Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 256

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M217 — Interpersonal Violence Disclosure (Clare’s Law) Act, 2019

M. Lee

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

B.C. Beef Day and ranching industry

D. Barnett

D. Routley

Diabetes prevention and management strategy initiative

L. Reid

Small businesses

M. Dean

Friends of Hudson’s Hope Society

D. Davies

North Vancouver youth council on climate action

B. Ma

Oral Questions

Allegations regarding communication practices of Citizens’ Services Minister

M. Polak

Hon. J. Sims

J. Johal

Soil disposal site in Shawnigan Lake watershed

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

Government response to allegations regarding Citizens’ Services Minister

S. Bond

Hon. D. Eby

P. Milobar

Hon. J. Sims

M. de Jong

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 31 — Police Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. D. Eby

M. Morris

N. Simons

D. Routley

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. D. Eby

Bill M206 — Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019

A. Weaver

S. Chandra Herbert

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 26 — Financial Services Authority Act, 2019

Hon. C. James

T. Redies

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

Hon. A. Dix

T. Wat

G. Kyllo

D. Ashton

M. Stilwell

TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2019

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Popham: As we all know and can smell, it’s B.C. Beef Day here at the

Legislature, and we’ve got some guests visiting us. Many of us are having

meetings with representatives from the cattle association. From the B.C.

Cattlemen’s Association, we have Renee Ardill, the environment committee

chair; Jon Solecki, livestock industry protection committee chair; Brian

Thomas, BCCA board member; Lani French, who’s a producer; and John Jenson,

who is a producer.

We also have representatives from the B.C. Association of Cattle

Feeders: Joe Heemskerk, Doug Haughton and August Bremer. Then, from the B.C.

Breeder and Feeder Association, we have Bob Miller and Corey Lepine joining

us.

Please make them welcome.

L. Throness: It’s always a pleasure to have people visit from our ridings. I want

to welcome Peter and Christina Kerkhoff today, who are visiting Victoria for

a few days. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Darcy: I’d like to welcome two guests today. Justin Schmid is the legislative

coordinator for CUPE B.C. He hates it when I say that I remember him from

the days when he was the chair of the young workers committee, but I will

say that.

I’d also like to welcome — I believe she’s in the precinct already —

Geri Bemister, who is a criminology professor at Vancouver Island University

and North Island College. She is a human behavioural scientist, an

interventionist, a child advocate, an addictions consultant. She works

closely with the B.C. Centre on Substance Use, and she is the recent winner

of the very prestigious Courage to Come Back Awards for her own heroic

journey to recovery and for everything that she has given back to the

community, thanking all the people along the way.

Please give a warm welcome to Justin and to Geri Bemister, who will be

joining us in the House today.

R. Kahlon: Just momentarily we’re going to have 40 students from Sands Secondary,

joined by their teacher Mr. Ryan Evans and some parents. They’re coming in

momentarily to watch question period. So in advance of them coming, I hope

the House can make them feel welcome.

[10:10 a.m.]

S. Furstenau: I have two guests to introduce today. Shelby Saulsgiver is a

constituent of mine. She’s born and raised in Maple Bay, in Cowichan, and

she attended Frances Kelsey. She’s currently a volunteer in my constituency

office. We’re so delighted to have her here, and she’s here to shadow me

today to explore her growing interest in politics.

Also, I have Waya Aeon, who was born in Trail, grew up in Kaslo. He’s

21 years old. He’s a brand-new member of Citizens Climate Lobby, a volunteer

group that seeks to create the political will to act on climate change. He

has come down with a group from the Kootenays, and he’s here today to also

shadow me.

I’m delighted to have both of them here. Would the House please make

them feel most welcome.

T. Stone: I would like to join the Minister of Agriculture in welcoming a few of

my constituents here today. It doesn’t happen very often.

I also would like to acknowledge Doug Haughton, who’s in the gallery.

Doug is a fourth-generation Knutsfordian. He’s from Knutsford, British

Columbia. His grandfather settled in 1906, started as a grain farm and

transformed to beef production, I believe, in the early to mid-1970s.

Gregarious guy and great friend.

Sitting next to him is another constituent of mine, Joe Heemskerk, who

has a significant feedlot operation in beautiful Westwold as

well.

Gentlemen, it’s a pleasure to see you here in Victoria. Thanks for

coming down. We’re all looking forward to partaking in Beef Day later

on.

Would the House please make Doug and Joe feel welcome.

M. Stilwell: Joining us in the House today is someone who I think is quite amazing.

Melanie Atwell is the executive director of Cedar’s COCO Cafe, a social

enterprise in, well, Cedar. Cedar Opportunities Cooperative is a

community-run co-op started by families who believed that opportunities for

employment and for making friends were the greatest needs for their children

with developmental disabilities.

Now, under Melanie’s leadership, what once was a cafe providing

hands-on employment, training and socialization opportunities for people

with developmental disabilities has expanded into a catering company and a

commercial retailer that creates wholesome, frozen take-out meals that are

sold at the cafe. They deliver an exceptional program, and they’ve won

numerous awards, including the international Ruderman Best in Business

Award, which recognizes businesses across North America for hiring,

supporting and employing people with disabilities.

Would the House please congratulate Melanie and COCO for their success

and make her feel very welcome.

Hon. G. Heyman: Joining us shortly in the gallery will be a number of students from

Eric Hamber Secondary. A number of those students actually reside in my

riding, although the school is in the riding of the member for

Vancouver-Langara. I’ll be having an opportunity to speak with those

students shortly after question period. Will the House please let them know

they’re very welcome.

D. Davies: It gives me pleasure to welcome two folks from the far north. I’m

going to steal one from Peace River South — an introduction. Dan Rose is the

vice-chair of the regional district. As well, the chair, Brad Sperling, who

lives in my riding, in Charlie Lake. Would the House make them feel most

welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M217 — INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE

DISCLOSURE (CLARE’S

LAW) ACT, 2019

M. Lee presented a bill intituled Interpersonal Violence Disclosure

(Clare’s Law) Act, 2019.

M. Lee: Clare’s law is modelled after the U.K. legislation which passed

after the tragic murder of Clare Wood by her ex-partner. Clare was

unaware of the three previous violent convictions under her

then-partner’s name. This bill will allow at-risk individuals to access

information about their partner’s potentially abusive or violent

past.

[10:15 a.m.]

The bill will allow police officers to disclose any information

regarding a partner’s violent history to an at-risk individual. Under

Clare’s law, immunity would be granted to the minister, the government

of British Columbia, a police force, an agent, an employee, a board of

police commissioners or a member of a board of police commissioners

based on any cause of action arising from the enactment of this bill,

the application in good faith of all or any provision of this act or any

disclosure of information about an individual by a police service, if

the disclosure is made in good faith and in adherence to the

act.

It would also remove the need for police officers, pursuant to the

work, to submit any evidence or testimony related to the work

conducted.

The provisions of this bill seek to provide additional protection

for those who feel they may be in danger of partner violence. Access to

this type of information will help at-risk individuals remove themselves

from dangerous situations. It is instrumental in the continued effort to

curtail partner-abuse incidents.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

M. Lee: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for the

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M217, Interpersonal Violence Disclosure (Clare’s Law) Act, 2019,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

B.C. BEEF DAY AND RANCHING INDUSTRY

D. Barnett: I have stood in this House on several occasions to praise British

Columbia’s cattle industry. Today marks another opportunity for me to do

so. It is the tenth annual B.C. Beef Day, a day to celebrate the

accomplishments of local cattlemen and to support this vitally important

industry.

I encourage all members of this House to engage with the B.C.

Cattlemen’s Association and other industry stakeholders who are here

today to celebrate with us. They will be hosting a barbecue outside here

on the legislative grounds from 11:30 to one. Enjoy an incredible lunch

and learn more about the high-quality and great-tasting beef that is

produced right here at home.

This is an industry that employs many British Colum­bians.

It is leading the way in terms of sustainable practices and land

protection and makes an estimated contribution of $600 million to the

provincial GDP every year. The B.C. beef industry plays a particularly

important role in my riding, and we are honoured to be hosting the B.C.

Cattlemen’s AGM in Williams Lake on May 25.

The barbecue season is underway. Whether you choose your B.C. beef

at a restaurant or the supermarket or a farmers market, this goes a long

way in supporting hard-working ranching families in our communities as

well as our provincial economy.

This is B.C. Beef Day. Let us all pledge to buy local and support

local and eat the best beef in Canada.

D. Routley: It is Beef Day. Not only is it the day that presents an

opportunity for government to meet with the people behind the industry —

including the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, the B.C. Association of

Cattle Feeders, the B.C. Breeder and Feeder Association, the B.C.

Association of Abattoirs and the B.C. Dairy Association — but it’s also

the favourite day of the calendar year for the member for Chilliwack,

being a champion in all things smoked and otherwise cooked

outside.

B.C. Beef Day is a day for industry reps and government reps to

meet to discuss opportunities to continue to grow the ranching and

beef-processing sector in B.C. It is one of the most sought-after days

on the legislative calendar, and everybody should get in line early

outside for the barbecue.

Ranching is a long-standing industry in British Columbia, with

many families tending the same ranch and property for over 100 years,

like the Turner family at Turner Ranch in Pritchard or the Hunter family

at Scotty Creek Ranch in Cache Creek.

I was fortunate enough to serve on the Select Standing Committee

on Agriculture, Fish and Food. We did a report and a consultation around

the province on local meat production. This happened in May and June of

last year. It was very interesting. We saw the many challenges that

ranchers face in this province — problems of scale, problems of

geography, problems of seasonal timing.

These are all not insurmountable. With cooperation, I’m sure that

legislators, policy-makers and ranchers will coordinate to further

secure the food supply of British Columbia. This is a noble task. It is

a value-added task that adds value to our land base, adds value to our

communities, adds value to their products and, at its best, adds value

to the province of British Columbia and all of its people.

[10:20 a.m.]

DIABETES PREVENTION AND

MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

INITIATIVE

L. Reid: Let’s begin the conversation about the opportunity before us.

Diabetes is a challenging disease but one that we can prevent, in many

cases, by modifying risk factors and better managing diabetes.

Recognizing this, Diabetes Canada convened more than 115 individuals

representing nearly 100 stakeholder organizations over the past year to

build a new strategy for diabetes in Canada.

With this flexible blueprint modelled on the proven, ambitious

approach used for HIV/AIDS and other global disease prevention and

management strategies, we can deliver results in just seven years by

focusing on the following key targets. Ninety percent of Canadians live

in an environment that preserves wellness and prevents the development

of diabetes. Ninety percent of Canadians are aware of their diabetes

status. Ninety percent of Canadians living with diabetes are engaged in

appropriate interventions to prevent diabetes and its complications.

Ninety percent of Canadians engaged in interventions are achieving

approved health outcomes.

These targets are based on extensive consultations and rigorous

analysis of research. The actions required for their achievement are

detailed below, as are the unique considerations of people with type 1

diabetes and Indigenous peoples in Canada.

Diabetes Canada recommends that the federal government should

establish a national partnership over seven years to establish and

create the development and implementation of a new national diabetes

strategy, based on the 360 framework. With federal government support,

implementation of this national strategy could begin in 2020 and

continue through 2021, a milestone year that marks the 100th anniversary

of Dr. Banting’s discovery of insulin.

This would allow Canadians to mark the occasion with another

critical achievement in the prevention and management of diabetes and,

once again, improve the lives of millions of Canadians. I’m on board.

Are you?

SMALL BUSINESSES

M. Dean: Small businesses are integral to the growth of British Columbia’s

economy. They support diversity in urban and rural communities and

account for 35 percent of GDP. There were just over half a million

businesses in B.C. in 2017. Of these, 98 percent were small businesses

with fewer than 50 employees, and 60 percent were self-employed

individuals with no paid help.

Vancouver Island and the coast account for 16 percent of the small

business total. Esquimalt-Metchosin hosts a huge diversity of small

businesses, from the village store in Metchosin; to the first retail

geocaching store in Canada, the Sharkz Store, in Esquimalt; with 328

Taphouse in Colwood; and Pete’s Tent and Awning in View Royal all in

between.

Recently I attended Viva La WestShore, hosted by the Westshore

Chamber, and met a number of these local business people who support the

local community as well as the economy. Thanks to president Mike Reilly

and ED Judy Lawlor for all of your work.

Nearly 1.1 million British Columbians worked in small businesses

in 2017, accounting for 54 percent of private sector employment. This

sector thrives in Esquimalt-Metchosin. I attended the Esquimalt

Chamber’s Linger at Lunch recently and discussed what’s important for

local business owners and operators. Thank you to Chris Edley, who is

the president of that chamber.

Now, approximately 38 percent of the self-employed in B.C. are

women. We’re very fortunate to have the Westshore Women’s Business

Network, which hosts regular speakers and events. The room is always

filled with dynamic and enterprising women. Thanks to Deb Alcadinho for

all of her hard work.

In fact, thank you to everyone who supports B.C. small

businesses.

FRIENDS OF HUDSON’S HOPE SOCIETY

D. Davies: Today I’d like to speak about a local group from the small town of

Hudson’s Hope. Hudson’s Hope is located about 90 kilometres from Fort

St. John and sits on the banks of the Peace River. As well, it’s the

home to the W.A.C. Bennett dam and the Peace Canyon dam.

It’s also home to a group called the Friends of Hudson’s Hope. The

Friends of Hudson’s Hope was formed in 2001, with the purpose to provide

assistance for those in financial need that have to travel to medical

appointments outside of the town. Financial assistance can be provided

to both the patient needing the medical services as well as an

accompanying person, if required. Funds can also be used for medical

equipment that the patient is not covered for.

Patti Campbell is the administrator of the society and,

unfortunately, will be leaving the society soon, but a search for a new

administrator is underway. Patti is extremely proud of the wonderful

volunteers, including the board members: Barb Frocklage, Lynnea Stacey,

Edith Rosa, Travis Winnicky and Kathi Birosh, all of whom have made the

operation possible.

[10:25 a.m.]

The support from all of the community volunteers is a testament to

the care that the residents of Hudson’s Hope have for one another. The

Friends of Hudson’s Hope runs the local food bank and owns and operates

the local thrift store, where Patti is also the manager. All donations

from this thrift store go back into the society itself. A few years ago

the store itself was in need, as the building it was located in burned

down, and was homeless for a while. The community stepped in, and today

they have a new location that is perfectly suited to their

needs.

Each year, during Christmas season, the group also runs a

Christmas hamper for those in need. To raise funds to support these

endeavours, the Friends of Hudson’s Hope also have numerous fundraising

raffles and appeals for donation from the local businesses and

townspeople that make this organization so successful.

From myself to all the Friends of Hudson’s Hope Society, I’d like

to personally thank you on behalf of the residents of Peace River North

for all that you do to make your community a great community.

NORTH VANCOUVER YOUTH COUNCIL

ON CLIMATE

ACTION

B. Ma: The world is changing and in disastrous ways. Glaciers have

shrunk, plant and animal species have been lost, and the sea level is

rising. There are longer, more intense heat waves; longer, more damaging

droughts; stronger, more intense hurricanes, floods and forest fires;

and exploding pine beetle populations.

Climate change is real, and we feel it here in B.C. It’s no wonder

that so many have cried out that we must act immediately to reduce our

reliance on fossil fuels and move towards a cleaner, better future, with

our youth as the most vocal among us.

The North Vancouver–Lonsdale MLA’s Youth Leadership Council on

Climate Action is a group of students from several North Vancouver high

schools who have joined together to educate the public on the need to

take climate change seriously. They are Cameron Sullivan from Argyle

Secondary; Giovanna Lazzarini from Carson Graham Secondary; Nikolas

Montecalvo and Shiqi Xu from Sutherland Secondary; and Callie Yoo, Emily

Pennefather and Griffin Lee from Handsworth Secondary.

Working with each other and many of their peers at their

respective schools, this team of young people will be hosting a climate

strike rally at North Vancouver city hall, Civic Plaza, on Friday, May

24, starting at 4 p.m. We hope you will come to support them in their

efforts to raise awareness about this global issue.

While this government’s CleanBC strategy to meet legislated

reductions in overall emissions of 40 percent by 2030, 60 percent by

2040 and 80 percent by 2050 is exactly what B.C. needs to be doing, we

are also only a small part of the equation. Every province in this

country needs its own CleanBC, as does every country in this world.

Let’s stand with our young people and fight together for a better

future.

Oral Questions

ALLEGATIONS REGARDING

COMMUNICATION PRACTICES OF

CITIZENS’ SERVICES MINISTER

M. Polak: Yesterday we raised questions about a letter from Donald Sorochan,

QC, that contains serious allegations against the Minister of Citizens’

Services. Included in the allegations are claims that the minister

instructed her staff to act in a way to “avoid her communication being

captured by freedom-of-information law.”

Why did the minister give this instruction to her

staff?

Hon. J. Sims: My colleague across the way has sat on this side and has been in

government. Let me be very clear. Ministers use their government account

for government business and legislative account for legislative or

constituency issues.

When I hire a new staff person, anyone who comes in, I’m very

clear with them that government communications are to be done through my

government email, but constituency-related communications are to be done

through the appropriate channels. That’s how the division is meant to

work.

My colleagues across the way, from the time they sat on this side

of the House, know exactly how that works. That is why, when we became

elected as MLAs, we got our legislative phone, our Leg. email and our

computers. Then, when we became ministers and got sworn in, we got a

ministerial phone and an email and a computer.

[10:30 a.m.]

It would be remiss of me if I did not make that very clear with

employees when I hire them. I told my constituency staff that they

should not use my ministerial government email for constituency

matters.

This was a challenging HR matter involving a former employee, and

because of privacy, I can’t get into the details. While the opposition

continues to focus on gotcha politics, I’m focused on our government’s

important work to make life better for those who live in B.C.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the opposition on a supplemental.

M. Polak: Unfortunately, what the minister made clear was her intention to

avoid the scrutiny of having to divulge and disclose government business

that she’s conducting, now, what seems to be in secret.

Of the claims that the whistle-blower is prepared to swear under

oath, by the way — she contains that in her letter — is the assertion

that the minister “explained to me that she only used her ministerial

phone or email for routine tasks or conversations because ‘I have to

have something to show them.’ The ‘them’ she referred to were those

members of the public, opposition or media who were making

freedom-of-information requests for her communication.”

Can the minister explain why she said this?

Hon. J. Sims: Let me make it very, very clear that there is a differentiation

between what we can communicate through government phones and government

emails. That’s good record management practice. Also, the constituency

assistants have a different set of rules, and that is that constituency

work is not supposed to be done on government email. I made that very

clear, because it is important that when new constituency staff come

into our offices and they’re working in an office of a minister, there

is a delineation about constituency work.

I’m sure that when my colleagues who sit on that side now were on

this side, they must have explained the same to their staff and said:

“If it’s constituency communications, they go through these channels. If

it’s government communications, they go through these

channels.”

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the official opposition on a second

supplemental.

M. Polak: In spite of the minister’s ongoing descriptions of what we all

know to be the regulations on our communications as government ministers

or MLAs, I note she hasn’t denied making the comments that the

whistle-blower claims.

These are very serious allegations. It is alleged: “On more than

one occasion, the minister’s senior ministerial assistant called me to

explain to me that I was not to communicate with the minister or her

ministry staff via their government emails unless I first checked by a

text or phone call.”

That doesn’t comport with what the minister is describing. Can the

minister explain why her senior ministerial assistant would have given

that direction?

Hon. J. Sims: Let me restate. I was very clear with my staff when they were

hired that they were to use my legislative account to communicate

business that had to do with constituents — my constituency office. That

is good advice to give to an employee when they come in. I was very,

very clear that if it had to do with government business and they had to

communicate with other offices, which they do when they’re seeking

assistance for our constituents, there are appropriate ways to do that

and to use those channels.

When a new staff member comes in and…. By the way, this staff

member was with me for six weeks, and the employment ended for a variety

of reasons. This is an HR matter. I cannot get into the details, and my

colleagues know that. But I will be very, very clear. I was very firm

with my staff that they had to make sure they were following the rules

and not to circumvent them.

[10:35 a.m.]

J. Johal: It’s an auspicious day today, Mr. Speaker. I’m not sure if you’re

aware, but we’re celebrating an anniversary. It was a year ago today

that this minister had to apologize for using private email while she

conducted government business. It’s an embarrassing anniversary, and

clearly, this minister has no credibility on this file.

Now we have a letter from Mr. Sorochan, QC, which contains

extremely serious allegations. In it, the whistle-blower says: “I was

repeatedly told to never admit the use of personal email for ministerial

business, as we have to protect the minister.”

To the minister, why was the whistle-blower given this

direction?

Hon. J. Sims: That is a load of nonsense. A load of nonsense. I follow the rules

and the appropriate use policy, and I use my government email for

government business.

Now, when a new staff person comes into your office or when you

hire a new staff person and you’re a minister, you actually sit them

down and explain to them how communications work. That’s exactly what I

did.

This is a very difficult HR matter. The person was my employee for

about six weeks and is no longer my employee. Because it is an HR

matter, my colleagues also know that I cannot get into the details. But

let me assure them that I was very, very clear that the individual was

to follow the proper practices, and there was nothing nefarious about

them, despite the fact that my colleagues would love to find

something.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a

supplemental.

J. Johal: It was exactly a year ago today, as I said, after initially

denying any wrongdoing, that the minister was forced to admit she had

broken FOI rules.

The serious allegations contained in the Sorochan letter show the

minister has gone to even greater lengths to circumvent the system she

has sworn to uphold. According to the whistle-blower: “The minister

routinely used iMessage, WhatsApp and her personal email address to

conduct ministerial business.”

Why is the minister continuing to use private communications for

government business?

Hon. J. Sims: Let me say it one more time. When a new employee is hired in a

constituency office and the person in that constituency office also

happens to have in there a minister, then I think it’s perfectly

appropriate…. As a matter of fact, I would be remiss if I did not

explain to them that they could not do constituency work through my

government email or phone, and that is exactly what happened.

I do my constituency business through my constituency phone, as my

staff is told to do. And, yes, I do use WhatsApp, but I do not use

WhatsApp for government business. I do have it on my Legislature phone,

and I use it for local constituency matters and for personal things,

like connecting with my family and talking about my mom.

It is also…. As my colleagues across there know, WhatsApp is a

community. But I make sure that my WhatsApp is not on my government

phone and that it is being used for personal or legislative

business.

SOIL DISPOSAL SITE IN

SHAWNIGAN LAKE

WATERSHED

S. Furstenau: From the very beginning, the Shawnigan Lake community has been

abundantly clear: depositing five million tonnes of contaminated soil in

our watershed is an unacceptable risk to our drinking water and our

community. After years of relentless efforts by the Shawnigan community,

some of whom are in the gallery right now, and seemingly endless court

battles, the previous Minister of Environment revoked the permit in

February of 2017. I thank her for that.

Now, two years later, the company is proposing to leave the

100,000 tonnes of soil that was deposited at the site that overlooks our

drinking water source, a site that Shawnigan Creek, which feeds the

lake, wraps around.

My question is for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy. He has a decision to make. Will the soil be allowed to stay,

or will the minister put the long-term interests and well-being of the

people of Shawnigan first and order the soil removed?

[10:40 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. This is a long-standing

issue. I understand the considerable concern of the residents of

Shawnigan Lake about the integrity and safety of their drinking water. I

also recognize the tremendous amount of effort that members of the

community and the member of the Third Party have put into trying to

resolve this issue, resulting from a decision made several years ago by

the previous government.

We have taken a number of measures to ensure that there is

transparency in the review of both the plan and the testing. Information

on the landfill, sampling data, inspection reports, the order and

warnings are all made public for people to view. The member, as well as

members of her community, have recently, in April, attended briefings

with officials from my ministry and the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

The ministry is working hard to review the closure plans submitted, to

gather all the information necessary to provide to me for a decision to

ensure that whatever the final decision is, it maintains the integrity

of the drinking water for the residents. That decision will be made this

spring.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the Third Party on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: It’s interesting to note that those inspection reports are

actually signed off by an engineer named Mike Achtem, who used to be

with Active Engineering, which was the company that had a secret

profit-sharing deal with the quarry owners.

I also wonder if the minister has considered the many other issues

that are associated with this site: the endless questions about the

integrity of the liner beneath the landfill; the concerns raised by a

Ministry of Environment hydrologist that the monitoring wells beneath

the site are at the wrong depth to determine the impacts to groundwater;

the interaction of the high levels of sulphur with the metals and

hydrocarbons, resulting in sulphuric acid; the contaminants showing up

in the surface water below the site. This is only a very short sample of

a very long list of serious concerns about this site and the process

that resulted in a permit being issued in the first place.

We have drought conditions across Vancouver Island. Water

restrictions are already in place. Shawnigan Lake is one of the few

natural drinking water reservoirs on southern Vancouver

Island.

My question is to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy. Does he think that allowing for the potential contamination of

a drinking water source for 12,000 people, and one of the few natural

reservoirs on southern Vancouver Island, is an acceptable

risk?

Hon. G. Heyman: I want to assure the member and the people in the gallery that our

government takes the protection of drinking water, human health,

protection of the environment, extremely seriously. That is why we are

putting a tremendous amount, in the ministry, of diligence to reviewing

all of the aspects of the closure plan, all of the test results, the

information provided by the member — information provided not only by

the qualified professional to whom the member referred but by an

independent qualified professional retained by the ministry.

This is a difficult issue. We are doing due diligence. The

ministry is looking at every aspect of the issues raised by the member

and the community. All of that information will be provided to me for a

final decision. We take the protection of drinking water extremely

seriously.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS

REGARDING CITIZENS’

SERVICES MINISTER

S. Bond: The Premier said that he was profoundly disappointed with the

evasion of FOI by the Minister of Citizens’ Services a year ago almost

exactly. He admitted: “We missed the mark…. I acknowledge that. And I’m

going to do everything I can to make sure it doesn’t happen

again.”

Well, by now, the Premier will have discovered that on March 4,

2019, his office, via the cabinet secretariat, was made aware of these

and other serious allegations concerning the conduct of the Minister of

Citizens’ Services. Serious allegations were

made more than two months ago about the conduct of a sitting

minister.

What exactly did the government do? What actions, to the Deputy

Premier, did this government take?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I have a copy of the May 12 letter the members were referring to

yesterday that I took on notice. I’ve had the opportunity to review it.

It appears to be one of a series of letters sent. The lead address is

Mr. Michael McEvoy, who’s the Information and Privacy Commissioner for

British Columbia.

Certainly, for any person in British Columbia that has a concern

and privacy, the correct place to send those concerns is the independent

commissioner, whose office is set up exactly for that purpose. The

letter is properly addressed to the commissioner, and the individual and

any British Columbian with concerns should pursue those with the

commissioner’s office.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, the Attorney General full well knows that that letter also

contains serious allegations about the conduct of the Minister of

Citizens’ Services that were directed to the government. The Attorney

General has just admitted that this government was apparently aware of a

letter that arrived over two months ago, and yesterday he appeared

surprised by the fact that there had actually been a letter.

Let me quote the Premier once again. The Premier’s office was told

on March 4…. This is exactly what the Premier’s office was told more

than two months ago. “Please note that throughout my employment” — that

has nothing to do with the Privacy Commissioner — “a constant has been

the strident instructions from both the minister and senior political

staff to phone or text only.”

It is absolutely unimaginable that two months ago a letter arrived

in the Premier’s office that alleged serious, serious issues of

misconduct of a sitting minister, and now the Attorney General stands in

the House and simply dismisses that letter. Could the Attorney General

please tell us what he is prepared to do today to deal with these

serious allegations?

Hon. D. Eby: The letter is dated May 12. It arrived in my constituency office

on Sunday night, late. In it, though, I note that the Office of the

Information and Privacy Commissioner is already in correspondence with

this individual. It said that the office was available to receive

additional information and: “For your information, FOIPPA does not apply

to MLAs or the office of a person who is an MLA, because MLA offices are

not public bodies.”

There’s interaction going back and forth. This is the proper

office for this concern to be brought to. The commissioner is the lead

addressee on the letter. The office is independent — and independent for

a reason. I have confidence in the ability of the Information and

Privacy Commissioner to do the job that the commissioner is set up for.

The individual and any British Columbia that has concerns like this

should raise them with the commissioner’s office.

P. Milobar: Well, to be clear, we have a minister who has repeatedly shown she

has zero regard for the freedom-of-information rules that she is

responsible for. A year ago the Premier said he was profoundly

disappointed and said: “The deputy minister in my office is ensuring

that best practices are being observed with my staff. I expect that, and

in fact, it’s going to happen.”

We know, despite the Attorney General continuing to refer to the

May 12 letter, that on March 4 of this year, the Premier’s office was

contacted as a first step in trying to solve these serious allegations.

It seems nothing has changed, though, and this has happened again in yet

even more spectacular fashion than a year ago.

Again to the Attorney General, when did the Premier know…? What

steps have been taken from the March 4 letter to today to actually

address these serious allegations from within government?

Hon. D. Eby: I have pointed out that there is an independent office that is

tasked with looking into exactly the concerns that are being raised

here. It’s the proper place to raise those concerns. They’re the lead

addressee on the letter. Any British Columbian that has concerns about

issues like this should properly bring them to the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

related to freedom of information and protection of privacy properly

should bring them to the Information and Privacy Commissioner, which

appears to be exactly what has happened.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson on a

supplemental.

[10:50 a.m.]

P. Milobar: Despite being caught last year, this same minister continues to

purposely circumvent the system that she has sworn to uphold. A year

ago, when there was finally an admission that the documents were not

being handled properly, the Premier committed that his deputy minister

would be ensuring best practices are being observed. Yet here we are a

year later, and the answer we’re getting back from the Attorney General

is trying to dismiss these concerns over to an independent

body.

A year ago the Premier was more than happy to try to step in to

solve this problem. Now we have the Attorney General saying — even

though these are, potentially, even more serious allegations than a year

ago — that the government has no role to play in this, that the Premier

and the Attorney General have no role to play in this. The exact same

allegations have been made once again, and they’ve been forced to

publicly chastise the minister to make the promise that it wouldn’t

happen again.

Again to the Attorney General, when is the government going to

step in and actually investigate this and take proper actions on

something that they’ve known about now in the Premier’s office for the

better part of two months?

Hon. J. Sims: I take my responsibilities on freedom of information and good

record management very, very seriously. Let me be very clear. This

individual did not work for government. This matter relates to her

employment as a constituency assistant. As such, the executive director

of caucus dealt with this matter. As it is an HR matter, we can’t go

into it in any further details.

Let me assure my colleagues that what I said to a constituency

assistant, who works for an MLA, not for government…. The clarification

I gave to her was: “When you’re dealing with government business, those

you communicate through the government emails. But constituency staff,

constituency information, casework to do with constituents is dealt with

through the Legislature emails.”

Let me also be clear that the colleagues across the other side,

who are getting so excited right now, were sitting on this side for 16

long years. During those 16 long years, many of them were ministers.

Many of them were ministers. As ministers, I’m sure they must have

explained to their new employees how communications work in government

and how they work in MLA offices.

Let me read out to you what was said in the very letter that my

colleagues are quoting from. In that very same letter, the Privacy

Commissioner stated: “For your information, the FIPPA, the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act, does not apply to MLAs or the

office of a person who is an MLA, because MLA offices are not public

bodies. ‘Public body’ is defined in

schedule 1 of FIPPA and specifically

excludes the office of a person who is an MLA.”

That is what I explained to my staff.

M. de Jong: The question today is this. On March 4, the cabinet secretariat in

the Premier’s office was notified of these allegations. Allegations that

a minister in the cabinet with a record for attempting to manoeuvre

around the legislation, the very rules that she is responsible for

upholding, was doing so again. Allegations contained in the letter that

went to the Premier’s office to, ironically, the ethics adviser, one

Alex MacLennan, that the same minister was attempting to facilitate

entry into Canada of foreign nationals who were on a security watch in

exchange for money. Allegations contained in that letter.

The question is not whether the Attorney General believes the

allegations. The question is: what steps did the government take to

investigate these serious allegations that they were aware of over two

months ago?

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I can’t think of a better place to look at concerns related to the

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act than the

freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner. Now, it’s

an arm’s-length office from government. It’s an office of the

Legislature with all the tools necessary to look into matters like this.

It is in front of that office. There’s a dialogue back and forth,

obviously, between this individual and her counsel and the commissioner,

who’s the lead addressee on the letter. There’s been previous

correspondence that I was not included on. It is properly in front of

that office.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.

M. de Jong: A year ago the Premier stood in this chamber and acknowledged that

his minister had failed to uphold the appropriate standard, acknowledged

that he had failed and that his government had failed to uphold the

appropriate standard of records management. He pledged, as you have

heard earlier, that he was going to do everything he can to make sure it

doesn’t happen again.

Today the Attorney General conveniently attempts to sidestep these

serious allegations by saying that, actually, the Premier and the

government don’t want anything to do with this. It’ll be for someone

else to take account of.

The letter that went to the Premier’s office via the cabinet

secretariat contained a whole list of serious allegations. We have

focused on one. I’ve just mentioned another, involving the attempts to

bring foreign nationals into the country that were on a security list,

in exchange for money.

The question is what steps the government took, what steps the

Premier took, what steps the Attorney General took, to investigate

allegations that have now been confirmed in a letter from Donald

Sorochan, QC.

Hon. D. Eby: I became aware of this issue at question period yesterday. There

was a letter sent by a lawyer to my constituency office late on Sunday

night. I’ve had the opportunity since then to read the letter, which is

one….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: This is simply when I became aware of the issue.

It appears to me that this is in front of the independent Office

of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The office is at arm’s

length from government. It is in front of the commissioner’s office.

They have received a letter from this…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: …individual’s lawyer, Mr. Sorochan, that outlines her concerns in

some detail, that offers to provide additional information to the

office. There’s a dialogue going back and forth, as there should be.

This office was set up to look into…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: …issues exactly like this. There’s a reason why it’s independent.

The members on the other side know the role of this office in looking

into these allegations very, very well.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: I have full confidence in the ability of the commissioner to look

at this issue.

[End of question period.]

J. Martin: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Martin: Outside in the grounds on the precinct is a very special person, a

friend of mine and, whether you know it or not, a great friend of yours. The

tradition continues. Brian Misko from the House of Q is cooking up hundreds

and hundreds of pounds of tri-tip and lots of other great offerings in

honour of B.C. Beef Day.

It’s a huge undertaking for him and his crew. This is one of the

biggest feeds that takes place by anyone on the barbecue circuit.

Please welcome him once again, and show your appreciation for all of

his effort. Have a great lunch out there.

S. Furstenau: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

S. Furstenau: I see Sierra Acton, the CVRD area director for Shawnigan Lake, in the

gallery, along with some other folks from Shawnigan. I just wanted to make

Sierra and the Shawnigan residents welcome.

[11:00 a.m.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 31, the Police Amendment

Act. In Committee A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee on Bill 26,

Financial Services Authority Act. In Committee C, the Birch Room, I call

continued debate on the estimates for the Ministry of Health.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 31 — POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Hon. D. Eby: I call second reading of Bill 31 entitled the Police Amendment

Act, 2019, and I move the bill now be read a second time.

It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 31, the Police

Amendment Act, 2019, which makes changes to the independent

investigation office, or IIO, in British Columbia. As members will know,

the role of the independent investigation office is to investigate

critical incidents of death or serious harm involving police officers

and special constables in B.C.

This bill is intended to address two specific areas of concern

regarding the quality and timeliness of IIO investigations.

Specifically, the Police Act will be amended to reduce the hiring

restrictions for IIO investigators for a period of two years to allow

the IIO to bolster its investigative capacity and reduce the amount of

time it takes to conclude investigations by hiring investigators with

more experience and expertise than is possible under the current

provision and the state of civilian training.

The IIO’s referral standard to Crown counsel will also be amended

to be consistent with the referral standard used by the police so that

fewer cases that are unlikely to meet the charge approval standard of

Crown are referred. This change will facilitate the timely completion of

IIO investigations.

These amendments are reflective of extensive consultation with

stakeholders, including representatives from various law enforcement

agencies, civil rights groups, advocacy organizations and Indigenous

groups. Justice Thomas Braidwood, who led the public inquiry that

recommended the establishment of an independent civilian police

oversight office, was also consulted on the proposed

amendments.

Overall, consultations indicated strong support for raising the

referral standard to Crown counsel. Stakeholders also expressed general

support for providing the chief civilian director of the IIO with

expanded hiring discretion, acknowledging that the goal of complete

civilianization of the IIO should not come at the expense of ensuring

the organization has the necessary expertise to conduct high-quality

investigations. Government remains committed to the continued

civilianization of the IIO. The two-year time limitation on the

director’s expanded hiring discretion demonstrates that

commitment.

In conclusion, the amendments in this bill will assist in

bolstering the important work of the independent investigations office.

I look forward to hearing the comments of other members of the

House.

M. Morris: I chaired the committee that did the review into the IIO a couple

of years ago. We heard from many, many stakeholders right across the

province and from experts. We spent a lot of time formulating the report

at the end of the day and providing our recommendations.

I do know the amendments to the Police Act that are being

introduced deal with a couple of things in there. One of the ones is the

primary concern over hiring police officers that have been out of their

police organization for five years or more. The committee felt that it

was reasonable to look at the expertise that these folks had — so to

exclude that five-year rule on there.

[11:05 a.m.]

We don’t contest the fact that, eventually, the IIO should be a

truly civilian organization. We fully support that, and I do as a former

police officer. I know most of my police colleagues out in the field

also feel the same thing. But there are a couple of elements here that

are of concern.

The investigations that the IIO undertake are quite complex. In

order to achieve the level of competence required not only to

investigate criminal offences but to determine the difference between

the inquiry that they’re making into possible wrongdoing by the police

officer involved — to know when the line is crossed when it comes to the

criminal aspect of things and to determine what kind of constitutional

warnings they have to offer an implicated police officer — takes a lot

of skill. And it takes a long time to acquire those skills.

In the police world out there, in order to become an accredited

criminal investigator, it takes years and years of experience — years

and years of providing testimony in court and learning from your

mistakes but also keeping abreast of jurisprudence as handed down by

every court, from the provincial court level right up to the Supreme

Court of Canada, that all provide direction to police officers and

criminal investigators on how to do their job.

These are happening all the time. It’s not that once a year, you

review all the jurisprudence that comes out. It’s happening on a routine

basis. There are some of the cases that come out that are fundamental in

changing how police gather evidence, how they treat evidence, how they

treat suspects and how they treat witnesses. There are a number of

issues that are there.

When it comes to the IIO…. One of the things that hampered the

early part of the IIO when it came into force was the fact that they

didn’t have enough of these skilled investigators. A lot of these

investigations were protracted for very long periods of time. The

protraction not only impacted on the public perception of what was going

on and, perhaps, the confidence that the public had in the IIO at the

time but the pressure that it was putting on implicated

members.

Unfortunately, a lot of these cases involved people who lost their

lives. To have this held over the head of a member — of an RCMP or

police officer member who was implicated in the involvement of that

death — is a lot of stress, not only on that police officer but on their

family as well. To sit there for a year or two years or longer, in some

cases, waiting for the decision of the IIO to come out, was highly

stressful. It impacted family lives. It impacted relationships. It

impacted a number of things there. So the pressure on making sure that

the IIO has the talent and expertise necessary to do the job is

significant.

I understand what the IIO has gone through. They’ve implemented a

number of training programs for their staff, which is excellent. It’s a

step in the right direction. But subsection 38.06(5) of the Police Act

says that: “The chief civilian director may retain consultants, experts,

specialists and other persons the chief civilian director considers

necessary to enable or assist the chief civilian director in exercising

powers or performing duties of the chief civilian director under this

Act.”

That allows him to go and get the expertise that’s out in the

field — those men and women that have the skills necessary to do those

kinds of complex investigations. The thing stopping him, in this

particular

section here, from doing that is that the current act — not

this amendment, but the current act — states that he can’t hire them

unless they’ve been out of a police organization for five years or

longer.

The problem that we saw, as a committee, when we reviewed this and

we looked and we heard from all the stakeholders, is that after five

years, your level of acuity and your level of being current with what’s

going on out in the world of jurisprudence and best practices and

scientific technology changes becomes somewhat diminished. You don’t get

that level of expertise unless you’re getting somebody that’s very

current in the field.

[11:10 a.m.]

I applaud the government for introducing the amendment. The part

that I have difficulty with on this is the fact that it’s only good for

two years, and then it reverts back to the original section, where you

can’t hire anybody unless they’ve been out of a police organization for

more than five years.

We can’t…. Unless government has some way to determine and

forecast how quickly the current level of investigators’ skill

increases, I think two years is an arbitrary benchmark. I think it’s too

short a period of time, based on my own experience in criminal

investigations over the years. I’ve watched these young constables and

investigators progress through their service and gain that level of

expertise in their performance. It takes time.

You see them growing, and it takes time — sometimes seven, eight,

nine years — to get to that level of expertise where you’re accepted by

the courts at the various levels. Your evidence is accepted, and you

really know what you’re doing. You know how to function. You’re keeping

abreast of all these changes here. So I think the two-year limitation is

something that we need to have a look at. I think it’s something that,

perhaps, should be removed, but we can talk about that later

on.

The other part of it is the recommendation…. I didn’t see this in

this bill before the House here, but one of the recommendations that we

made as a committee when we reviewed the IIO was that there be some

legislative requirement to do a complete review of the IIO after a

six-year period of time. But I didn’t see any part of that in this

legislation, in this bill before the House. I think that would have been

an opportunity to review the effectiveness of the civilianization goal

of the IIO, of making it fully civilianized, and see the effect of these

trained experts coming in to help the IIO attain that level of

professionalism — to see whether or not it’s adequate.

Six years is a short period of time when you look at the issues

that are going on. Six years is a short period of time when you look at

the effects that these kinds of investigations have on the police

officers involved, on the organizations involved, on the families

involved, who may have lost a loved one in one of these situations, and

on the IIO themselves. I think every opportunity should be extended to

ensure that they function at the level that is required

there.

The other part of it, in this, that has received wide applause

from those that I’ve spoken to within the police field is the fact that

the civilian director now must have reasonable cause to believe that an

offence may have been committed, which is the standard. When police

officers do criminal investigations, their charge approval is based upon

reasonable and probable grounds, and the recommendations for charges is

based on reasonable and probable grounds. This is a standard now that

all police officers can recognize and understand. The legal community

understands it. I think it’s the only standard that should be met here,

so I applaud government for introducing that amendment to this bill as

well.

Like I said, the only issue that I have is this very short window,

this very short period of a two-year limitation on this particular

amendment — to revert back to the old ways. I think that probably

shortchanges the opportunities that the IIO might have in order to

develop that expertise over the next five, ten years.

It takes a long time for the level of expertise to be at that

level where the job is done in a technically elegant way that is

deserved by the police officers involved, and that’s exactly what the

public expects. Those are my comments now for this particular aspect of

this process. I look forward to maybe examining it in a little more

detail at the committee stage.

N. Simons: I’m pleased to be able to speak about this bill that’s before the

Legislature today. It’s an amendment to the Police Act, which defines

how police in this province act.

[11:15 a.m.]

This particular amendment to the Police Act says that the

independent oversight body of the police forces in the province are

going to be able to hire former police officers from B.C. quicker, so

that’ll give them a bit of current expertise. But they’re only allowed

to do that for a couple of years, because the ultimate goal of the

independent oversight body, the office of the independent

investigations, is to become completely civilian, to be completely a

civilian-run oversight of our police system. I think, ultimately, all

sides of the House agree that that is a laudable goal and one that we

should be striving for.

When the Attorney General introduced this act, called Bill 31,

Police Amendment Act, it included two changes to how the oversight

system works. One was what I mentioned — the ability to hire former

police officers to strengthen, perhaps, the level of expertise that the

oversight body can have, because they’re investigating when someone dies

as a result of a police action. So if people are injured or killed in

their interaction with police, we have a special office to look at what

happened. For the public, we have to be confident that that oversight

body has the capacity to do the job well and without interference,

without even the semblance of any interference. So you can see why this

section of the bill is supported.

I think that it’s important for the critic to know that the people

hired would be grandfathered into the office, and they wouldn’t have to

leave after two years if they were hired. I’m very pleased that our work

at making this independent oversight body more civilian is continuing. I

think this piece of legislation brings us towards that goal.

The other thing that this bill changes is when…. After the

independent office investigates what happened in the interaction between

police and civilians, when they investigate, they have to decide whether

or not to refer the case to Crown counsel, the prosecutor’s office. The

Crown counsel decides whether to charge the police officer for what

happened.

When the independent office is considering, “Is this enough

evidence to say that a criminal offence occurred?” they’re not the ones

that actually make that decision. They just have to have a reasonable

belief that maybe a crime has been committed. And then it’s the Crown’s

job, the Crown representing the Crown, to decide whether to charge them.

The investigation office just says: “There’s not enough evidence for the

Crown to even look at it” or “There’s enough evidence, and there’s

reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime has occurred.”

Previously the independent office just had to have…. They think

that maybe a crime occurred. It’s like a different level of being

convinced that maybe something happened. Previously it would just…. A

lot of cases would be referred to the independent office. And what

happened was the independent office wasn’t adequately funded, perhaps

you could say. It didn’t have enough resources in order to do the

investigations properly.

Now, the opposition member suggested that was because of the

inability to recruit expert officers, expert investigators. That could

really be part of the problem because, you know, recruiting people to

work in this office, work in the Lower Mainland, is expensive. It’s hard

to find people that are qualified and then to hire people that are

qualified, so expanding the pool of people you can hire from is a good

thing. It’s one that our government believes is going to help reduce the

backlog of investigations.

I represent, in the Sunshine Coast, a mom and family who lost a

family member, a business person from the Sunshine Coast who died in a

confrontation with police. It’s been going on for a couple of years,

three years now, and there’s no result. The family is still waiting.

What happened? They don’t have answers. The independent office,

throughout this period of being underfunded and having trouble — I guess

some internal issues around recruiting people to do the investigations….

They have not reached a conclusion yet. Oh, they reached a conclusion

finally, a couple of months ago. They referred it to the Crown counsel.

They referred that case to the Crown.

[11:20 a.m.]

The length of time it took — and the process continues — is really

very hard. As the member for Prince George–Mac­kenzie said, it’s

very hard on the police officer’s family to be waiting for a decision to

be made. I would add that it’s extremely difficult for the families of

those who have been injured or killed to wait as well, and the slowness

of the process, perhaps, is a serious problem. I would say it’s a

serious problem.

I would also add that the delays that are impacting cases are not

just because of the understaffing of police forces or the investigation

office necessarily. There has been a dispute as to what police are

required to tell when they’re investigated for their involvement in the

injury or death of a civilian. The police forces — and I’m generalizing

— have been arguing that they don’t have to immediately answer questions

of the investigation office.

Let me just say that it was difficult for the investigation, for

the independent office to conduct investigations, when there wasn’t full

cooperation from the police forces involved. I’m suggesting that that

lack of cooperation added increased stress on the families that have

been impacted by the injury or death of a loved one.

I’m really glad that a member of a government caucus sees the

importance of independent oversight of very important institutions in

our province. We have independent oversight of our child welfare system.

If something goes wrong in our child welfare system, where the kids are

in foster care or what have you, then there’s oversight. We have

oversight of…. There’s an ombudsman that provides oversight for all

agencies in the province to make sure that government services meet the

needs of the citizens of the province.

I think police oversight is really of core importance to a

democracy. We have to have full trust in our law enforcement. Part of

having that full trust is knowing that they’re accountable. They’re

accountable to the people through an independent office.

What we’re doing with this bill…. When it passes — and I’m hoping

that it has the support of all the members of this House — it will

strengthen the office of the independent investigations office. It will

make the process both easier for the officers involved…. I shouldn’t say

easier, but without the added stress of unnecessarily lengthy

investigations. It will reduce that stress, and it will provide an

opportunity for the families impacted to close a

chapter of their life

with respect to what has happened to their loved one.

I’m really pleased that these two amendments, basically two

amendments, are coming forward. I really do hope that members from the

opposition agree with the government side and continue the process of

making this office more civilian-based. I’m really pleased that our

government has not only increased the funding for the independent office

but increased their ability. There are three teams of investigators now

instead of two. That’s going to help a lot.

They’ve really improved the support for the training program for

people who work for the independent office. So if you haven’t been a

police officer conducting police investigations but you have

investigation skills and you have the technical knowledge of how to

conduct the investigations, the Attorney General, the province and the

Justice Institute are working on a program to train people to work for

the independent office. I think that that process is important to

measure as we go along to make sure that the goals of government, the

goals of the province, are being pursued, that we’re getting closer to

having the system that we want. This is an important step towards

that.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity, and thank you to

the Attorney General for introducing the legislation.

D. Routley: I’m pleased to support this amendment to the Police Act and stand

in the House to support an effort to increase the capacity and ability

of the independent investigations office.

[11:25 a.m.]

It’s so important that British Columbians have faith in the

process — faith in their police force, faith in the courts, faith in the

political process. It is a challenge in any system when capacities are

exceeded. Any system that delivers a service will falter when capacities

are exceeded by an extraordinary amount for a long period of time, which

is what has happened here in B.C.

Of course, there is an attempt to fully citizenize the independent

investigations office — civilianization of the office is the term — so

that there is oversight from fully independent people who represent the

public. The task of doing such an investigation requires such technical

proficiency and legal proficiency that…. The office has found it very

difficult to recruit investigators over time, particularly from within

B.C., because of a rule that has a five-year limitation on service of

any ex–police officer in B.C. in the independent investigations

office.

This has placed a certain burden on the office in order to

maintain capacity. Not maintaining capacity means that investigations

don’t happen in a timely manner. Investigations not happening in a

timely manner means that families are left wondering and waiting at a

time when they should have resolution of their situations.

There’s also another change to the act which would ensure that

only cases with a reasonable likelihood of charge approval would be

referred to the Crown. That will go some distance to reducing the

workload of the office, given that some of the cases that have come

forward so far might not have come forward had that standard been

applied in the past.

Basically, not being able to hire police officers until five years

have passed since their employment as a police officer here in B.C. has

put considerable constraints on the office’s ability to hire and to

recruit. They have not been able to recruit from outside the

jurisdiction enough service to compensate for that challenge.

It’s important that this government act to support the functioning

and the efficiency of the independent investigations office. That’s what

these two amendments will do. They will restore the ability of the

office to keep up to its mandated task and to do it in a way that serves

people who are obviously in very difficult and challenging

times.

Obviously, the long-term civilianization of the office is a goal

that all of us, I think, would share — that an office tasked with

reviewing police-involved injuries or deaths would be fully independent.

And it is. But sometimes the best intentions can lead us to consequences

that weren’t part of the design. When the five-year limitation was

placed, it created a situation where it’s clear that the office would

not be able to recruit enough people from within the province. Then,

with other jurisdictions moving to establish similar offices, it becomes

more difficult to recruit people from other jurisdictions as

well.

This doesn’t mean that the independent office hasn’t been

attempting to keep up with this flow. It doesn’t mean that all the

people involved haven’t acted with the best intention and with

professionalism and efficiency. It’s just that when the demand is so far

in excess of the capacity of any office, it will, obviously, falter and

won’t function as it was designed to do.

The Attorney General has indicated that a new training program is

going to be put in place to ensure that a sufficient pool of adequately

trained and experienced candidates will be available to hire as

investigators. He said that once fully implemented, the planned training

program for civilian investigators will help solve this problem down the

road. However, British Columbians immediately need the IIO to complete

timely, comprehensive and high-quality investigations on extremely

sensitive matters.

[11:30 a.m.]

Obviously, when we’re dealing with these kinds of serious matters,

it’s not a simple government service. It involves, obviously, very

sensitive and personal issues in almost every case. And almost every

case is, by definition, very different. So the abilities and capacities,

the technical proficiency, of those who do the work need to be

maintained and need to be at a sufficient standard that we can go back

and ensure that people in British Columbia have confidence in their

police forces, in their court system, in the independent investigations

office that oversees the police and in the political process.

I think it’s all part of trying to restore and ensure a degree of

faith in the province amongst people who have, perhaps, been jarred by

recent news, with the prevalence of money laundering in this province

and challenges that have been, perhaps, politically motivated in

addresses that have been made to the Attorney General’s difficult

task.

I think that every little step we take that will help people feel

as though the system that protects them is just doing exactly that, any

step that we could take that would encourage people to not feel cynical

when they consider the likelihood of having a just outcome from a

complaint that they might have or a difficult situation they may have

experienced — all of this is important in restoring the faith of people

in the overall system.

These amendments deal specifically with the technical ability and

proficiency of the people doing the work, as well as the need to

maintain independence and freedom from any kind of bias. That is an

important perceptual difference that we must maintain. People must

perceive that there is that independence, and they must perceive that

there isn’t a conflict of interest on the part of those doing the

work.

Obviously, a five-year period where we can’t hire anyone who has

served as a police officer in British Columbia was put in place for a

very laudable purpose, in trying to maintain that there would not be,

perhaps, as many working relationships as there would be should there

not be a longer waiting period.

We face a difficult point of balance here, where the fact is the

office has not been able to maintain its orderly functioning, in that it

is not able to complete the investigations on time. It’s clear that it

has not sacrificed quality in the pursuit of quantity, but what that has

meant is delay and an inappropriate length of time to seek resolution on

the part of, particularly, families who have suffered a loss of one kind

or another.

It is an important bill, important to the Legislature. I thank the

Attorney General for being vigilant in trying to maintain the

functioning and efficiency of our judicial systems and policing systems.

I think that it’s a difficult task for anyone. I’m sure that the

complexities only grow as time goes on when we address any kind of legal

challenge in terms of public-policy-making.

Just as this five-year ban on hiring was a public policy decision

that was meant for the best of intentions, it’s one that brought

consequences that weren’t necessarily forecast or predicted. Therefore,

when we do take steps like this, we have to be additionally vigilant not

to allow ourselves to fall into a place where unintended consequences

would be the result of our actions here.

[11:35 a.m.]

I think the Attorney General has taken great strides and steps to

ensure that the steps taken would be intermediate in terms of trying to

preserve the functioning and efficiency of the office, while also

preserving the long-term goal of civilianization of the oversight of

policing in British Columbia.

With that, I will take my seat and thank the Attorney General for

bringing this bill forward.

S. Chandra Herbert: I should say I rise…. And yes, I’m wearing my Speaker garb absent

the robe. To be clear, it’s because I’m speaking as an individual

member, not as a presiding officer. I would remove the tabs as well, but

I know ties are required in this place, and I would not be allowed to do

that.

I start in just to say thank you to the Attorney General for

acting on this. The call to make the independent investigations office,

of course, independent and not arm-in-arm with police services was meant

to provide that independence so they could judge, from a fair distance,

interactions between the police and others where serious death…. Well,

obviously, death would be very serious, but a serious injury could also

be part of that. They assess whether or not reasonable steps were taken

by our police services to ensure that that didn’t happen, of course, or

that they were not involved in some sort of a criminal way.

Now, I sat as the Deputy Chair on a committee that looked at and

reviewed the independent investigations office about two years after it

was established. It was a challenging time, obviously. The office was

getting established, but we did, certainly, hear of some serious human

resource issues, some serious challenges in terms of being able to get

investigations completed and done in a fair way, in a good

way.

We heard from many people across the province about their desire

for a fair investigations process, because they wanted to have their

faith in their police services and in the justice system. I certainly

heard from police officers, as well, who were tired of people making

assumptions about them and the kind of work they did and wanted to be

clear that there is an independent process, whether it’s the Police

Complaint Commissioner or the independent investigations

office.

One of the recommendations that we made as a legislative committee

was — this was in 2016 — to make sure that we had appropriate

investigators. We heard about the challenge to hire people with enough

skill to be involved in these sometimes very highly complex

cases.

The legislated rule that they couldn’t be employed as

investigators here in B.C. for five previous years was lauded. People

thought that was a great idea and want us to continue down that path to

make sure that that does happen. But they also told us: “Don’t let

perfection be the enemy of the good, in the sense that we actually need

these investigations to occur.” We actually needed people to look at the

cases that were piling up. We need people with the skills to look at

them, not just anybody.

I think, certainly, you can go and do training at the Justice

Institute and many other places to get skills as an investigator to look

into these issues, but it takes time. It takes time to get the skills to

do the appropriate work. I think our police deserve skilled

investigators, just as the families and alleged victims deserve skilled

investigators, to make sure we get to the bottom of the story, because

crime scenes can be confusing places. People’s recollections get muddy

over time. Evidence is not always there, or it’s not always clear.

Sometimes it’s one person’s word against another. You need skilled

investigators.

This amendment is actually, in many ways, a direct response to our

report, where we called for the government to make it easier for them to

hire skilled investigators and not cut them off because of the five-year

time frame.

We set a course with caution. You want to still work to ensure

that we have skilled investigators. You want to train them. I’m glad

that the Attorney General and this government are dedicated to ensuring

we have more trained investigators to do this kind of work so that we’re

not as reliant on police officers from within B.C. Certainly, I think,

that is the direction that we continue to go in.

[11:40 a.m.]

We also have to recognize that in an economy as hot as ours, with

as many people working and with the lowest unemployment rate we’ve had

in many, many years, it’s challenging to find investigators just

floating around, with all the skills, not attached somewhere, not

already working. That’s the case all across Canada as well, I

understand.

Thank you to the Attorney General. I’m glad that although it’s

three years after we made the recommendation, we’re finally getting some

action on our committee report in terms of that specific request. I know

there have been a whole bunch of other changes within the independent

investigations office, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of

Solicitor General and within the police in general to respond to our

other arguments. Certainly, from what I’m told, things have improved

immeasurably in the independent investigations office since we did our

report, back in 2016.

Thank you to the minister. Thank you to the staff at the IIO.

Thank you to the staff at the police associations and police offices all

across B.C. Thank you to the advocates who also continue to stand up

for, sometimes, people who feel voiceless, who are not recognized, who

may have been hurt, who may have been injured and who want justice for

their own family and the victims as well.

It’s a tough job to enforce the law in this province. I have great

respect for those who step up to do it. It’s not easy by any means. I

think they deserve the best support we can give as a government. I thank

the minister for bringing some great support forward.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney General shall close

debate.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the members for their remarks in relation to the

bill, noting the challenges between balancing the goal of

civilianization with the reality of the IIO and their ability to hire

and train to date. As members have noted, there are significant steps

being taken to address that issue.

One member raised the issue of cooperation. I note that there is a

recent B.C. Supreme Court decision on the duty of cooperation. That

decision has been appealed to the B.C. Court of Appeal, and we’re

watching that very closely and waiting for the court to determine that,

at this stage, before acting on that issue.

With that, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the

Whole House to be considered at the next sitting…. Oh, pardon me. I’m

trying to get ahead of myself without a vote. That’s not how this place

works.

I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you. I now move that the bill be referred to a Committee of

the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after

today.

Bill 31, Police Amendment Act, 2019, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

Hon. D. Eby: I call second reading of Bill M206, Residential Tenancy Amendment

Act, 2019.

BILL M206 — RESIDENTIAL TENANCY

AMENDMENT ACT,

A. Weaver: I move that Bill M206, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act,

2019, be now read a second time.

I’m very proud to stand today in the second reading of the private

member’s bill that I introduced on March 7. I would like to take this

time to thank government for calling this bill for second reading and

for their feedback on it over the last two months. I’d also like to

recognize and thank the B.C. Liberals for making the first round of

family violence changes that were brought forward in the Residential

Tenancy Act amendments in 2015. Their work set the foundation for this

bill.

This bill before us today was developed in close consultation and

collaboration with West Coast LEAF and the Ending Violence Association

of British Columbia. I’m very grateful to both of them for their

advocacy and their leadership on this file. My office also spoke

extensively with LandlordBC, and they were very supportive of the

changes, just as they were in 2015, when the family violence provisions

were first brought in. I commend them for standing against

violence.

Lastly, thank you to the legislative drafters and editors who

worked through half a dozen versions of this bill to make sure every

word was just right and legally sound.

As canvassed in its first reading, this bill amends the

Residential Tenancy Act to provide tenants with the ability to end their

fixed-term lease if staying in their rental unit is a threat to their

safety or security. It expands on the constrained family violence

provisions introduced in 2015, and gives, for example, someone who is

sexually assaulted by their roommate or neighbour the right to break

their lease so that they can move to a safer home.

[11:45 a.m.]

The term “occupant violence” was first introduced and defined in

the bill presented at first reading to capture all violence associated

with the property, using an adapted version of the existing family

violence definition. After receiving extensive feedback from the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the distinction between who

is an occupant, who is a tenant and the overlap between the two may be

somewhat unclear to some people. So I’ve tabled, and you’ll notice on

the order papers, a number of amendments to try to clarify this. We’ll

move them at committee stage.

In particular, you’ll notice on the order papers the amendment to

section 1. We’ve changed “occupant violence” to “household violence,”

and that was based on extensive feedback from legislative drafters as

well.

The amendments adjust some of the language for clarity and

certainty, but the original policy intent remains. For example, I

propose that we replace the term “occupant vio­lence” with

“household violence,” as I mentioned, to prevent any confusion that

arises from using the terms “occupant” and “tenant” in overlapping

sections. That was advised to us by government’s suggestions, but the

policy outcome, as I mentioned, is the same. This amendment act gives

tenants the right to break their fixed-term leases if staying in the

rental unit is a threat to their safety or security.

Another amendment that you’ll see on the order papers may be made

to the commencement

section to give the minister ample time for

consultation with the third-party verifiers before it comes into force —

a change I was happy to make, as they are key to the success of this

section of the Residential Tenancy Act. As it currently stands, for the

family violence section, written third-party verification of violence

can be provided by police, listed medical practitioners, counsellors,

First Nations support workers, victim support workers and others. So the

definition with respect to who can provide information in the family

violence

section is carried forward into this tenants or occupants or

household

section of the bill.

The previous Liberal government did an admirable job with the

development of the regulation that they put in place with the 2015

legislation. Having regulations that extend the verification powers

beyond law enforcement is vital, as not all survivors will be going to

the police as their first step. Some will choose to focus on working

with medical practitioners, First Nations support, counsellors,

etc.

In the case of domestic violence, for example, the risk of injury

or death can actually increase if a violent partner learns their spouse

had contacted police or is planning to or is leaving. Having a range of

professionals able to vouch for victims will allow them to choose the

safest option that they believe is in their best interests.

This bill also makes it clear that the regulations listing which

professionals and practitioners are authorized to provide the

confirmation statement about family violence will have the same powers

in cases involving household violence. Although simple in its structure,

the bill will have a significant impact on the people who need

it.

The Ending Violence Association of British Columbia estimates that

there are approximately 60,000 incidents of sexual and domestic violence

in British Columbia each year, over a thousand cases a week. In the

majority of cases, that violence happens in the home. Once that happens,

the home may no longer be a safe place for the victim or their children,

and the implications of that shift from the home to the scene of a crime

are profound.

I’m proud to be advancing this bill that will give survivors the

freedom to seek safety, security and the space needed to heal. No one

should be forced to live in close proximity to their perpetrator. This

bill supports survivors.

S. Chandra Herbert: I want to thank the member, the Leader of the Third Party, the

Green Party, for bringing forward this legislation.

I remember back to 2015 when the government of the day did move

the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act — I guess it would have been 2015

— to bring in some protections for people fleeing or leaving, escaping,

running from domestic violence in their household. I think it was

important legislation at the time.

I want to acknowledge the current Attorney General, the member for

Vancouver–Point Grey, for his work as critic in opposition for

forwarding some of these concerns.

I also stood at the time and made arguments for including a person

fleeing from violence from a neighbour, from the landlord, perhaps, or

someone else. I thank the member from Oak Bay for reminding me of those

comments. There have been so many times, I guess, that I’ve stood in

this House around residential tenancy issues and working to try and

improve the situation….

[11:50 a.m.]

That one I forgot, hon. Member. I looked it up, and I see indeed

we were working then. I thank the member for raising this today. It

didn’t come up in the rental task force hearings, but it clearly matters

to the advocates. I know it’ll make a difference for people found in

this situation.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

That being said, I would like to move adjournment of the debate

and save my place to continue after lunch, if that’s all

right.

S. Chandra Herbert moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 26 — FINANCIAL SERVICES

AUTHORITY ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 26; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:05 a.m.

section 1.

Hon. C. James: As we have talked about in second reading, I think this is a

pretty straightforward piece of legislation. It does move to introduce a

new independent Crown agency. And as we talked about at second reading,

this really is an opportunity to ensure that our financial services

regulator is able to be effective, to be efficient and to deal with the

issues, the more modern issues, that have arisen in the financial

services area over the last number of years. So I look forward to the

committee stage discussion.

T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, and welcome, staff. This is a bill that is

relatively straightforward and, I think, something that we are

supportive of. We have a few questions, of course, and we’ll canvass

this.

I guess my first question would be with respect to the rationale

behind transitioning FICOM to a Crown agency.

Hon. C. James: As I mentioned, I think all of us would agree that we need to

ensure that a financial regulator can be effective, can be efficient,

can make sure that regulations are in place that serve, ultimately, the

people of British Columbia but, obviously, all the various sectors as

well — credit unions, insurance and trust companies, pensions,

mortgages. It’s a broad area covered.

As we’ve talked about, there’ve been reports come forward from the

Auditor General and others talking about some of the challenges that are

there at FICOM to do with the structure, to ensure there’s independence,

which really is the international standard.

In looking at and reviewing over the last year what structure

seemed to best meet the needs, seemed to meet international standards

and would ensure that kind of robust regulatory structure that was

important, we felt moving to a Crown corporation was that structure. It

will give us an opportunity, as I said, to be able to be consistent with

international standards and to be able to match up with best practices,

which, again, is that the regulators are independent.

As the member knows — we had a bit of this discussion in the

second reading — right now if there’s a surplus, for example, in the

budget, the regulatory organization, FICOM, has to bring that back to

government, not giving them the independence of a longer-term budget and

using those dollars to be able to meet the needs of the organization. So

this will also bring it in line with other provincial regulators, like

the B.C. Securities Commission.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

T. Redies: I wonder if the minister could explain how she sees the new Crown

agency functioning.

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: This

section sets out the powers and the duties conferred under

the act. Maybe the way I can begin — and if the member has more specific

questions — is just to talk about the current FICOM. Currently FICOM is

responsible for the regulation of credit unions and insurance and trust

companies under the FIA. The superintendent of financial institutions

also has regulatory power under the Insurance Act and the Insurance

(Captive Company) Act.

I think it’s important to recognize that, going forward, the

authority is going to assume all of the powers and duties of FICOM — the

pieces that I’ve talked about — and will exercise its regulatory

authority in those areas in the credit union, the trust and the

insurance sectors.

The mandate is actually being expanded. The mandate of the

authority is being expanded to include, as I mentioned, the pension and

the mortgage broker sectors. That will give the authority to appoint the

statutory decision–makers under the Pension Benefits Standards Act and

the Mortgage Brokers Act. So it expands that authority and basically

brings them under the umbrella. It provides the opportunity for all of

those areas to be covered under the new Crown corporation, which, again,

looks at efficiencies, looks at the opportunity for regulatory powers to

be robust and to be able to suit the needs that are there.

T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. These are all very

complicated businesses, as we canvassed in second reading.

Was there any concern or, I guess, a contrarian look at whether or

not it made sense to pull all of these complicated businesses together

in that — having the appropriate talent to run all of those businesses?

Was that looked at, at all, as a risk?

Hon. C. James: Certainly, all of those issues were looked at. It was a very

thorough review. We’ve taken the time to do the review around the best

kind of structure.

I think I’d point the member to two areas where that was taken

into consideration. One is the board and the board itself. We’ll see as

we get to further sections, but there is a requirement for those sectors

to be recognized in board appointments. So that gives, again, the

knowledge base that I think the member is referring to, making sure that

those areas are well represented. I think the board is one of those

strongest pieces where we’ll be able to get expertise from these

sectors, to be able to provide the oversight as the governance

board.

Then I think the second piece is the effective delegation, again,

which comes later in the bill. There will be a person to oversee the

Crown corporation, but effective delegation actually occurs to statutory

officers, and those statutory officers, again, will have expertise and

will be experts in their particular field.

I think that those two pieces will address the member’s questions

about how we ensure that all sectors are represented and well governed

in this organization.

T. Redies: Another issue we talked about in the second reading of this bill

was the issue that the current entity, FICOM, has in terms of finding

the right talent, mostly because of the wage restrictions under the

current authority.

[11:15 a.m.]

Again, in looking at making it a Crown agency to address that

issue, I wonder if the minister could tell us what she anticipates the

expected cost increases will be associated with this new Crown

agency.

Hon. C. James: The member is quite right. It’s certainly one of the issues that

have been raised by credit unions and others but also by the Auditor

General around staffing vacancies and the challenges of being able to

find staff at FICOM to fill those positions.

The organization is still going through their process. Obviously,

when the legislation passes, they’ll have the opportunity to be able to

develop their full budget. It is, as the member probably knows, a

self-funded organization. So the fees are paid by industry. Certainly, I

know the organization will need to go through that process of balancing

affordability for the organizations that pay fees as well as making sure

that they have a budget that will be able to attract and retain

staff.

I think there are two other pieces, though, that I’d mention as

well. One is that public sector guidelines…. Obviously, organizational

guidelines apply, just as they do with every other Crown corporation

around compensation. But I think the biggest piece…. And it comes back

to the independence. I think the biggest opportunity here for the

organization is that they will be able to manage their budget longer

term.

Right now every year the surplus comes back to government, and

they don’t have an opportunity to look at that longer-term plan, whether

it’s staff compensation, long-term guidelines around opportunities to be

able to recruit people or whether it’s their budget.

I think that the biggest benefit, from my perspective, is the

opportunity to have that independence and to be able to develop that

long-term plan, which will give them a chance to develop some of those

recruitment issues, address some of those staffing issues and do it in a

way that also continues to make it affordable for the organization over

the long term, rather than having to look at one year and then provide

the surplus back to government.

T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I mean, a number of these

businesses are experiencing challenges right now. So it is absolutely

vital that the new CEO and superintendent make sure that they balance

the need for cost recovery with the serious issues that the industries

are facing. I hope that that will be something that might be included in

the CEO’s mandate as an important balancing act.

We were talking a lot about the independence. I guess what I’d

like to understand, from the minister, is: what will be the FSA’s

relationship with government? Will it be fully independent?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: As with other Crown agencies, there’s a balance. There’s a balance

around accountability to government, to the people of British Columbia,

basically, through government. I think it’s important to just note that

they will be required to have a mandate letter. They will be required to

have a service plan. They will be required to have an annual report.

This is all through the Minister of Finance through their

accountability.

Their fees, for example, have to be authorized by government.

Again, that’s another check and balance. They’ll have to issue a

financial statement to be able to show their budget. Again, it’s a

balance around the accountability to government through those

mechanisms. But basically, they have operational and regulatory

independence.

Those are the pieces that will be in their control as a Crown

corporation and that they will do. Their reporting process brings the

accountability, then, back to government and to the people of British

Columbia.

T. Redies: Just to confirm with the minister, does that mean that the Crown

agency will not be used as an instrument of government

policy?

Hon. C. James: No. It’s important for that independence to be there when it

comes, particularly, to regulatory authority and operational authority.

That will be their mandate.

T. Redies: Again, these are really important questions, because for the FSA

to function properly it does need to have arm’s-length ability to make

independent decisions in these matters.

The minister has been speaking with respect to international

standards and bringing these sectors up to international standards. I

wonder if the minister could comment about how she sees these changes

fitting into the Basel core principles and what, if any, other work is

being done in that regard.

Hon. C. James: I think the biggest international standard that this meets and

that is critical and important and is, in fact, a part of Basel III —

but part of other discussions — is the independence of the

regulator.

[11:25 a.m.]

That’s really what you see in the moving to a Crown corporation.

It’s the ability to have that operational and regulatory independence,

which is one of the strongest recommendations coming forward.

That’s not the only place the Basel III discussions are occurring,

as I think the member knows. I know we talked a little bit about this in

the second reading as well. The Financial Institutions Act review is

still going on. That’s a review still happening. There is further

discussion around Basel III and other things during that review. Those

discussions will continue to occur. But the biggest recommending out of

Basel III is the issue of the independence of regulators, and that’s

what we’ve looked at in this act.

T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. We’ve been talking a little

bit about the need for balance with this legislation, and I think one of

the concerns I’ve had when I’ve read some of the releases of government

is that it makes this kind of overarching statement about the need for

these institutions to meet international standards.

[N. Simons in the chair.]

Of course — and I think I’ve said this in the second reading — the

risk profile, just for example, of the credit unions is quite different

from the risk profile of the big financial institutions. When you’re

talking about regulations, rules, there are costs associated with that,

and there are also impacts to customer service as well.

I guess my question to the minister is: how is she, through her

ministry, going to make sure that there is balance in this process? I

have actually seen the heavy-handedness of regulators, in some cases.

Again, looking to apply international standards is kind of like using —

dare I say? — a shotgun to kill a mouse. We have to be very, very

careful that the regulation is smart regulation, that it’s not excessive

regulation. I’d just like just to hear from the minister how that

balance is going to be maintained.

Hon. C. James: From this perspective, I think there’s no question that we agree

that B.C. has a unique context when it comes to credit unions, in

particular, and when we talk about international standards, it’s always

important to put them into the B.C. context. I would agree with the

member that it’s not taking the standards from somewhere else and

presuming one size fits all. We know that when it comes to B.C., we have

diversity. We have diversity in the size of credit unions, for example.

Different rules may apply in different kinds of ways.

That differential already exists in international standards. There

are those things taken into account when international standards are

looked at for provinces. That’s certainly our expectation. It’s critical

to look at how we support B.C.’s context and how we ensure that the

regulations that come in look at the differential we have in B.C., look

at the diversity we have in B.C., support it and not take, as the member

said, a heavy hand to one size fits all. That’s not the approach that is

being taken here.

T. Redies: I think the minister appreciates the uniqueness of, certainly, the

credit union system and the other industries in B.C. I guess my question

is more around: given the independence of the regulatory authority, if

there is a challenge in this area, what will the Finance Ministry do

about that?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think rule-making, which is kind of what I think the member is

referring to…. The discussion around that right now…. The authority sits

with the Financial Institutions Act. The discussion around rule-making

and constraints…. It’s not quite the word I want to use, but I think the

member knows what I mean.

Constraints, or checks and balances, on that regulatory authority

are being discussed right now as part of that review for the Financial

Institutions Act, looking at checks and balances like ministerial

approval, which would provide that balance that’s there. An appeal

process still remains, so if there were institutions, or others that

felt that there was a challenge with a rule coming forward, the appeal

is still there. So there’s no change in the authority around FICOM

moving to a Crown corporation.

That discussion — which is a critical discussion, as the member

points out — is happening through the Financial Institutions Act, and

the checks and balances are being looked at as part of that

consultation.

T. Redies: I appreciate that. Again, that’s very important.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

T. Redies: Again, the board of governors and its governance are a very

important aspect of the successful functioning of this new regulatory

authority. The minister was speaking a bit about making sure that there

was industry experience on the board. But the legislation is pretty

light with respect to that. It’s very general. I wonder if the minister

could talk about what the process is going to be in terms of appointing

the board. Is there going to be any consultation with industry on

that?

If the minister could also talk about what she sees as the main

duties of the board with respect to this authority.

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: Just to talk first about the process for the board…. The member

asked about the process. Just as with other agencies, organizations and

Crown corporations, it’ll go through the usual board process, CABRO

process, in government — merit-based, looking for people’s experience

and qualifications.

The member asked what kinds of things we’ll be looking for. I

think I’ve mentioned one already, which is financial services experience

in the areas that are covered by the Crown corporation. We want to make

sure, again, that we’ve got a variety of people with experience in those

sectors so that the sectors are represented.

I would suggest we’ll also be looking at how we balance corporate

board experience, governance experience that people may have had, with

financial and regulatory experience. I think each of those is important.

These aren’t people who are staff in the organization; they’re board

members. I think it is important, obviously, that they have the

financial and regulatory experience, but I also think if we’re able to

find people who have the corporate governance experience, that will

provide us with an ability to be able to look at that balance in the

role that’s there.

Then, I know, throughout the legislation — certainly in

section 8

— it talks about some of the authorities set out for board members. The

authorities will carry over, so there’s not a lot of change from the

authorities that carry over from the act. Where there would be some

additional pieces, obviously, would be to establish a CEO. This is a new

organization, so they’ll need to establish a CEO. They’ll supervise

management. Then the usual kinds of resolutions and bylaws and putting

the structure in place will also be board members’ authority.

T. Redies: Is the plan for the chair to be an independent chair or an

executive chair?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think I’ve got the member’s terminology, what the member is

using. Like the B.C. Securities Commission, they will not also be a

staff person; they will be an independent board chair, from that

perspective.

T. Redies: That’s good to know. I was asking that question because B.C. Hydro

has an executive chair. That’s why I was asking the question.

In terms of the makeup of the board, which I think is two to 11

directors, we’ve seen with other boards, at least from an industry

perspective, that sometimes there isn’t adequate representation from the

industry. Is there going to be a prescribed number from each industry

for the board? If there isn’t, is it the expectation that the majority

of the board will have expertise in one of the sectors that is being

regulated?

Hon. C. James: There aren’t prescribed numbers. We think, again, it’s important,

as I talked about earlier, to look at how we balance that corporate

governance experience with financial and regulatory experience. We want

to make sure that we have the sectors represented, but you see in the

broad numbers that we want to make sure that we’re broadly represented.

There aren’t specifics, but, again, we’ll be looking at all of those

sectors. We’ll be looking at people’s financial experience. We’ll be

looking at people’s governance experience and looking at that balance on

the board.

T. Redies: I wonder if the minister could enlighten us as to what she expects

the costs will be with this, with respect to the board.

Hon. C. James: It fluctuates, obviously, depending on the number of meetings.

Basically, the cost of the board is the per diems. The estimated amount

for the ’19-20 year would be $130,000. That’s been about the amount that

has been there for members. There are seven members now, moving up to 11

— again, a proportional increase. But this is based on per

diems.

[11:45 a.m.]

T. Redies: Just one quick question. Again, the importance here to get board

members who really understand the business is absolutely critical. On

observation, that doesn’t sound like a lot of budget to acquire the type

of talent that the minister is looking for. Is it the expectation that

that budget might increase, then?

Hon. C. James: That’s budgeted per diem. There’s a laid-out per diem within

government for boards, agency boards and commissions. That’s the

existing per diem.

Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

Hon. C. James: Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress

and ask leave to sit again.

The Chair: The members reserve the right to ask on

section 10. Thank

you.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); M. Dean in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:06 a.m.

On Vote 31: ministry operations, $20,698,339,000

(continued) .

Hon. A. Dix: I wanted to start by answering a couple of questions asked by the

member for Richmond South Centre yesterday. I promised to get

back.

The member had asked, with respect to care standards and facility

staffing in long-term care, what the number of facilities was under 3.00

and under, I think, 2.90. I think she asked those questions. Members of

the committee will know that the provincial standard is 3.36. At the end

of the fiscal year 2016-17, between 86 percent and 90 percent of

facilities in B.C. were below standard.

The member asked a different question, which is, essentially: how

far below standard were they? This is the answer. At the end of 2016-17,

88 care homes in B.C., or 30 percent of the total, were below 3.00. In

other words, approximately 20 percent below standard. At the same

period, a full 75 of those — and I’ll share the graph with the member

after the session — were below 2.90. So a full 26 percent of care homes

were below 2.90, which is roughly three hours and 15 minutes a week

below standard, per resident, in long-term care. That was at the end of

March 31, 2017.

What has been the effect of the measures that have been taken by

the government? As noted, there were 88 facilities under 3.00.

Essentially, when I became Minister of Health, at the end of the first

year of our plan to improve staffing levels, that number was down to 38.

We went from 88 to 38 under 3.00, which is, to say the least, a

significant improvement.

More significantly, on the 2.9 number, the care homes were almost

all either private or non-profit care homes. In fact, they were all

private and non-profit care homes. There were 75, as noted, below 2.90,

which was dramatically below standard, I would say, by any measurement.

That number has been reduced to seven. So we’ve gone from 75 which were

three hours and 15 minutes a week below standard to seven in the entire

province, which is, I think, an enormous success — for the government,

for the need for the policy, but also for the care providers and the

workers involved.

Those are the statistics there, and I’ll happily share this graph

with the member.

[11:10 a.m.]

The member had questions with respect to the care aide registry.

Questions had been raised yesterday, amongst others, by the B.C. care

providers. I wanted to note a few things about the registry. The

registry employs five people — that was one of the member’s questions —

to support the registry process.

The member asked about B.C. graduate registration processes. The

response is that processing time is usually five business days, with

proof of successful completion of a recognized training program for

HCAs. However, depending on the complexity of the application, of

course, some may take longer, but five days is the standard. So within

B.C., not a significant barrier.

The member noted some of the concerns around people coming from

either outside of the country or outside of the province. She will know

that in 2016, the Ministry of Health instituted a standard called the

nursing community assessment survey. That was a decision by the minister

of the day which changed somewhat and essentially raised standards for

care aides in British Columbia. That was the decision by the previous

government. That decision has had some effect, I would say, in terms of

the processing and the success of people making it through the

regulatory process.

That standard, which was established and put in place by

government and funded by government in 2016, was put in place for

international education in health care — in the international process,

for people from outside of Canada — on January 1, 2017, and for other

provinces in Canada, on January 1, 2018. So the decision was in ’16,

internationally applied on January 1, 2017, and applied to Canadians

from other provinces on January 1, 2018.

Just to give a sense, because the member asked questions about who

was getting through and who wasn’t, on the international side, there has

been a 54 percent application registration rate since the NCAS

implementation. You’d argue that was either significant or not. If you

believed in what Minister Lake was doing, then you would say that there

were people below standard, and this is raising the standard, and that’s

the consequence of that. Or you would say that there are concerns about

people getting through the process.

On students going through the Canadian process, there was an

overall 23 percent application to registration rate since the NCAS

implementation.

The member asked, I think, fair questions about that process, as

did the care providers. I’ll certainly be looking at that. But those are

the facts about those questions which the member asked

yesterday.

T. Wat: Thank you, Minister, for the time.

Richmond has the fastest-growing senior population in B.C., and

many of them are Chinese-speaking. In the next 15 years, the projected

growth of the 65-years-and-older age group is 121 percent compared to

102 percent for the province.

Surrey. The senior population is set to grow by 144 percent in the

next 25 years, and many of those seniors in Surrey are South

Asian.

These two largest ethnic senior communities are in particular need

of attention, as their language barriers and cultural concerns often

limit their options for suitable culturally sensitive residential

long-term care homes.

I’m glad to learn from the Finance Minister’s Budget 2019 speech

that this government is investing in senior care with hundreds of new

beds. Would the minister let me know if any culturally sensitive

residential long-term senior care homes are in the pipeline?

Hon. A. Dix: It’s great to be here. I don’t think that this room has been so

full in a long time. I’m delighted to see that, contrary to the fact

that we’ve moved from the Douglas Fir Room, we’re still drawing well for

MLAs. Anyway, this is good news.

I thank the member for her question. The short answer is yes.

There is a process going on right now in Surrey for new beds, and that

standard — the culturally sensitive standard — is key to that process.

It’s an RFP process, so the decisions are independent of me. But the

directions have been given, and that’s going forward.

I would expect more such processes in the future. I think they are

important. I think that’s important. Specific RFP processes for new beds

are important. As well, improving standards in existing facilities is

really important.

I think the thing we were talking about before the member got up —

raising care standards — is an important part of that. Ensuring that

people have access to the personal care that they need is very important

to that. I attended an event recently at Lakeview care home, which is

near Trout Lake in Vancouver, which I would say has a majority of

residents who are Chinese Canadian. You see that in the changes that

they’ve made in care standards and in the quality of care and in the

types of care, particularly around issues such as food.

[11:15 a.m.]

I think SUCCESS recently sponsored a very useful conference which

addressed some of these issues. The Premier himself attended a session

that was led by SUCCESS on that matter, so it’s a high priority for us.

You’re seeing that reflected in policy changes, in investments in the

sector, in improving standards in the sector, in improving supports for

respite care — which are very important for all communities, including

immigrant communities — and, of course, specific RFP processes that are

taking place right now, more of which are expected to follow.

T. Wat: I’m glad to learn from the minister that that’s the

priority.

Just now the minister mentioned that there’s progress in Surrey.

From what I understand, there’s not even one long-term residential care

home for the Punjabi-speaking seniors in Surrey. Right now they’re being

located in Surrey Hospital. I understand that PICS is trying to raise

funds for a culturally sensitive long-term care home in one part of

Surrey. Is the government funding this culturally sensitive long-term

care home for the Punjabi-speaking seniors?

Hon. A. Dix: There is, in fact, a process taking place right now which started

with an RFQ process. Obviously, we have competitive processes, so it

would not be appropriate for me to direct that process in the direction

of a particular organization. That will be judged on the merits of the

proposal. But culturally sensitive care is at the centre of that

proposal. If the member has been to the really extraordinary

assisted-living home run by PICS in Surrey, she’ll know the quality of

that care.

I would say as well, though — and this is an important fact — that

we fund a significant number of care homes in Surrey, in Vancouver, in

Richmond, and while establishing new care homes that focus on culturally

sensitive care is important, we’ve also got to take steps, it seems to

me, to improve the quality of care across the board.

We’re never going to fund, overall, enough care homes so that we

have one set of care homes for people who, for example, speak one

language and one for another. In Burnaby, as the member knows, New Vista

is building a care home. There’s support from the Korean-Canadian

community there. That’s an exciting proposal. So you are seeing these

proposals develop, and they are significant.

I wanted to give a couple of other examples of some of the

training that’s going on within, particularly, Vancouver Coastal Health

but other health authorities. For example, within Richmond and the area

of the hon. member, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority offers something

called DementiAbility, which is a person-centred approach to care that

acknowledges a person’s culture and background in framing how care is

provided. Part of it is training, part of it is communication and part

of it is establishing new standards to reflect the residents who are in

our care homes.

After all, these are, beyond everything else…. There’s always a

debate about this. We sometimes debate about whose home it is. Whose

home it is, is not the owner of the facility. Whose home it is, isn’t

the volunteers in the facility, although they’re wonderful. Whose home

it is, isn’t the staf