section and, of course, the amendment act as a whole: did the minister or staff consult with the B.C. Police Association about these provisions, and if so, what was the response? [1415] Hon. S. Anton: Th e B.C. Police Association was con- sulted. Generally, it was a favourable response from that association. Th ere have been no concerns raised since the legislation was tabled. K. Corrigan: Under this

section as well, 45.05 imposes a duty to cooperate by the offi cers of the police service that conducted the major case investigation. Th ey have to give them access to the premises, comply with the re- quirement of the auditor and so on. I'm wondering if there were any particular concerns about whether or not there would be lack of compliance. Or is it expected that in most cases there would be compliance by the offi cers? Hon. S. Anton: In 45.05 it is expected that there would be cooperation with the audit. K.

Corrigan: I'm wondering whether or not the minis- ter and staff have thought out what the role of counsel for police offi cers whose investigation is being reviewed…. What would be the role of counsel? Would it be expected that in this review, in this audit, counsel would be fully involved? Or if there was an interview — there's refer- ence to interviews — would it be expected that counsel for the police offi cer would be present? Hon. S. Anton: Th e review here is a review of the process, not of the individual. Th e requirement to fol- low the standards is the requirement of the department.

Generally, it is expected that there would be no need for counsel. [1420] K. Corrigan: On this specifi c subsection, did ministry staff and offi cials consult with the B.C. Police Association about that very specifi c point? Hon. S. Anton: Th e overall proposal was consulted upon with the police. As I said a moment ago, the con- sultation was, overall, favourable. And as I said earlier, since the full piece of legislation has been tabled, there have been no comments. K.

Corrigan: I know that the minister has said that these audits are to take a look at the process and to look at whether or not the standards were met. Some of the

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 1, 2014 2639 standards that are being talked about are standards that have already existed. But also, we've added — or will be adding, if this bill comes into force — that, for example, there can be standards with regard to the promotion of unbiased policing and law enforcement services and community consultation regarding the priorities, goals and objectives. So there's a wide scope to those standards.

Th is seems to be saying this would be a high-level re- view, but I could imagine that it could lead very quick- ly into having to talk to witnesses about whether or not there was unbiased policing in law enforcement services. Certainly, when you look at an inquiry, which is diff erent than an audit, the scope can widen very, very quickly, as in some cases it should. So I just want to get a confi rma- tion from the minister that it is not expected that that's the type of scope that an audit would have. V . Huntington: Mr. Chair, I seek leave to make an introduction. Th e Chair: Permission granted.

Introductions by Members V . Huntington: It gives me enormous pleasure, again, to be able to introduce the remaining 30 students from South Park elementary school in south Delta, Tsawwassen. Th ey are here with their teacher, Ms. Brea Maurice, and I hope the House joins me in making them very welcome. Debate Continued Hon. S. Anton: Th e audit is around the principles, practices and strategies to be used in investigations. K. Corrigan: My understanding is that the audit can also be about whether or not the standards have been met. Is that correct? [1425] Hon. S.

Anton: Th e audit is ensuring compliance with the director's standards referred to in the

section that I just read out, which is the

section requiring that the stan- dards be applied with regard to "principles, practices and strategies to be used in investigations." K. Corrigan: When we have an audit that is going to be looking at an investigation of a serious crime — mur- der, complex crime and so on — does the minister not have concerns that there is going to be an insistence by police offi cers…?

If their investigation is being reviewed, being audited, is there not a thought that they will want to have their counsel with them at any interviews or in other parts of the audit, overseeing or at least having a chance to comment on what's happening in the audit? Hon. S. Anton: Th is part of the Police Act is not about sanctions for individual offi cers; it's about creating a bet- ter outcome for investigations. Will an individual offi cer want a lawyer? We don't expect so, but I don't want to predict every situation down the road.

It seems to the ministry rather unlikely at the moment, but many things are possible in life, and I don't want to say that it'll never happen. K. Corrigan: So 45.05(2) says: "Without limiting sub- section (1), and despite any other enactment and any claim of confi dentiality or privilege other than a claim based on solicitor-client privilege, the offi cers of the po- lice service that conducted the major case investigation must…." And then, basically, cooperate with the auditor. Would information that's gathered in the audit be com- pellable for the purposes of court proceedings? Hon. S.

Anton: It's a very hypothetical question, and I think the member would have to come up with more specifi c examples before the question could be answered. [1430] K. Corrigan: When putting together

an act with the legal beagles that are available to the Ministry of Justice, of all ministries, I would think that on the question of whether or not information that is gathered in an audit, the minister would know whether or not that informa- tion would be compellable for the purposes of a court proceeding, either civil court proceedings or criminal proceedings. It's a simple question. I'm not sure why it is that the minister expects that I should come up with an example. Th e answer is: yes or no. Would it be compellable — un- less it was protected by solicitor-client privilege? Hon. S.

Anton: Th ere are no provisions in the act which make the information non-compellable. K. Corrigan: I'm going to assume that what the min- ister is saying is that the information is compellable. I'll go on, and if the minister wants to respond to that, that's fi ne. But that would be my

interpretation of it's not "non- compellable." It means it is compellable. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Going on, I don't have too many more questions about this part. Th e audit reports, then. Th e auditor has to pro- vide a report within 60 days, give a written report, but that can be extended under

section 45.08 and include recommendations. In terms of the recommendations, what is the status? I know audit recommendations are simply there, but is there any kind of expectation that the auditor's recom- mendations would be acted upon?

British Columbia Debates2640 Tuesday, April 1, 2014 Hon. S. Anton: An audit report may include recom- mendations, and if it does, "the director may request information from the chief of the police service on the investigative steps" that are taken as a result of those rec- ommendations. Th at is a requirement by the chief of the police service — that he or she follow up on those. K. Corrigan: Is this referring to

section 45.07? Hon. S. Anton: Y es. K. Corrigan: If we have an audit report that has gone to the director and the chief of the police services, is there anything that would require for that report to be made public? [1435] Hon. S. Anton: Th e Freedom of Information Act does apply in these circumstances, so an FOI request would be replied to with the usual qualifi cations as to what in- formation can actually become public or not. K.

Corrigan: Th en going to 45.07, which is the post- audit request for information, it says that if there's an audit report with recommendations — we spoke about that previously — the director "may request information from the chief of the police service on the investigative steps and other actions taken as a result of the recom- mendations." So would it be seen that these reports are largely about providing recommendations about what other investigative steps could be taken? Or is it more…? What kinds of things are contemplated as recommenda- tions in these reports? Hon. S.

Anton: Without limiting the nature of the rec- ommendations, two forms that the recommendations might take are to recommend fresh investigative actions for the particular investigation, and the recommenda- tions might also apply to processes used by that particu- lar police department in a more general way. K. Corrigan: I want to go on now to

section 45.09, responsibility for audit costs. I have referred to the re- sponsibility for audit costs in second reading and also tangentially talked about it when we were talking about the earlier sections in terms of the scope of an audit. Th is

section says basically that these major investiga- tion audits will be paid for by municipalities if they are over 5,000 people. My concern is that we don't know how much audits are going to cost, and we could end up with a municipality with a population as small as 5,000 people being responsible. If there was a major case in a small municipality for an audit, that could really hit the budget of that small community.

I'm wondering if the minister has thought particularly about the costs associated with a major case that happens to occur in a small community and what kind of impact that could have on the budget of the police department. Hon. S. Anton: If there is a rural area, a municipality with under 5,000 people, the government will be paying for the audit. If it's more than 5,000 persons, the muni- cipality will be paying.

Similarly, if it's the municipal po- lice department, the municipality will pay, and in a major case investigation by a designated policing unit, the en- tity on behalf of which the designated policing unit was established. K. Corrigan: Would these audits be part of the poli- cing agreement? In other words, in municipalities that are from 5,000 to 15,000 people, under the policing agreement the municipalities pay for 70 percent of their policing, and the federal government pays for 30.

For municipalities that are larger than 15,000 people, the mu- nicipalities pay 90 percent, and the federal government pays 10 percent. So in those cases, is the minister saying that there would be shared costs with the federal govern- ment, or would it be all paid for by the municipalities? [1440] Hon. S. Anton: For municipal jurisdictions over 5,000…. I think the member is asking the group between 5,000 and 15,000, which have the 70-30 arrangement. It is the case that the act requires the municipality to pay. Th e reason to put it in the act in that way is because we can't legislate the cost-sharing agreement.

It is our intention that the policing costs of the audit would be attributed according to the cost-sharing that is applicable to that municipality. Th is is something…. Once the act passes, which I hope it does, this will be a subject of discussion with the RCMP at that time. K. Corrigan: We don't know, at this point…. It could be that large municipalities have to pay the whole, as it is now. It will be subject to negotiation. I'm not sure how much leverage there is there. Is there any kind of legal ground that either the 30 percent or the 10 percent, de- pending on the size of the municipality…?

Or a muni- cipal police force? Is there any legal basis to expect that this should be part of that agreement that is cost-shared? Hon. S. Anton: Th ere are processes in the provincial police service agreement to deal with issues such as this. Th ose processes will be followed in this particular discus- sion and negotiation if there needs to be one. K.

Corrigan: There is nothing in that agreement, which I've read — not for a while, and it is very lengthy — that essentially would provide that if new costs come up that are related to policing, but not directly part of the police service, the police force investigation and so on…. Th ere is nothing in that act that would do any more than

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 1, 2014 2641 really represent a request for the federal government to come to the table and negotiate it. Th ere is nothing in the provisions themselves that would allow the ministry to argue that those cost-sharing arrangements should apply. [1445] Hon. S. Anton:

Article 6 of the provincial police service agreement sets out a framework for this kind of discussion. K. Corrigan: It would rightfully or properly be de- scribed as a negotiation. Would that be a good way to…? Hon. S. Anton: It is a consultation and a negotiation. K. Corrigan: I just have a couple more questions on this section. It says in

section 45.11: "Th is Part applies only to major case investigations initiated on or aft er the date this

section comes into force." Looking back at the defi nition of "major case investiga- tion," it would appear to me that what we're saying is…. Where an incident happens, where a crime is commit- ted, from the moment of the major case — an attempted murder, murder, investigation into a missing person — would, then, this act apply from the date that the crime was committed, the commission of the off ence? Is that what we're talking about? Hon. S. Anton: It is dated from the commencement of the investigation, not necessarily the date of the off ence. K.

Corrigan: We've talked a lot about missing-persons investigations over the last couple of months in this place. In the case of a missing-persons investigation, which is specifi cally included in these "major case investigations," would it be the moment that the missing-person case turns into a criminal investigation? Th at would be the point that this act would apply — from that date? Hon. S. Anton: Y es.

In the case of a missing person, if it is a civil investigation — the person might have gone to Mexico, whatever — sometimes those missing-person investigations do in fact turn into investigations where foul play is suspected. It is at that point where the major case investigation is initiated.

Section 40 approved. [1450] On

section 41. K. Corrigan: This section,

section 41 of this bill, amends

section 68.1 of the Police Act. Essentially, it seems to me that what it is doing is saying that for the purposes of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, information and data that is kept by a designated service provider in an information manage- ment system…. An application for information must be to the original police force or community where the infor- mation originated from and that you can't do a freedom- of-information request to the designated service provider. Did I get that about right? Hon. S. Anton: Y es, the member has it right. K.

Corrigan: An example, I believe, of one — and probably the primary example that applies under this provision — would be PRIME-BC, or PRIMECorp Police Records Information Management Environment Inc. Would that be the primary one that we're talking about? Hon. S. Anton: Th at is correct. K. Corrigan: It's my understanding — and I could be wrong — that presently, if somebody is seeking to fi nd out what information is contained in PRIME-BC, they are able to contact PRIME-BC. Actually, representatives of this government have in fact been encouraged to con- tact PRIME-BC for the information that is on their fi le.

Would this provision mean that people could no longer access their PRIME-BC fi les by going to PRIME-BC and asking for that information? Hon. S. Anton: Y ou do have to go to your own police service to acquire the kind of information that I think the member is referring to. K. Corrigan: Is the minister talking about under this act or under present circumstances? [1455] Hon. S. Anton: Th e new subsection, subsection (9), is in fact the way PRIME is working currently, which is that the FOI goes to the originating jurisdiction. What this is doing is putting into law what the current practice is. K.

Corrigan: I'm trying to fi gure out what the change is. My understanding was that citizens had been encouraged, if they wanted to fi nd out what was in their PRIME fi le…. We know that there are 4½ million or so PRIME fi les — I'm sure it's gone up over the last year or so — on citizens of this province, which is data that is contained in the police data system. My understanding was that people were encouraged to go ask for that information and that PRIME would provide that information — say: "What's in my PRIME fi le?" It concerns me because it sound like there's a problem here for people.

If the practice has been for PRIME to refer people back to the individual police force that ori- ginally provided the information, how are people going to know, if they can't go through PRIME, what informa- tion there is that is gathered in PRIME? Or can they still make their request to PRIME, and then PRIME would

British Columbia Debates2642 Tuesday, April 1, 2014 refer it back to the law enforcement service where the data came from? Hon. S. Anton: A person seeking the information in their fi le from a police agency does need to go to that police agency — not to PRIME but to the police agency. K. Corrigan: Well, what the minister is saying, it seems to me, is that a previously FOIable government agency…. I look at the

schedule 2 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Public bod- ies includes PRIMECorp Police Records Information Management Environment Inc. So it is a public body, and now what the minister is saying is that it will no longer, I guess….

It may be a public body, but people do not have a right of access, under the act, to the information. [1500] What people are concerned about with PRIME oft en — and oft en innocent people who have not been charged with anything but have had what is called a negative con- tact with police that could include anything as, to them perhaps, seemingly trivial as being a witness in a case….

It seems to me, and maybe the minister can confi rm, that what is being said here is that information that could be accessed to get an understanding of the totality of in- formation that is on that major police database about contact with police, whether criminal or not…. Formerly, somebody could apply through PRIME and get that in- formation, which they no longer can. Can the minister please confi rm whether that's true or not? Hon. S. Anton: PRIMECorp became subject to free- dom of information in March of last year, a year ago, and that is what prompted this amendment.

Th ere have been consultations with the Privacy Commissioner. I think the bigger point here is that PRIMECorp is a way that information can go out to police services. A po- lice offi cer on the road can have access to the informa- tion in PRIMECorp. But PRIME does not control the information or own the information or generate the in- formation. Th e information is generated in a local police department, a police service. So if a person has an issue with any information or wants to know information, they do need to go to their police service because that's who controls the information — not PRIME. [1505] K.

Corrigan: Well, it was this government that decided that PRIMECorp should be a body that was considered to be a public body and did so, and made it under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. In fact, I probably could go back and fi nd several ex- amples of various government representatives saying, "If you have a concern about what is in PRIME, our data- base…." I mean, it is essentially a centralized database. Th e minister has repeatedly taken credit in this House for what the government has done, taken credit for PRIME and said it's basically a government accomplish- ment.

If that is the case, then the government has some responsibility in this area. Th e reality is that what is in PRIME is a gathering of data. My

interpretation of what government has said in the past is that people have a legitimate concern about what is in this database that gathers all of this informa- tion together, and have a right…. I think I'm paraphras- ing, but I think government has said that people have a right to know what the government…. I mean, who cares whether it is local or provincial? All government agencies — provincial policing, local poli- cing and the RCMP and the federal government, there- fore — have access to this database.

It is the one place that a person could fi nd out the gathering of information that the government or whoever has about them with relation to their interaction with police. To suggest that there should be a change really disturbs me. Just one more time, before we fi nish questions on this section, I want to confi rm with the minister that what this

section says is that previously people had a right to go and make the request of PRIME for the information that was in the database related to them and now they will not. [1510] Hon. S. Anton: The provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in regard to PRIME came into eff ect in March of 2013. Th e intention of this

section is not to change anything which has hap- pened since then but to add greater certainty and to con- fi rm current practice. I will just read out the letter from the Information and Privacy Commissioner from January 2013, prior to that, where one of the commissioners says: "We are of the view that adding PRIMECorp as a public body under FIPPA would not change how police agencies presently respond to requests for access to records.

We are inclined to the view that the records would continue to be in the custody and control of the police agencies and that any requests for personal information that are made to PRIMECorp would still be directed to the appropriate agency." K. Corrigan: Th ank you for that. Th at is information I didn't have, so that's useful. But the minister didn't an- swer the question. My question was that if somebody were to…? I'll rephrase it. If somebody were to make a request today, under the present law, they would have the right, would they not, to make a request to PRIMECorp because they are a public body?

Would they not have the right to make that request, and if so, what would the process be? Hon. S. Anton: If a person goes to PRIME to ask for their personal information, they will be directed back to

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 1, 2014 2643 a law enforcement agency. K. Corrigan: If a person goes to PRIME presently and says, "I would like to have access to the information that is in my PRIME fi le in its entirety," what would the re- sponse be? Hon. S. Anton: PRIME will direct an inquiry back to a police agency. It is that police agency — which has the same information, because they are using PRIME — which, through its own freedom-of-information rules, will give you what they may or may not give you under the normal rules of freedom of information on your own personal fi le. [1515] K.

Corrigan: Is the minister saying that if some- body applies to PRIME today for their fi le in its entire- ty that's in PRIME, they would then be directed to the police agency, the law enforcement service, and that law enforcement service would have access to the same database and then would be required to release to that individual all of the information in PRIME or only the information that they gathered or that relates to that per- son vis-à-vis that law enforcement agency? Hon. S. Anton: Whatever information that police agency has custody of and control of, it may release. K.

Corrigan: Well, I'd like to understand what that would include. For example, if an individual had had a negative contact with police in West Vancouver and West Vancouver entered that data, and then they were a witness in a case in Burnaby and that information was entered in the database, and the person went to PRIMECorp and said, "I want the information," would PRIME then refer them to both of those agencies? Or would they send them to one? I'm asking this for a very serious reason. People, in- dividual citizens have, I believe, a very justifi able con- cern about the totality of the data that's in the database.

I t seems to me that making it very diffi cult for an indi- vidual who may have had three or four mostly positive, but maybe not, interfacings with the police…. Maybe they're witnesses in many cases, for some reason, or had contacts that are considered negative and are not crim- inal. Th at's the thing to remember: it does not have to be criminal behaviour. But it seems to me that it is not right that somebody cannot go to one.

If government thinks it's worthwhile and law enforce- ment agencies think it's worthwhile to gather the data together, as is obviously the whole purpose of PRIME, then should citizens not have the right to have that gath- ered data, which is easier to access and gives them a more complete picture? Do they not have the right to get that data? Would they be able to get all of that data if they made a freedom-of-information request, either to PRIME now, or later under this new section? Hon. S. Anton: Remembering that we are dealing with this

section in particular, the records in question are not under the custody and control of PRIME, so PRIME has no authority to release them. K. Corrigan: Am I mistaken? Did not representatives of government over the last few years say, I think, per- haps…. I don't want to misquote. But I believe the for- mer Attorney General said, perhaps in interviews, that if people have concerns about the data that's in PRIME, then they can go ask PRIME about what data is in there, and they can satisfy themselves. Has that not been the case? Has PRIME not processed FOI requests in the past? Hon. S.

Anton: I can't comment on what others may have said. All I can say is to repeat what I have said al- ready, which is that these records are not in the custody or control of PRIME. PRIME will not be releasing them. K. Corrigan: I'm just going to ask a couple more ques- tions. Why did government, then, designate PRIMECorp as a public body that would therefore be subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act? [1520] Hon. S.

Anton: Th e records which the member is re- ferring to would be those relating to the corporate gov- ernance — the records of the running of PRIME but not the personal records of individuals that we've been talk- ing about prior to this. K. Corrigan: Has PRIME, then, never released any of the records to individuals who have asked for their fi le in the past — released the records not having to do with governance or other administrative matters but related to what's in that record? PRIMECorp has never released that information in the past? Hon. S. Anton: Th e practice was to refer to a law en- forcement agency.

Just to reiterate, the

section confi rms that those records are not in the custody and control of PRIME, and they will not be released by PRIME. K. Corrigan: In the past — this is my understanding, then, from what I've learned today — PRIME would not release the records, but PRIME would refer the individ- uals to the appropriate agency. I would assume that could be several agencies if there's more than one entry in the database. Is that correct? Hon. S. Anton: Th e record is not in the custody and control of PRIME. PRIME cannot determine or recom- mend as to which agency you should go to. Th ey will

British Columbia Debates2644 Tuesday, April 1, 2014 simply say: "Y ou need to go to a law enforcement agency to make this request." K. Corrigan: Okay. Well, I guess I have to go back and look at the responses when there were serious con- cerns raised a couple of years ago by the Civil Liberties Association about the fact that there were 4½-million- plus records in PRIME.

I could be wrong — so I apolo- gize if I'm incorrect — but I believe that the general response of government at that time was: "Y ou can make a request to PRIME to get your information." What I'm hearing today is that that has never hap- pened and that in fact there is no provision for people to get some idea of what's in that fi le — which disturbs me. Th erefore, I think, I have real concern about this section. Whether it is a de facto change of practice or not, I think it misrepresents what people of this province thought about in terms of accessibility of what was on their po- lice fi les.

For that reason, we're going to vote against this particular section.

Section 41 approved on division.

Section 42 approved. Th e Chair: I believe

section 43 has already been taken care of. [1525] On

section 44. L. Krog: I'm going to ask a fairly general question, and we may be able to get through these sections quite quickly. Th e only one I have any real interest in is

section 45. My understanding is that these provision are simply to take into account the changed titles. Th at's all these sections have to deal with, save for

section 45. I just want to ask one question on that. If the Attorney General will even nod and confi rm that that's in fact the case, that's fi ne. Otherwise, 44, 46, 47 and 48 all relate to a simple word change. Not 46 — 44, 47 and

Section 44 approved. On

section 45. L. Krog: Just to confi rm, the existing provision talks about "beyond a reasonable doubt." It's the criminal stan- dard. Th is takes it to the civil standard — on the balance of probabilities. Th e reason for this comes from where? Is it a request of the Provincial Court judges themselves? Does it come through recommendation of the Law Society or counsel or the family law subsection or some- thing like that? Hon. S. Anton: Y es, I can confi rm that this is a request of the chief judge. Th e standard that was in there really was in error. It always should have been the civil standard on this kind of matter.

Section 45 approved. On

section 46. L. Krog: Just to confi rm, we're striking out "must" and substituting "may." Does this change, making it permis- sive as opposed to mandatory, have anything to do with funding? Hon. S. Anton: Th is provision was put in some time ago. Th ere never has been funding for these committees. Th ere was "a municipality must." Th ere was no way of enforcing compliance. So we have now made it permis- sive. Some municipalities have family court committees; others do not. L.

Krog: I wonder if the Attorney General can confi rm how many communities have family court committees and how many communities in total in British Columbia could if they wanted them. Obviously, not every com- munity has a courthouse. Hon. S. Anton: Th ere are 17 family court commit- tees now. Th e exact amount of how many could, I don't know. But it's communities with a courthouse or around a courthouse. [1530] Sections 46 to 48 inclusive approved. On

section 50. L. Krog: I just ask the Attorney General to explain the reason for this change. I'm going to presume it just has to do with the basic change — we're moving from grants to the new representation agreement, etc. Is it as straight- forward as it looks, in other words? Hon. S. Anton: Th e goal is to bring these sections into compliance with other legislation. It's no more compli- cated than that.

Section 50 approved. On

section 51. L. Krog: I just wonder if the Attorney General can ex- plain the diff erence between the existing section, which is being repealed, and the new

section and the purpose for it. Hon. S. Anton: Subsection (2.1) under 51 makes the

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 1, 2014 2645 defi nition in the Wills, Estates and Succession Act con- sistent with the defi nition of "spouse" in the Family Law Act. L. Krog: And if the Attorney General can explain the purpose of that. Is it to ensure just uniformity, or is it to provide some protection in the case of any claims be- ing made? [1535] Hon. S. Anton: Under the old Family Relations Act, the spouses did have to take some positive action — for example, fi ling a separation agreement — in order for an interest in family assets to arise.

However, under the new Family Law Act, a right to family assets arises at the moment of separation, and this is to make this act con- sistent with that. L. Krog: What impact will that have on any claims that can be made by parties who have been living in a marriage-like relationship, in terms of making a claim against the estate? Hon. S. Anton: Y ou cease being a spouse in the case of a marriage-like relationship if one or both persons ter- minate the relationship. L.

Krog: My question was: what impact will this have on spouses who do separate, in terms of any rights to make a claim against the estate of the deceased spouse? Hon. S. Anton: Th is is not intended to be a substantive change — rather, a clarifi cation, to clarify that your rights acquired under the Family Law Act rights or otherwise…. Y ou may have them or you may not have them. Th e rights as they exist will continue aft er the death of your spouse or your former spouse. L.

Krog: Just to clarify, in a common-law relationship, as I would use the language, where the parties have sep- arated, the limitation period isn't up under the Family Law Act, and one spouse dies, you will still have a right to make the claim against the estate under the Family Law Act. Is that correct? Hon. S. Anton: Th e answer to the question is yes. Y our rights under the Family Law Act apply, and it's that dis- tribution or that division of property which can be made prior to the estate itself being settled. [1540] L.

Krog: Th e reason I wanted to confi rm that is that I know the Attorney General has had to respond to at least a couple of letters from lawyers mainly concerned with estates or concerned that in the ordinary circumstance, if the common-law spouses were separated, there would be no right, potentially, under the old law to make a claim as a spouse because of the separation if the parties were truly separated,

whereas in fact this change confi rms that you won't have a claim against the estate per se as a common-law spouse, but you will continue to have a claim as a separated spouse under the Family Law Act. Hon. S. Anton: Th at is correct. L. Krog: I just want to thank the Attorney General. Th at's on the record, and the lawyers in British Columbia can relax now. Sections 51 and 52 approved. On

section 53. L. Krog: Th is rather lengthy and diffi cult section…. Th e explanatory note says it "clarifi es the distribution of an intestate's estate to grandparents and great-grandparents and their descendants." What change does it represent from the existing section? Hon. S. Anton: I think when the member opposite and I went to law school, we had the good old per stirpes designation, but we don't talk about per stirpes anymore. Th ese sections are intended to designate what the re- spective shares should be in an estate.

Th ere was an in- advertent change made by the Family Law Act which impaired the relationship between sections 23 and 24. Sections 23 and 24 are intended to work together, and the amendment is to remove the reference to "in equal shares" to ensure that the two sections work together as intended. Sections 53 and 54 approved. On

section 55. L. Krog: Again, if the Attorney General could explain the eff ect of

section 55. What's the existing section, and how does this change it? Is it for purposes of clarifi cation, or is it a substantive change in the law? Hon. S. Anton: Subsection (4) here was contained in the Supreme Court civil rules. In the work around de- veloping the new probate rules, it was concluded that the provisions in subsection (4) are substantive rather than procedural, so they are better placed in the act rather than in the rules. [1545] L. Krog: I appreciate that explanation because I must say I always rather thought that it didn't make much sense and it wasn't an appropriate place for it. So in fact, we're doing the right thing. Having said that, I'm happy to see

section 55 pass.

British Columbia Debates2646 Tuesday, April 1, 2014 Sections 55 to 58 inclusive approved. On

section 59. L. Krog: Just to confi rm this again, it only relates to changes in language, using the new language, and that's all that's really happening. It's not a substantive change. Hon. S. Anton: Mostly it is a question of language, but there is in fact one expansion of the term, under "rep- resentation grant." A representation grant does include the resealing of a grant of probate or a grant of adminis- tration from another country, and that was not included in the original language.

Section 59 approved. On

section 60. L. Krog: Sections 60 and 61 essentially make the same provision: "any other person the court considers appro- priate to appoint, including, without limitation, and sub- ject to the Public Guardian and Trustee's consent, the Public Guardian and Trustee." I'm just wondering why we're including the provision that requires the Public Guardian and Trustee's consent, because they have al- ways been the fallback position for these matters gener- ally, as I understand it. I'm wondering if this is a request from the Public Guardian and Trustee's office.

Is this a request that's come up through lawyers in the province? Where does this change come from? Hon. S. Anton: This change was requested by the Public Guardian and Trustee. She was concerned that without the amendment the

section as draft ed could require her to consent to the appointment of any other person applying to administer a deceased's estate. So the wording is intended to ensure that the Public Guardian and Trustee is only appointed to administer if the Public Guardian and Trustee deems it appropriate, not that they consent to the appointment of other people — a family friend, for instance, if the court considers that person appropriate. Sections 60 and 61 approved. On

section 62. L. Krog: With respect to

section 62 and, in particular, the provision that the registrar may reseal a foreign grant in certain circumstances, is this a substantive change, or is this a situation where you're bringing it from the rules back into the act? What's the explanation for it? [1550] Hon. S. Anton: Th is is a substantive change. It is to enable a registrar, as opposed to a judge, to reseal a foreign grant.

Section 62 approved. On

section 63. L. Krog: It's one of those interesting little sections where you're changing all sorts of little words in various places. I just want the Attorney General to explain what, in fact, the eff ect of this is on the section, what it enables the court to do or not do. Hon. S. Anton: Th ere was a mistake in the way it was originally written. Th e amendment refl ects the original recommendations of the B.C. Law Institute. Th e object of the

section is that anyone who is dishonest, bankrupt and so on can be passed over, and it can be on applica- tion of anyone who has an interest in the estate, not just a creditor.

Section 63 approved. On

section 64. L. Krog: I'm just curious with respect to

section 64. I take it there was some concern that this

section was going to require some form of oral hearing as opposed to affi davit, which is usually the kind of evidence that's submitted. [1555] Hon. S. Anton: Y es. Th e point is that this should be a more simple process. It's an amendment requested by the Public Guardian and Trustee. Without amendment, the requirement to satisfy the court could imply diff er- ent kinds of evidence, but in fact, the object here is that the Public Guardian and Trustee can satisfy the court by way of an affi davit. L. Krog: I'm just curious. It's a small point, and I may be completely off base here. But the

section reads: "A grant of administration…with will annexed must not be issued unless the Public Guardian and Trustee fi les an af- fi davit swearing that no person in British Columbia (

a) is entitled to share in the distribution of the estate of the deceased person, and (

b) is ready and competent to apply for a grant of administration." I'm just wondering. From a draft ing point of view, might it not be more appropriate to require the Public Guardian and Trustee to swear an affi davit that says that she, he, it is not aware of any person? I think the wording of it implies some very positive knowledge that it may not be possible to hold. How can one say that that's the case, as opposed to saying that they are not aware of anyone? It's a small point, but before we pass this section, I want

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 1, 2014 2647 to give the Attorney General a chance to think about this before we have to do another amendment down the road. [1600] Hon. S. Anton: Th e change here is at the request of the Public Guardian and Trustee. It is a two-part test, so it's not just that they believe that there's no person entitled to share in the distribution, but they believe that there's no person entitled to share in the distribution and who is ready and competent to apply for a grant of administration. So, yes, I'm satisfi ed that the wording works for this section. L.

Krog: I don't wish to belabour it, but it's requiring the Public Guardian and Trustee to swear to the truth of something that requires the kind of conclusion around a matter of fact that we generally reserve to judges mak- ing a decision. A judge fi nds as a matter of fact that the accused held the knife or that Mrs. Schwartz hit Mr. Schwartz with the stick — whatever. But what this says is unless he fi les an affi davit…. It's "swearing that no person in British Columbia is entitled to share in the distribution…." [D.

Horne in the chair.] It's requiring the Public Guardian and Trustee to come to a conclusion of fact, that this is, in fact, the truth. All I'm suggesting is that the more accurate and fair way to put it is to say that they are not aware of any person, be- cause it's requiring…. Unless you're giving the Public Guardian and Trustee the right to make conclusions that we generally reserve to courts, I think that's an almost im- possible thing — to swear to the truth of it. Th at's my point. I'm just off ering this up now rather than us come back down the road and have to make an amendment.

But I trust the Attorney General and her staff appreciate the point I'm trying to make. [1605] Hon. S. Anton: A couple of points. First of all, the Public Guardian and Trustee did request this amend- ment, and the goal is to maintain a high standard of knowledge by the Public Guardian and Trustee and place a positive obligation on the Public Guardian and Trustee. So, yes, I am satisfi ed with the language as it is. Sections 64 and 65 approved. On

section 66. L. Krog: Th is makes the notice provisions with respect to minors and how they're to be given. I'm just wonder- ing: as part of this, will the person mailing the notice have to prepare and fi le an affi davit, obviously, that confi rms under which of the subsections, (a), (

b) or (c), they're sending the notice? What it says now is if a person is en- titled to receive notice, it's only valid "if it is given as fol- lows: (

a) if the person giving the notice knows that the minor resides with all of the minor's parents" or (

b) if that does not apply or (c). In other words, will the particulars of the affi davit they'll have to fi le in accordance with the application specify which of those sections, (1)(a), (

b) or (c), applies? Or is it just going to be a general declaration: "I've mailed it to the minor; end of story"? Hon. S. Anton: Th ere is a form P9, which is an affi - davit of delivery. It does require the person to indicate to whom notice was given. L. Krog: Just to confi rm, that would either be the par- ents or the parent or guardian who has responsibility, or it would state that it's just been mailed to the address of the minor, I take it, as opposed to just a general statement. Hon. S. Anton: Th e form would specify to whom the notice was given, the name of the parent or the guardian, and their relationship to the minor.

Section 66 approved. On

section 67. Hon. S. Anton: What I'm going to recommend is that

section 67 be voted against.

Section 67 negatived. Th e Chair: Th e sections of the bill will remain as they are, and we'll deal with the renumbering. On

section 68. L. Krog: And we're sure we want to do this? [1610] Sections 68 to 71 inclusive approved. Hon. S. Anton: I would wish to move an amendment, the amendment by adding

section 71.1, standing in my name in the orders of the day. [SECTION 71.1, by adding the following heading and

section before the "Related Amendment" heading: Estates of Missing Persons Act 71.1

Section 2 (3) of the Estates of Missing Persons Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 123, is amended by striking out "an offi cial administra- tor" and substituting "the public guardian and trustee".] [SECTION 71.2, by adding the following

section : 71.2

Section 9 is amended by striking out " on the grant of probate or grant of administration in respect of the estate of the missing person," and substituting "on the issue of a representation grant,".] Hon. Chair, this amendment is relocated from the voted-against

section 67 of this bill and will directly

British Columbia Debates2648 Tuesday, April 1, 2014 amend the Estates of Missing Persons Act. On the amendments. L. Krog: If the Attorney General could just explain the necessity of this particular

section so we can all understand? I'd probably be happy to be support it, I'm sure, but…. Hon. S. Anton: I'm going to read this out so that I don't get the details wrong. I trust that the member op- posite is listening carefully. Th e House amendment to the Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, is being requested due to technical issues relating to when the legislation comes into force. Essentially,

section 67 — which we just voted against — will no longer work as draft ed. Th at's because

section 67 of the Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, amend- ed

section 215 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act.

Section 215 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act amends the Estates of Missing Persons Act. Th at section,

section 215, came into force yesterday, March 31. As it is an amending section, it is considered spent and no longer exists aft er March 31. Th us,

section 67 had nothing to amend. Therefore, the amendment to the Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, proposes deleting

section 67 — which we have done now by voting against it — and adding two new sections, 71.1 and 71.2. Th ese newly added sections will directly amend sections 2 and 9 of the Estates of Missing Persons Act. Th e reason why the House amendment was done now and not at fi rst reading is because had the Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, moved through committee and received royal assent on or before March 31, 2014, the amendment would not have been necessary. It was only when it was clear that royal assent would not be possible before then that the House amendment was pursued. L.

Krog: Isn't the Attorney General grateful to have staff who can fi gure all of that out and give her a cheat sheet? We've performed a virtual Lazarus-like resurrec- tion of a statutory section. I'm happy to see it pass. Amendments approved. Sections 71.1 and 71.2 approved. Th e Chair: So for clarity, we've passed 71.1 and 71.2. [1615] On

section 72. L. Krog: I think the Attorney General requires staff , if we can just stand down for a second or two. I wonder if the Attorney General could simply explain: is this adding a new category of people who are entitled to receive commissions, so to speak? If so, what's the pur- pose, where does it come from, and why are we doing it? Hon. S. Anton: Th is amendment to the Provincial Symbols and Honours Act has been requested by muni- cipal police departments over a few years now.

What the municipal departments are asking is that they might have a recognition and an honour to senior-ranking members, similar to what exists currently in the RCMP . Th e goal, of course, is to foster the culture of profession- alism. It does allow cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor-in- Council, to prescribe qualifi cations and criteria in order for a person to receive the honour — the commission. L. Krog: I trust this is the end of it. We won't be bringing back knighthoods or baronetcies or anything like that. Hon. S. Anton: I am a monarchist, so it is possible, but it's not on my work program at the moment.

Sections 72 and 73 approved. Title approved. Hon. S. Anton: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments. Motion approved. Th e committee rose at 4:19 p.m. Th e House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair. [1620] Reporting of Bills BILL 14 — JUSTICE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2014 Bill 14, Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, re- ported complete with amendments. Madame Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported? Hon. M. Polak: With leave, now. Leave granted.

Th ird Reading of Bills BILL 14 — JUSTICE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2014 Bill 14, Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, read a third time and passed.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 1, 2014 2649 Hon. M. Polak: I call second reading debate on Bill 11. Second Reading of Bills BILL 11 — PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2014 Hon. M. Polak: I move that this bill be read a second time. Th is bill will add more than 55,000 hectares to B.C.'s protected areas system by adding land to two conservan- cies and two class A parks and marine foreshore to four conservancies. The amendments continue the imple- mentation of the Atlin Taku land use plan, which began in 2012. [D.

Horne in the chair.] More than 33,000 hectares will be added to two of the conservancies established in 2012, those being Indian Lake–Hitchcock Creek/Át Ch'îni Shà Conservancy and Upper Gladys River/Watsíx Deiyi Conservancy. Th ese conservancies recognize the importance of these areas to the Taku River Tlingit First Nation by ensuring that they will be able to continue to use the resources in these areas to sustain their communities and their cultural con- nections to the land.

Th ese amendments also further the 2006 coast land use decision by adding marine foreshore areas totalling more than 22,700 hectares to four existing conservancies. Th ree of the marine foreshore additions are considered to be part of the Gwa'sala-Nakwaxda'xw First Nation's sea gardens, protecting, for example, 15,444 hectares of Ugʷiwa'/Cape Caution Conservancy with high ecological values, including kelp beds, a number of intertidal fl ats, high tide lagoons, globally signifi cant tidal rapids, mar- ine mammal habitat and seabird colonies.

Also 736 hectares are being added to the Qwiquallaaq/ Boat Bay Conservancy as a result of collaborative man- agement planning processes with the Mamalilikulla- Qwe'Qwa'Sot'Em First Nation. Th e proposed amendments will also add approximate- ly 23 hectares to the Syringa Park, a class A park in the Kootenays, as a result of a private land acquisition and land transfer, protecting important habitat for bighorn sheep. Bill 11 also contains amendments to modify the bound- aries of one ecological reserve, six class A parks and one conservancy.

The boundary of Tow Hill Ecological Reserve on Haida Gwaii is proposed to be modifi ed to remove less than one-tenth of a hectare to exclude a resi- dence and to enable the transfer of the lands to the federal government for inclusion in the Indian reserve. Approximately ten hectares are proposed to be deleted from Elk Falls Park to remove Brewster Lake Road and other lands required to enable the city of Campbell River to proceed with their replacement water system project in conjunction with B.C. Hydro's John Hart dam redevel- opment project.

Th ese lands, if removed from the park, are proposed to be established as a protected area under the Environment and Land Use Act. Bill 11 contains an amendment to delete approximately 11 hectares from Indian Arm Park to remove 26 recrea- tional lots. Th ese lands are proposed to be transferred to the administration of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, who will assume re- sponsibility for the administration of the leases.

It is also proposed to change the name of Indian Arm Park to Say Nuth Khaw Yum Park, consistent with the collaborative management agreement with the Tsleil-Waututh Nation. Th e boundary of the Kleanza Creek Park, near Terrace, is proposed to be modifi ed to delete approximately two hectares required to provide safe and reliable drinking water to the Kitselas First Nation community of Gitaus. [1625] Th e amendments also propose to remove approximate- ly three hectares from Paul Lake Park, located northeast of Kamloops.

Th is will exclude a community water de- velopment, including a water reservoir and water lines, from the park. Also, it is proposed to upgrade Paul Lake Recreation Area, which is 3.9 hectares, to class A park status by add- ing the lands to existing Paul Lake Park. Bill 11 also contains amendments to modify the boundaries of McDonald Creek Park, Mount Richardson Park and Kamdis conservancy, each amendment being less than a hectare. The boundary of McDonald Creek Park, south of Nakusp, is proposed to be modifi ed to remove less than .01 hectares to provide for an easement to a private in- holding in the park.

The boundary of Mount Richardson Park, on the Sunshine Coast, is proposed to be modifi ed to delete less than a hectare to correct an administrative error made when the park was added to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act in 2000 and subsequent errors in tenure administration. Th e boundary of Kamdis conservancy on Haida Gwaii is proposed to be modifi ed to correct an administrative error that occurred in 2012. It is proposed to remove .06 of a hectare from the conservancy that is encumbered by a licence for the purpose of a parking lot and barge un- loading site and add .05 hectares of foreshore.

Finally, the amendments make some administrative corrections by changing the spelling of three conserv- ancies within the Gwa'sala-Nakwaxda'xw First Nations territory. Th ese are the amendments in Bill 11 which, if approved by the Legislature, will add the net total of 55,802 hec- tares to B.C.'s protected areas system, continuing the tradition of legislatively protecting some of the most

British Columbia Debates2650 Tuesday, April 1, 2014 ecologically diverse and biologically rich landscapes in the world. I look forward to second reading comments from members. S. Chandra Herbert: Bill 11, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, is a good act. It's

an act that balances the need for ecological conservation, for supporting our wild places, for increasing the size of parks. It supports public health of First Nations. It sup- ports economic activities of a number of First Nations but also, of course, the City of Campbell River, so it will receive the support of myself and the offi cial opposition.

Bill 11, I think, speaks to what we can do well and what we could do much better, which in a number of cases in Bill 11 is to work collaboratively with First Nations com- munities, whether it's the Atlin Taku land use plan and actually bringing in an increase in size of the manage- ment area, whether or not it's up on the central coast, ensuring that sea gardens and important foreshore areas are protected — but not protected in the way we used to protect them, in some cases.

I think it's important to recognize that when parks were fi rst established in British Columbia many years ago there was a real feeling in the parks movement across North America, a sense of preserving what we were los- ing, preserving what was disappearing. Whether it was the great buff alo on the plains, with the creation of Y ellowstone National Park, or in B.C. the establishment of Strathcona Park, the idea was to pre- serve an incredible wonder.

With Strathcona it was the idea about preserving the wonder so that tourists could be drawn to that area for the great fi shing and other things, but oft en First Nations people were excluded al- most entirely from the process. Th ey weren't spoken with. Th ey were oft en treated as if they didn't exist. I think back to — it's not a provincial park, but it's a municipal park — Stanley Park, in my neck of the woods of Vancouver–West End.

While there were First Nations communities there, the government of the day decided — municipally anyway, and also federally — to treat them as squatters as opposed to people who had long lived in those communities. [1630] By allowing, through the creation of conservancies, traditional uses to continue on the land — whether or not it's the collecting of certain resources for food, for economic uses within the community; whether or not it's spiritual, religious uses of the sites — those are very important considerations and ones that we should hold in mind when developing parks.

I do appreciate that through the creation of 55,000 hectares of additional parks and conservancies, we are doing that in many areas. I think of Indian Arm. We oft en say a name so oft en that we stop thinking about what its meaning is. Where does it come from? Well, Indian Arm, of course, was named aft er the Tsleil-Waututh people — the Indians, so to speak, in that area — of course, without speaking with them and really without much thought, I would imagine, aside from that's where the Indians lived.

To change the name of Indian Arm Park to refl ect the true name or the name that actually feels right to the Tsleil-Waututh people — Say Nuth Khaw Yum Park, a.k.a. Indian Arm Park — I think is a good action. Now there are certainly many questions the Tsleil-Waututh people have about protecting foreshore and those areas. Th ey've raised many of them around oil exports and others and are not feeling that they are appropriately consulted nor that the area they used to be able to rely on for seafood is protected adequately.

While we have some great examples in this bill of areas — through the addition of conservancies, particularly in the central coast area and the sea gardens that the min- ister spoke about — where that level of protection could lead, with further oversight of the whole coast, to a sus- tainable resource for generations to come — and genera- tions and generations to come — in other areas like the Indian Arm, Say Nuth Khaw Yum Park, we're not quite there yet. Parks are important for the caribou, I think.

But I would say that while parks are important for caribou and bighorn sheep and other creatures that we know — griz- zlies, for example — they're not the be-all and end-all, and that's where the government I think still has a way to go in terms of management plans for other territory where more active uses like forestry, mining, and so on take place. Our caribou species in B.C. in a number of areas are not doing so well. Many question grizzly num- bers and survival as well. Th ere are many species in B.C. which are threatened or could be close to threatened unless we start paying atten- tion now.

We don't want to get to the situation where we protect certain parks because they have species that are important to us and that are threatened but potentially create little islands — of course, unless the species lived on an island — where the species are trapped and can no longer get to breed with other species and lose their genetic diversity, lose the ability to breed, in many cases. Th at has occurred across the globe. B.C. is a special place. We have many wild areas that still remain. I think this act goes a bit of a ways towards protecting those areas at a greater level of protection.

Th ere's much more to be done. Of course, we also know that only about 70 percent, I believe is the number, of our class A parks have manage- ment plans. Certainly, there's more work to be done in that regard as well. Y ou can say an area is protected, but if you don't have the staff to go out and ensure that it's not being abused, if you don't have the planning resour- ces to know what it is you're indeed protecting, it's just a word on a page, as opposed to a protection in real life. Th e B.C. Parks service works very hard. I think these new additions to parks will make them work even harder.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 1, 2014 2651 Th eir budget has not largely increased over many years, so we have seen some issues of maintenance in the parks, in some cases, whether it's a washroom door falling off or a trail boardwalk being broken or certain levels of safety you would expect a park to have — certainly a class A park — but they don't. Of course, other issues of poaching and those kinds of things have been reported in parks as well. [1635] I think this is a good bill. I'm happy to support it, and I understand a number of other people will be speaking in support of this legislation.

I thank the hon. minister for bringing it forward. I thank the staff of B.C. Parks and the Ministry of Environment. I certainly hope we get greater park space and protected areas as it moves ahead. It's good for tour- ism, it's good for ecological values, it's good for First Nations reconciliation when done in partnership with First Nations, and it's good for community prosperity. Th ere are a few park deletions, a few areas that are de- leted out of the parks for a number of reasons that the minister highlighted. Th at seems to be the way we do this here in the Legislature. Bill 4, which we discussed earlier….

I'm concerned about its impact on bills like this. But as for today, I will speak in support of this bill and continue to work for parks and a healthy environment. S. Gibson: I'm reminded, as I look through this act, that we're stewards of beautiful British Columbia. We take care of it for a season and then pass it on. Th ere's a Swiss watch called Patek Philippe. Some of you have maybe aspired to have a very expensive watch. Th e Patek Philippe watch will more than meet your ob- jectives for an expensive watch.

Th eir marketing slogan — I've used it in my business classes — is this: "Y ou never actually own a Patek Philippe. Y ou merely take care of it for the next generation." In the pictures it's got a father and a son or a mom and a daughter. It's the same way when we talk about the lands, the pre- cious resources and the green space that we look aft er as a government here.

Y ou might take the words out and say: "Y ou merely take care of the lands that we're entrusted to as stewards for the next generation." I'm pleased to rise and speak here in support of the Protected Areas Amendment Act, encouraged by the earlier remarks by a colleague from the other side of the House. Th is will add land to two conservancies, two parks, marine waters, to four existing conservancies to be enjoyed for future generations. Many of us here have children, and some have grandchildren as well. It'll also modify the boundaries of six parks and one conservancy and one ecological reserve.

A lot of research has gone into this to do the right thing. Very encouraging. Since 2004 we've increased parks, conservancies, eco- logical reserves and protected areas by 32 million hec- tares. Th ere's a real trajectory here, and the public is, I know, very supportive. Th is legislation is helping protect our environment, including the habitat. And habitat for large mammals….

Much of the habitat of North America has been lost for large mammals, but here in British Columbia we're thrilled to know that we're one of the last areas with ma- jor habitat for animals such as caribou, bighorn sheep and in the marine area — the kelp beds, coral — breed- ing grounds for grey whales. Th is government takes that very seriously. I'm thrilled to report on that.

So 23 hectares added to Syringa Park in the Kootenays; four hectares to Paul Lake Park near Kamloops; 33,000 hectares added to Indian Lake/Át Ch'îni Shà Creek Conservancy; and 22,000 hectares of marine waters add- ed to four conservancies on the central coast — beauti- ful pristine areas. It was my privilege as a young student at the University of Victoria working on B.C. Ferries up the coast on the Queen of Prince Rupert , to see these magnifi cent waters. Again, some more will be protected. Th ese proposed amendments meet the objectives of the agreement with the First Nations community.

Th at's very encouraging, because we know that when we work together, we succeed. Economic opportunities will spill out of that. Tourists value the green space. Th ey come here because of beautiful British Columbia. It's not just a theme; we live it. Also, there are some administrative errors in the legis- lation. Th ose will be corrected — some small ones. [1640] Th e ministry consultation has been very well done, very detailed, and I'm encouraged by that. All members here now can have the opportunity to hear more about that. Th e Protected Areas Amendment Act — it's exciting.

It's part of the vision that we have as a government, and I'm very pleased to rise here as the representative for Abbotsford-Mission to give my support to it. D. Donaldson: I rise at this second reading to speak to Bill 11, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act. I'm in favour of this act. However, dur- ing this general debate on second reading there are a number of areas I'd like to raise as topics for the minister and for the people that I represent in Stikine. Th e act actually adds a little over 33,000 hectares to two conservancies in Stikine.

One is the Indian Lake and Hitchcock Creek Conservancy — about 7,835 hectares, primarily, from what I understand, for winter caribou habitat — and in the Upper Gladys River Conservancy, about 25,255 hectares, mainly regarding traditional use areas for the Taku River Tlingit First Nation. Th e Indian Lake and Hitchcock Creek Conservancy is just to the east of Atlin Lake as you come down the high- way. Indian Creek drains into Atlin Lake, and there's a guide-outfi tter who has his camp there. Th e conservancy,

British Columbia Debates2652 Tuesday, April 1, 2014 the addition, is to the east of that, and the Gladys River area is to the south and east of that conservancy. Th ese are both, from what I understand, additions rec- ommended in the Atlin Taku land use plan. Th at land use plan, as the minister said, came into eff ect in 2012. It took eight years to put that plan into eff ect, and it was a good process.

It allowed the Taku River Tlingit to explore the land and their authority and jurisdiction over it for a number of years before actually engaging, then, with the province and other interests in the latter part of that eight years. Th ey came up with the plan in 2012 and are now implementing it. But I've got to point out that although this bill con- cerns adding and following recommendations of the Atlin Taku land use plan, there are some major concerns the Taku River Tlingit still have with the land use plan.

Back a couple of years ago, in 2012, Chieft ain Metals received a permit, a special use permit, for a 162-kilometre access road to, potentially, the Tulsequah Chief mine. Th is was something that was, according to the company, part of the understanding on the Atlin Taku land use plan that is referenced in this bill. However, shortly aft er that announcement the Taku River Tlingit said they had not made a decision regarding this industrial road. In fact, in January of this year the Taku River Tlingit fi led a lawsuit in the B.C.

Supreme Court to stop, as they said, "the controversial Chieft ain Metals proposed project from proceeding further" on the grounds that "the province failed to consult and used an unlawful decision-making process." Th at will result in the environmental assessment being not considered suf- fi cient by the Taku River Tlingit.

Th at's just to point out that although this bill is fol- lowing the recommendations of the Atlin Taku land use plan, there's still a lot of work to be done on that plan, as typifi ed by the fact that the Taku River Tlingit are not in support of the road or the mine that's in the plan and that is covered by the plan. [1645] Th e other area of concern I'd like to address in this second reading debate is the fact that although 33,000 hectares have been added to these conservancies in the Stikine, the constituency I represent, and approximate- ly 55,000 hectares overall in the province, we still….

If we're going to establish conservancies, I think the pub- lic would expect some oversight on the ground, boots on the ground, too, for the reasons cited. If we're setting this area aside at Indian Lake for winter caribou habitat, then who is keeping an eye on it? I noted that earlier in this session we passed the Off -Road Vehicle Act. I was in support of that. However, the fees as- sociated with that, I suggested to the government, could be used to improve the conservation offi cers budget so that they could actually spend some more time to the ground to have oversight on these conservancies.

Th at was not something that the government seemed to accept. I again want to emphasize that we are adding 55,000 hectares in this bill, so I think that it's necessary, hand in hand, to add some resources to make sure that the prop- er oversight on the ground is done in these areas, for the reasons they've been set aside. Th e minister, in reference to this bill, made comment in the media regarding Bill 11 and pointed out that, since 2004, class A parks, conservancies, ecological reserves, protected areas — the areas in those types of land desig- nations — have increased by 3.2 million hectares.

Today we're talking about another 55,000 that would add into that 3.2 million hectares. Y et in Bill 4 that was passed, the Park Amendment Act, not supported by this side of the House, opens up the parks for industrial activities such as geotechnical stud- ies for pipelines. Th e latest data I had on class A parks in the province is…. I believe about ten million hectares are in class A parks.

On the one hand, you've got the government saying that this bill will add 55,000 hectares and that since 2004, they like to say, 3.2 million hectares have been added to class A parks, conservancies and ecological reserves and protected areas. But with a stroke of the pen and their majority votes just a couple weeks ago, they added ten million hectares of class A parks that could be opened up for industrial activity. So I don't think… Th at's almost a 3-1 ratio of area that's been opened up for industrial activity — geotechnical studies for pipe- lines, for instance — in class A parks.

Although the minister likes to point out part of the record, I think the whole record has to be considered when we consider this government's views and approach on protected areas. Finally, in regards to this topic today, Bill 11, which I support, I'm also curious how it refl ects on other govern- ment ministers. A year ago February we considered Bill 5, Protected Areas of B.C. Amendment Act. Th at was in February 2013. Th at was similar to this bill. It set aside lands in protected areas, like conservancies, just like we're considering today.

Y et the then MLA for Nechako Lakes, who is now the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, objected and spoke against Bill 5 last year. As reported in the Prince George Citizen at the time, he said: "We keep adding and adding with no real plan.

We haven't even had a real debate about it." He goes on to say: "A lack of parkland planning translates into a lack of industrial certainty" — this is the current Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation — "Investors, communities and governments cannot make eff ective decisions about where industry should happen until the places it should not happen are solidifi ed." [1650] He went on to say: "But I'm saying up front at this junc- ture that before we go ahead with any more park desig- nations, we should do the work to form a proper plan for the future of parks and protected areas and through to

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 1, 2014 2653 industrial and community uses…. It shouldn't be some- thing arbitrarily set by a particular party or a particular minister, and it shouldn't go on without some kind of guidelines." I'm wondering in second reading of this bill, Bill 11, which again addresses additions to conservancies, whether the Minister of Environment has taken up what the member for Nechako Lakes said a year ago and has created an overall proper plan, as he says, for the future of parks and protected areas.

Th at's been left for a year now, since the member for Nechako Lakes brought it up within his own government, when he was opposed to Bill 5 last year. Now we have Bill 11, essentially the same type of bill. It would be informative if the Minister of Environment could elaborate on how she has incorporated the com- ments of her now cabinet colleague, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, into what we see in Bill 11 and whether there is a plan, an overall plan, for the future of parks and protected areas from this gov- ernment.

As well, then the member for Nechako Lakes — this is from Hansard — on that debate said: "Are we going to start talking about taking some out because we'd like to add some in, or are we in a pattern where we will just be continually adding parkland into the province of British Columbia, to the detriment of our industrial base?" I would like to point out that this is now the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. In relation to Bill 11, the government says Bill 11 refl ects land use planning and agreements with First Nations.

So is the position of the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation…? Does he still hold to the position he did a year ago that this adding in and adding out is not what the government should be doing, or does he believe that this Bill 11 is good in that it follows agree- ments with First Nations? Th ere are four First Nations that are mentioned. I support Bill 11. I support the additions, especially the ones that I've mentioned in Stikine and the additions in the rest of the province.

I'm not sure if the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation supports Bill 11, because he didn't support Bill 5 last year. I don't know if his comments from last year have been incorporated by the current Minister of Environment, and I don't know if he supports the fact that Bill 11 refl ects agreements with at least four First Nations. I look forward to those responses, and I look forward to the committee stage of this bill. L. Krog: I'm pleased to rise and say a few words today with respect to Bill 11 during second reading.

I'm going to do what I would call the Chinese-food-takeout ap- proach — the sweet fi rst and the sour aft erwards. Th e sweet is that I want to thank the government for this. I have always indicated that when the government did something positive, I would publicly compliment them, and I certainly do so today. Th e addition of lands to the protected areas of British Columbia, preserved for generations, I think is always important and needs to be recognized as such, and I certainly off er my compliments in light of the fact that this follows on the 275,000 hec- tares added to the park system in 2013 as well.

Y ou know, the old joke about they're not making any more of it is always so clearly true, particularly when one looks at the price of housing in Vancouver, for instance, or the Lower Mainland generally. But my colleagues have pointed out quite rightly that the mere addition of parkland without a budget to sup- port the staff who can provide protection for the land is in itself really indicative of the half-measures by which this government has proceeded.

I certainly recall during the early '90s, when the gov- ernment of Mike Harcourt, who certainly had some notoriety today in the news, was working very hard to implement the recommendations of the Brundtland Commission to preserve 12 percent of representative ecosystems. I remember the Vancouver Island land use plan, which saw roughly 15 percent of Vancouver Island preserved. [1655] At the same time, that government was not only preserving what we generally refer to or think of as wilderness areas.

In my own constituency, which was Parksville-Qualicum in those days, the government was responsible for the preservation of the Parksville Flats, as it was commonly known to people who were growing up in that area but which was, in fact, the Englishman River estuary. I note the sitting member for Parksville-Qualicum the other day was waxing eloquent about the Brant Festival, inviting members to attend.

Well, it was an NDP gov- ernment that saw the preservation of the Parksville Flats so the little brant would have someplace to land as they worked their way through the area and, of course, in old days provided food for local hunters and now dollars for local businesses. People come from literally all over North America to see the Brant Festival now. In addition, Jedidiah Island, on the far side of Lasqueti, as we say, closest to the Lower Mainland, another act of preservation of the NDP government of Mike Harcourt. I had occasion to run into Mary Palmer the other day.

Now, Al and Mary Palmer owned Jedidiah Island. Th ey were originally an American couple and retired there some years ago. Mary is still alive and well, I'm happy to tell the House. Al passed away a few years ago. She still has a driver's li- cence. I won't mention her age, but I can delicately say it's well past eight decades. It was through their generosity, off ering the province Jedidiah Island at a very substan- tially reduced price, that we now have a wonderful park on Jedidiah Island.

British Columbia Debates2654 Tuesday, April 1, 2014 In addition, again it was the NDP government of Mike Harcourt that provided the funds necessary to purchase Neck Point, which is one of the most important parks in the north end of the city of Nanaimo. My point in mentioning those is that they are not the kinds of traditional areas in which government has necessarily funded. Certainly, the estuary arguably is; Jedidiah Island, somewhat so; but certainly not Neck Point. I think the government has to take some respon- sibility,

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20140401pm-Hansard-v9n7
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20140401pm Hansard v9n7
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	49970cff87fd72d81f73927330f5cf65ed708ac4

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).