Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Tuesday, October

17, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 31, Emergency and Disaster Management

Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, starting at two o'clock and ending at 4 p.m., I

call Committee of the Whole on Bill 27, Money Judgment Enforcement Act.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 31 — EMERGENCY AND DISASTER

MANAGEMENT ACT

(continued)

T. Stone: I'm pleased to rise this afternoon to conclude my remarks on Bill 31. Before lunch

today, I just mapped out at a high level what I intended to address. I will proceed

in doing so now.

I had said that the frequency and the severity of natural disasters and events like

wildfires, floods and drought are becoming much more frequent and severe. We have

to therefore change in a significant way and modernize, frankly, how we prepare for

them, deal with them when they're happening and help people recover from them after

these natural disasters happen.

[1:35 p.m.]

I believe my last comment before lunch today was to basically put out there that the

test for me, with the bill in front of us, this Bill 31, is: does it actually get

the job done? Does it make substantive improvements in how we manage emergencies in

British Columbia?

I am going to talk a bit, in my time here this afternoon, about the types of concerns

and questions that we in the official opposition have with respect to Bill 31. We

do think that there will be a tremendous amount of additional pressure put on communities,

local governments in particular, and property owners as well, through this bill.

There are a number of areas, we believe, where while the legislation attempts to address

a challenge, it frankly misses the mark. There are other areas that have been completely

missed by this bill — areas that we think that the bill fails to address altogether.

I'm going to kind of walk through some of these concerns. Of course, we will address

all of this in a lot more detail during committee stage, when we move to that stage

of the legislation.

The bill has a required review built into it within five years, but interestingly,

there's no timeline for completing that review. We've got concerns over the undue

burden that this bill may place on critical infrastructure workers, as it would apply

to both publicly and privately owned systems, networks, facilities and assets. It's

unclear, frankly, how this legislation defines critical infrastructure and which owners

will actually be affected.

For example, what would the impact be on ranchers with dams on their properties or

logging companies with forest service roads? They have, as I said a moment ago, concerns

about what appears to be an enhanced burden on local authorities in this legislation.

Frankly, one of the most significant concerns that has been brought forward to us

in the opposition has come from regional districts and locally elected officials who

have said that it's not entirely clear in this legislation who would actually be responsible

for overseeing and managing a natural disaster, an emergency in the province.

It's all good and well and important to weave Indigenous peoples and First Nations

more into a central role in managing emergencies. It's great to talk a good game about

an enhanced role for local governments and so forth. What's not clear in this legislation

is: at the end of the day, who's going to be in charge when a wildfire is bearing

down on a community? Who's going to be in charge when roads wash out from floods?

There has to be someone in charge. You can't manage your way through emergencies by

committee. You need to have a deciding authority. That's not entirely clear. We're

very concerned about the fact that so much of this bill, Bill 31, is going to be brought

into life via regulation — in fact, the vast majority of it. For most of the critical

components of this bill, we don't actually have any idea what the government's thinking

is and what the government's intentions are.

There are a tremendous number of important areas in this bill that are to be determined

upon further engagement and consultation. I'm certainly fine with continuing to engage,

but the details are not spelled out in this legislation.

As an aside, in relation to that, it has become far too common a practice of this

government to bring in legislation that really, increasingly, just represents a framework

but doesn't provide the specific policy prescriptions and the intentions of government

spelled out in the legislation. Rather, those details tend to be increasingly coming

via order-in-council or regulations of cabinet.

I know how that works — I've been there; I've done that — but you would think that

on something as critically important as emergency management and modernizing how we

address all of these natural disasters, there would be more of these details actually

baked into the legislation. That is simply not the case.

[1:40 p.m.]

I did find it quite amusing that in announcing this bill, in the government communications

wrapped around it, the government says: "Well, this is three years in the making.

This was a process that was launched in 2020. This Bill 31 is the government's best

efforts to reflect work, engagement and consultation over the last three years."

The detail that the government misses out is that the former government had a bill

quite a bit more substantive than this one, with far fewer provisions that would provide

for orders-in-council and regulations, to modernize emergency management and encompassing

areas that this bill doesn't even address, like disaster financial assistance, for

example. We had a bill ready to go, not in 2020 but in 2017. In fact, it was the intention

of the government that I was part of at the time.

I was the line minister. I was the minister responsible for emergency management,

who had overseen a process to develop that legislation and have it ready to introduce

in this place. Obviously, there was a minor detail called an election. There was a

change in government at the end of that process. What I find most astounding is that

we see the severity and the prevalence of these wildfires, these droughts, these flooding

events and heat domes and so forth.

This is a government that has been in power for 6½ years. It's a government that actually

had a substantive bill — more substantive than this one that we're debating here today,

Bill 31, I would argue. We had a bill, with a whole bunch of modernizations in it,

6½ years ago. Why did the government not bring forward that legislation, and make

some tangible strides towards modernization of how we manage our way through natural

disasters and emergencies, 6½ years ago, five years ago or three years ago?

It has been one engagement and one consultation after the other with this government.

We've had some of the worst wildfire seasons in 2017, 2018, 2021 and now 2023. We

know about all the flood events. Members from different sides of this place have profiled

the significant impacts that flooding, drought and, obviously, the wildfires have

had in their respective communities. This has all been happening over a good number

of years now.

Is this a government that has actually embraced lessons learned from a bad wildfire

season? The answer is a resounding no. What we've seen is a continuous string of reviews

and task forces and pulling together of experts to assess the situation that was a

bad wildfire, a bad flooding event or whatever, and to bring forward the lessons learned.

Often it's reflected in very specific reports and reviews that have been done, with

all kinds of tangible recommendations, very few of which have actually been implemented

by this government over the years. The Abbott-Chapman report in 2018 — all kinds of

recommendations in there, a lot of which haven't seen the light of day. EMBC's interim

provincial disaster recovery framework in 2019 — again, lots of great ideas in there,

based on lessons learned, not brought forward and incorporated into the government's

decisions around how they're going to do things differently.

Speaking of the heat dome — I'll talk about this more in a moment — the coroner's

report in June 2022 was a very damning

summary of the heat dome that took place in

that summer, where we had a huge number of heat-related deaths in British Columbia.

Very specific recommendations came out of that report. Very little of that has seen

the light of day under this government.

Earlier this month, the Ombudsman issued a report that looked into financial support

programs for people displaced by extreme weather emergencies. Again, there are all

kinds of recommendations in there. You could almost see the copy-and-paste of those

recommendations from previous reviews and task forces that have been done.

It's not to cast aspersions upon the Ombudsman's office in and of itself. They did

their work. They felt there was a compelling reason to actually do their review, but

at the end of the day, in the recommendations, there was nothing significantly new

that hadn't already been determined as a worthy priority that would improve how we

prepare for fight and respond to wildfires, droughts, floods or heat domes.

It's time to get on with actually taking tangible action. The opportunity is in front

of us. That's why we will reserve judgment on this bill, overall, until we have had

the opportunity to ask focused questions in the committee stage, which will be coming

up.

[1:45 p.m.]

It's darn well time to get on with taking tangible action. I'll tell you that people

up in Monte Lake and the Paxton Valley…. I know that in the Cache Creek area and in

West Kelowna, places have been impacted not once but multiple times by wildfire events

in recent years.

Their eyes rolled into the back of their heads when they heard the Premier announce

not that long ago: "Guess what we're going to do — the action we're taking. We're

going to strike another task force. We're going to have another task force of experts

come forward and actually make recommendations on the types of improvements that we

need."

No, we don't need another task force. We need political will from a government to

actually implement changes and solutions — speaking of which, on Bill 31, I've got

a lot of questions. We'll ask them in committee. Where is the significant modernization

of disaster financial recovery? I don't see it in this bill. I don't see an attempt

in this bill to improve how disaster financial assistance works, which is a critical

financial support program for people impacted during and after wildfire events.

We recognized that this was a problem. As a caucus, as an official opposition, we

brought forward a solution to this, some very commonsense improvements that we rolled

into a private member's bill. I was the sponsor of that bill, but it was work that

was done on behalf of a wildfire committee of our caucus. We brought that forward.

I've brought that forward several times in this Legislature, and it sits dying on

the order paper. I'd be happy if the government took the ideas and just made them

their own and rolled them into their own legislation.

They don't have to call our bill, but in that bill, we basically provided significant

measures that would streamline and simplify the DFA claims process. We would set and

define an affordability metric for the DFA's "reasonably and readily available" insurance

criteria. A lot of people can't actually get DFA assistance because the need isn't

able to be established, based on the current criteria.

We expanded the scope of DFA to address issues pertaining to micropockets of the province

where no insurance coverage is available. I can't underscore this enough. There are

a growing number of places in rural British Columbia, frankly, most prevalent in the

Cariboo than anywhere else, but it's popping up in my backyard, too.

In Monte Lake, Paxton Valley and the Westwold area, the ability to access wildfire

insurance is actually not just inhibited because the premiums are expensive, so that

there's an affordability challenge, but in many cases, people don't even have the

option of accessing insurance because insurance companies won't provide the insurance.

These insurance companies draw a big black circle around an area. Sometimes it's a

50-kilometre radius; sometimes it's a 200-kilometre radius. Frankly, it's totally

subjective. They draw this big circle around it and say: "If you live inside that

zone, we're no longer going to underwrite your wildfire insurance for you."

What are people supposed to do in that situation? We suggested, as part of our solutions

in our private member's bill, to actually create a mechanism for disaster financial

assistance to be made available for people in areas where, legitimately, there is

no insurance made available to those individuals. That's a practical solution.

If it isn't to be delivered through DFA, then find some other mechanism, but recognize

that there's a heck of a lot of ranchers, farmers and families, often multigenerational,

in rural areas of the province who are now having to stare down the reality of maybe

not being able to continue to live where they live because they cannot get wildfire

insurance. It's just not available.

That's where government is supposed to step in, lift people up and help people out.

By the way, these ranchers and farmers are not looking for a handout. This isn't about

saying to government: "We want you to do all this stuff for us." This is about saying:

"This is, fundamentally, often going to be the difference between whether we can continue

to make a go of it here or not." There's a gap here that, through no fault of their

own, these people are falling through.

We suggested in this legislation to extend the application deadline to 120 days, extending

the appeal process, removing some exclusions and modernizing overall.

[1:50 p.m.]

We even suggested that perhaps…. In light of the fact that wildfire insurance is getting

more and more expensive, why don't we look at building in an incentive for people,

to make sure that where insurance is available, even if it's expensive…? Why doesn't

it seem like a good idea for government to help offset the cost of that expensive

insurance?

You could do that through some kind of grant program. It could be part of the homeowner

grant process, frankly. Where you live in a particular area, and you have a certain

postal code, the insurance rates are what they are, and the government will help offset

the cost of insurance. You have to purchase the insurance, right? You get an offset

against that purchase.

Again, these are tangible solutions that we have suggested with respect to making

disaster financial assistance, as it sounds, actually work for people who need it.

Nobody starts off a summer season or late spring season — it's getting earlier and

earlier in the year — thinking: "You know, there's going to be a big wildfire ripping

through my neighbourhood or my backyard. I best look at all the support programs and

this and that that are there." But people do expect that government is going to be

there for them when disasters actually do strike. Those are some tangible examples.

I'm very disappointed that this Bill 31 doesn't, in any tangible way, address the

very obvious need to dramatically restructure the B.C. Wildfire Service. I have tremendous

respect for all the men and women in the B.C. Wildfire Service, particularly those

on the front lines that are out there risking their lives. We tragically saw several

lose their lives this season.

But holy cow, is it time for the B.C. Wildfire Service to be completely and totally

remade. Massive, massive challenges in terms of the strategic focus. I'm talking at

the upper end of the management in B.C. Wildfire Service. You look at where Spain

is, where Mexico is, where Australia is, changes that they've made in California in

terms of the strategic focus of their B.C. Wildfire Service equivalents.

They have moved to a model, these other jurisdictions, of hitting fires hard and fast

with the goal of putting them out as quickly as possible when that fire is a mere

dozen hectares, not when it's 8,000 hectares a day or two later, and you attack it.

You have all this red tape and all these rules and regulations and things that have

to take place first. You actually get in there, and you attack it hard and fast.

This government made a big deal about a year-round B.C. Wildfire Service. Where the

heck are all these year-round people? If they're not management here in Victoria somewhere,

they sure as heck aren't year-round out across the province.

Yeah, I do know we have winter, and I know there are no fires in the winter. We could

build out that wildfire service, the firefighting capacity — including the aerial

assets, including the men and women on the ground — and have more to offer other jurisdictions

in the off months in other jurisdictions around the world. Just like we welcome others

from around the world to come and help us out when we've got the big fires, we can

send more people to help these allies of ours in other parts of the world. But you've

got to make those investments.

Part of hitting the fires hard and fast, by the way, is relying more heavily, in a

real and tangible way, on local contractors. There are some good Indigenous components

to this bill. There is an attempt, as I said earlier, to weave First Nations more

into the decision-making and management piece. That's all very worthy, and we support

that.

Let's talk about contractors for a minute. People in Kamloops, and certainly in the

smaller communities, are sick and tired of government saying every fire season: "We're

using every available resource out there." That's not true. It doesn't happen. Every

single wildfire season, our offices in the official opposition….

I know members opposite who represent rural areas get the same emails, the same phone

calls from contractors here in British Columbia that have assets that are not often

deployed, or they're only deployed for a portion of the year, or you can't be deployed

because your tax verification form has been lost inside the ministry somewhere. It's

ridiculous red tape. We've got all kinds of assets. Let's put these contractors to

work. British Columbia contractors, first and foremost — let's get them actually working.

[1:55 p.m.]

Related to that is relying on local knowledge. There are two very important communities

when you talk about local knowledge. One is Indigenous communities. Absolutely. For

a long, long time, Indigenous peoples who live on the land and are most intimately

connected with the land know the wildfire activity historically in their valleys and

where they live. They know the wind patterns. They know how to manage fire. We've

got to rely on them more. There are just some baby steps that have been made towards

that. We've got to accelerate that.

As importantly, there are, as I mentioned earlier, a heck of a lot of long-standing,

multigenerational ranching and farming families living in all these small communities

and that have been there for 100, 120 or 140 years. They know how to fell a tree,

know how to buck a log and know how to put a fire out. They often have excavators;

they have basic equipment.

Many of them have a basic level of training, and many of them are members of volunteer

fire departments, yet season after season they're often made out to be villains, instead

of being embraced as additional assets and added capacity. The B.C. Wildfire Service

goes into a community and then decides, for strategic reasons — usually it's because

they don't have enough resources to manage the increasing escalation and severity

of fires in a particular region — to pull out. And the locals are looking around,

going: "Where did everybody go?"

I tell you, like that farmer and that rancher, that in the absence of government being

there, the B.C. Wildfire Service being there, these people are going to say: "You

know what? I'm going to stay and look after my property and my home. I'm going to

fight to protect my dwelling and our homestead."

We should be supporting those people. You support them, as Australia does, as one

example. You build out an infrastructure of training and certifications. You stop

requiring them to fundraise through bake sales, meat auctions and whatnot. You support

them with direct assistance, so that they have the latest technology, the latest equipment

and gear, and you put them through their training paces and whatnot. They want to

do this.

Guess who will be the first on scene when that lightning strikes. It'll be a First

Nations person, or it'll be a farmer or a rancher who lives in the area. Because government

had their back up front and government has their back, these people are going to spot

these fires. In many cases, they're going to be able to put them out before they become

a raging concern. That local knowledge is critical.

The last piece is on the challenges around emergency support services. Again, the

Ombudsman's report was scathing. I implore the government to please expedite the consideration

and the implementation of recommendations in the Ombudsman's report, which is still

hot off the press. It was only a couple of weeks ago. Take those recommendations and

incorporate them into meaningful changes, so that people don't have to wait in hours-long

lines, only to be told that they're not getting a voucher that day, and so that people

are going to get the support they need.

From a recovery and rebuild perspective, we just have to do so much better, and expedite

so much, so that when people do lose their homes or they do lose their businesses,

they know that they've got a government that has their back and that's going to help

expedite the rebuild process.

The member for Fraser-Nicola today, very passionately, once again, spoke of the 869

days, or whatever the number is, that nobody in the village of Lytton has moved home.

Nobody has rebuilt in the village from the fire that razed their community to the

ground two years ago. That is completely and totally unacceptable, but there's an

opportunity inherent in this. That is to draw the lessons learned and make the changes

needed, so that there are actions reflective of doing things differently, putting

people at the centre of this equation.

As the member for Fraser-Nicola said so eloquently, this is all about restoring trust

with British Columbians. That starts by people seeing, feeling and knowing that there's

a government here in Victoria that actually has their backs when it comes to natural

disasters.

Madam Speaker, thank you very much for the time to weigh in on Bill 31.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers. I'm going to invite the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness to close debate.

Hon. B. Ma: I want to thank all of the speakers for their contribution to this debate. In addition

to their important role, the work that they do in their communities during emergencies,

they also come here, to the Legislature in Victoria, to use their voices.

[2:00 p.m.]

I am so grateful to them for sharing their stories, for articulating the various elements

of the legislation and their importance and for highlighting some of the areas that

would benefit from more discussion, which I look forward to through committee stage

debate.

I do want to acknowledge at this second reading closing statement just a few of the

themes that I've heard throughout the debate.

Firstly, there were a few comments that said this bill felt incomplete because there's

so much that will be addressed through regulations. However, this comment is often

also accompanied by an emphasis that we must be agile and able to evolve with the

rapidly changing circumstances that we face. So I want to note that the latter is

largely the reason why we do use regulations rather than building too many specifics

and details and becoming too prescriptive in the legislation.

The legislation provides a much-needed framework, but as most members of the House

know, changing legislation is not a simple or quick process, as evidenced by the fact

that this legislation was developed over multiple years and will take weeks and weeks

to pass through the House. Legislation, if too prescriptive, will not be as agile

as we need,

whereas regulations, policies and operational guidelines can be adjusted

on the fly.

That being said, I do acknowledge the desire for MLAs in this House to have more of

a line of sight into the development of those regulations given their importance.

That's important and valid feedback that I'll be taking back to my team.

I do also want to clarify that we are not currently consulting on the act. That was

mentioned a few times during debate as well. The current debate on the act is right

here in this House.

We have been working throughout the summer to educate on the act, but the public engagements

currently open until the end of the calendar year are on two discreet regulatory pieces

that are enabled by but separate from the act.

These are the Local Authority Emergency Management Regulation and a new regulation

on post-emergency financial assistance, the latter of which is work that is directly

relevant to a lot of the comments raised by members around how the current disaster

financial assistance program does or does not work well for people and communities

given the kinds of circumstances that B.C. now faces on a regular basis as a result

of climate change.

Similarly, I heard a lot of really important comments, stories, criticisms, feedback

from the on-the-ground wildfire response this year as well as the recovery process

from previous hazard seasons, and I want to assure members that we will be collecting

that feedback and plugging it into the task force and the ministries responsible for

the delivery of those operational responses and services, namely Emergency Management and Climate Readiness but also the Ministry of Forests as well as some other ministries, like the Ministry

of Agriculture and so forth, so that we can learn the lessons being offered by MLAs

as they've observed them in their communities.

Finally, I do want to acknowledge the feedback I've heard from members, that some

members have provided, around the five-year review. I want to emphasize that the five-year

review requirement is not intended to lock down the legislation for a minimum of five

years but rather to ensure that five years is the maximum amount of time that this

province goes without a fulsome review of the framework so that we don't end up with

another 30-year-old legislation, like the current Emergency Program Act that we are

working to repeal and replace.

The five-year review requirement gives us enough time to implement the act, establish

those negotiated agreements with First Nations that it enables and see how it functions

in real life, but it also does not preclude the opportunity to make targeted changes

to legislation if or when they're identified before that five-year timeline.

I know that there were a lot of other questions and a lot of other comments. Overall,

an excellent second reading debate. Lots of valuable feedback. Again, I want to express

my gratitude to all the members who participated.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 31, Emergency and Disaster Management Act, read a second time and referred to

a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. D. Coulter: I call second reading of Bill 36.

BILL 36 — POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 36, entitled the Police Amendment Act, 2023.

I move that the bill now be read a second time.

It's my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 36, the Police Amendment Act, 2023.

The bill amends the Police Act to clarify the process for police model transitions.

These amendments are responsive to issues that were identified during Surrey's police

model transition.

Under the Police Act, the Solicitor General has a statutory duty to ensure that an

adequate and effective level of policing is maintained in the province. Large-scale

police of jurisdiction transitions, such as what is occurring with Surrey, have the

potential to negatively impact the maintenance of adequate and effective policing

within applicable municipalities across the province.

Despite the statutory obligation, the Police Act does not provide a clear approval

process for police model proposals. The director of police services has a statutory

obligation to superintend policing, and the Police Act also provides specific functions

that the director is to fulfil. The Police Act does not currently list overseeing

police of jurisdiction transitions as a specific function of the director, and these

amendments will change that.

The bill is aimed at addressing the lack of clarity in the legislation related to

police of jurisdiction transitions by clarifying the process municipalities must follow

when they wish to change their police of jurisdiction. It will ensure that the process

is transparent and ensures that municipalities, police organizations and the minister

have clear responsibilities in any transition. It provides the Solicitor General with

the authority to require impacted municipalities and police agencies to provide information

needed to support a decision on a police of jurisdiction transition proposal.

Requiring that information is provided to the Solicitor General is needed as the lack

of clarity in the act resulted in delays and the ministry needing to sign confidentiality,

non-disclosure agreements to receive information from Surrey this summer.

The bill also provides the Solicitor General with the power to determine how a municipality

that has just crossed the 5,000-person threshold will provide police services in exceptional

circumstances.

This amendment is needed to prevent a lack of clarity about what would happen if a

municipality who has just become subject to the obligation to providing policing does

not submit a police service proposal for approval. The bill also establishes a legal

obligation for a municipality to implement an approved police of jurisdiction.

The lack of clarity in the legislation about the municipality's obligation to implement

their approved police of jurisdiction has negatively impacted the public's confidence

in policing in Surrey, and this is something that cannot happen again.

The bill provides that one of the functions of the director of police services is

to oversee police of jurisdiction transitions. The amendments also give the director

clear authority to issue directions to the parties involved in a transition. Providing

the director with this authority is necessary to avoid adverse impacts to policing

that could arise during a police of jurisdiction transition as the director will be

considering impacts to policing across the province.

These amendments also provide the Solicitor General with the authority to take action

if a municipality does not implement their approved police model or follow directives

issued by the director. If this occurs, the existing process that is set out in the

Police Act when a municipality fails to maintain law and order will apply. This would

allow the Solicitor General to appoint persons as constables to police the municipality,

use the RCMP to police the municipality or take other necessary steps.

The legislation also contains transitional provisions to specifically address Surrey's

current police model transition. The amendments require Surrey to provide policing

services by implementing the transition to the Surrey police service.

[2:10 p.m.]

This will provide clarity and finality to the people of Surrey regarding their ongoing

transition.

Transitional provisions also enable the Solicitor General to terminate the existing

agreement between the province and the city of Surrey for the RCMP service. This is

a technical change that will allow the transition to the Surrey police service to

be advanced without being subject to the timelines for cancelling RCMP services in

the existing agreement.

Finally, the transitional amendments authorize the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

to appoint an administrator to act in place of the Surrey police board during the

transition, if necessary. The ability to appoint an administrator is a tool that may

be used to advance the transition and to address more effectively some of the challenges

the Surrey police board is facing.

Elements of this legislation are similar to existing legislation in Alberta, Saskatchewan,

Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Ontario.

I am pleased to open up debate on this important piece of legislation.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Before we continue debate, I would remind members in the House that they should have

their telephones on silent.

M. Morris: This has been a fiasco right from the beginning. I guess I'd go back to…. I was sitting

in the chair as the previous Solicitor General. I understand the complexities of the

Police Act and the requirements of municipalities and my role and the role of the

Solicitor General in exercising the legislative requirements under the Police Act

in British Columbia.

Transitions from one police force to another, although not common, are not unexpected.

It's something that has been explored by many detachments and police agencies in the

province over the years.

The one that comes to mind, when I was sitting in that chair back in, I believe it

was, 2016, is Richmond, which explored changing from the RCMP to their own independent

force.

I recall having meetings with the mayor of Richmond and the exercise that they went

through, as a municipality, in speaking to the public and informing the public on

what the plans were, gathering all the information in a very transparent way and sharing

it with the people of Richmond until they finally arrived at the consensus that going

in that direction was not economical. It wasn't feasible under the conditions. The

RCMP were providing a very good service to the folks in Richmond.

I look at this. I'm sure the minister has looked at this, as well, and understands

this. All police agencies in British Columbia have to follow the law. The standard

operating procedures between….

Whether it be the Vancouver police department or the Surrey detachment or the RCMP

in Prince George or in Masset, all follow the same rules for collecting evidence and

for investigative procedures. The training and the accreditation that are required

for criminal investigators; for detachment investigators; for the run-of-the-mill,

general duty police officers or uniformed police officers in our communities, who

are serving the public on a day-to-day basis, are pretty much the same.

I sat down with the Justice Institute when I was the Solicitor General, and I looked

at a lot of the training programs that they had. I'm familiar with the training programs

that the RCMP have at the academy in Regina. I'm familiar with the ongoing training

programs that the RCMP hold in the Pacific Region Training Centre, the old CFB Chilliwack,

where they provide ongoing training and expertise to police officers through that

facility.

I have also worked, over the years, as an investigator. I recall, back in the '70s,

working with a member of the Vancouver police department on a file where we shared

similar fact evidence. We were looking at the same accused, and we worked collectively

together to ensure that we were able to successfully prosecute that individual. The

training that the officer from Vancouver had was…. I never once suspected that there

was any difference between our abilities to investigate an offence.

[2:15 p.m.]

As a supervisor within the RCMP, oftentimes we would share resources with other police

departments and other agencies, not only in British Columbia but across Canada. We

used to say that if we needed somebody that was able to leap tall buildings, we could

find one within the police universe somewhere in Canada.

We used to say if we needed somebody that was able to leap tall buildings, we could

find one within the police universe somewhere in Canada. We were able to get that

individual to assist us in the investigations that we had.

I'm the designated speaker, Madam Speaker.

The concept that one police department is better than another police department is

not the focus. It should not be the focus of this. The concept that one police agency

can do a better job than another police agency should not be the focus and the impetus

behind a transition that we see taking place right now in Surrey. The ability of a

police force to do things differently does not change from one police force to the

other.

In all my experience as an on-the-road police investigator or a supervisor or a police

manager…. The last ten years I was in the RCMP — I was in charge of the northern 80

percent of the province for all the policing, the municipal contracts, provincial

policing and federal policing throughout northern B.C.

Trying to get the resources to get the job done was always an issue and always something

that we were mindful of in our HR departments and whatnot, but it was something that

we looked upon to get the job done. Try and keep the crime rate down. Address the

crime rates in the communities. Those are the kinds of concepts and those things that

I looked at as a police manager and as a Solicitor General.

The only difference that I found over my many years in policing, my 32 years in policing

and my time as the Solicitor General and sitting in this House and listening, often,

to the debates dealing with public safety, has been the resourcing level of the individual

police departments or police detachments.

We see that in the police statistics. These are documents I used to refer to on a

regular basis when I was the Solicitor General and a police manager in maintaining

some kind of monitoring of the effectiveness of our police agencies across the province.

We have police agencies that had caseloads here in British Columbia as few as 18 or

20 criminal cases per police officer per year. Pretty low. We also had detachments

in British Columbia where we had caseloads around 400 and 500 criminal caseloads per

officer per year. Insurmountable odds that those individuals had to face in order

to get those investigations done.

When I look at municipalities like Surrey — and we have 31 municipalities in British

Columbia that are policed by the RCMP and that are over 15,000 people — I look at

how the average caseload per officer in British Columbia is 63. Pretty good. In my

estimation and in my experience, I would say that once you start getting close to

that 50 range, I think that's the optimum level. Workload for a police officer is

around 50 to 60 criminal files per year to investigate, so they can do that eloquently

correct investigation, so we don't see any cases tossed out.

So 63 isn't bad for an average for those 31 detachments. Surrey falls in there at

47, so Surrey is below the average for caseload per RCMP member in British Columbia.

The crime rate in Surrey is 65 crimes committed per 1,000 population. Pretty low.

The average for those 31 detachments is 83, so Surrey is way under the average, again,

but we have crime rates in some communities over 200. Several over 100, 150 crimes

committed per 1,000 population. Those put significant stressors on the detachment

and on the police officers that work in there.

I know there've been discussions about recruiting and the inability of police departments

— not only the RCMP but police departments in British Columbia and across Canada —

to attract resources. But I have to say this — that up until a couple of years ago,

the RCMP was probably the worst-paid police agency in Canada. It lagged behind on

an average of about $20,000 per year for a constable in the RCMP versus constables

working in the independent police departments outside of the RCMP.

[2:20 p.m.]

That's significant. We saw a mass exodus of RCMP members leaving the RCMP to go and

join those other police forces to take advantage of that $20,000 bump in salary. That

affected the ability of those detachments in order to function and carry on the workload

that they were supposed to have. It also discouraged a lot of people from applying

to join the RCMP at that particular time.

Thanks to the National Police Federation, the union for the RCMP…. They lobbied on

behalf of the RCMP. They talked to Treasury Board, and they were able to gain those

significant salary increases for the RCMP at all rank levels so that they are now

as competitive as any other police agency in British Columbia.

That has changed the dial on the people that are looking at policing as a career choice

in B.C. and across the country. I think that puts the RCMP in pretty good stead now,

for the last year and a half or two years, on that.

The other problem that we see with policing — and the independents face the same thing

as the Justice Institute — is trying to…. The people that look after the Justice Institute

in British Columbia are trying to predict how many more cadets British Columbia is

going to need to train, basic training, in order to fulfil the obligations under the

municipal contracts with the independent forces. They try to do that.

Everything was skewed when all these other police officers were leaving the RCMP to

go and join the independent forces here. It significantly reduced the number of cadets

going through the Justice Institute and skewed their results as well. It takes them

time to gear up and start training the new cadets coming in.

The RCMP is no different. When people quit applying for the force or contracts right

across Canada decide "I don't think we're going to take those extra 50 or 100 or 200

cadets this year because our municipal contracts can't afford it" or the province

can't afford it or a number of reasons why, then the RCMP academy in Regina dials

down.

They will ship their seasoned instructors back off into the field, and they will resume

their duties in the field. Then, all of a sudden, we have turnarounds, where police

forces are asking for more contract resources, and we have to turn the dial up on

the academy in Regina. We do that.

This has been going on now for decades. It goes in cycles. Depot does have the capacity

to train well over 1,000 cadets per year and fulfil their obligations, not only in

Surrey or Burnaby or anywhere else in British Columbia but right across Canada.

I recall, when I was the Solicitor General…. The city of Surrey asked for 100 new

RCMP members for Surrey. It was just dropped on the RCMP. "We need 100 more members."

They got 100 more members. There was no question. It took a while to get those members

on, but I think within a year, they were fully functioning. They had all the 100 members

there, without impacting the operations of the detachments around the province or

across the country.

The shoulder patches and the uniforms that the men and women wear are all guided by

the same jurisprudence, the same evidence-gathering techniques, the same interviewing

techniques. The same laws apply when it comes to surveillance techniques and recording

conversations. All of those things are guided by law.

I just go back and say…. The only difference between a police force with a low caseload

per member and a police force that is struggling to maintain 75 to 100 cases per member

is the resources that are made available to them by the community or by the respective

government that is looking after them.

That was one of the things that we had to monitor. The minister is in the same position

that I was when I was the Solicitor General. You have to monitor that and try and

find that balance between the ability of a community to pay and what an acceptable

or an adequate and effective level of resourcing is under

section 2 of the Police

Act.

There are no metrics for that. That was one of the things that I looked at. If I was

ever to pop the hood open on the Police Act, perhaps, maybe, we could put some metrics

around

section 2 and say: "If your crime rate falls before such and such…." Then,

perhaps, we should look at ensuring that that municipality or that contract adds the

necessary resources to address those.

[2:25 p.m.]

Again, when I look at the statistical data for the Surrey detachment, with a caseload

of 47…. That is extremely good. There are 24 detachments within that 31-detachment

group that are higher, and some significantly higher, than Surrey.

Bill 36 has me concerned. When I see the sledgehammer approach that this government

is taking to deal with a municipal government that does currently have the authority,

under the Police Act, to determine how they're going to be police…. They're going

to take a sledgehammer, and they're going to smash this ant of a problem and force

Surrey to do their bidding.

Under

section 15 of the Police Act, Surrey is responsible for paying all the costs.

Section 15 of the Police Act is the one that I'm sure that the mayor and the council

in Surrey have concern about, as all municipalities do.

It says that "a municipality with a population of more than 5 000 persons must bear

the expenses necessary to generally maintain law and order in the municipality and

must provide, in accordance with this Act, the regulations and the director's standards,

(

a) policing and law enforcement in the municipality with a police force or police

department of sufficient numbers (

i) to adequately enforce municipal bylaws, the criminal

law and the laws of British Columbia, and (ii) to maintain law and order in the municipality"

and provide adequate accommodation, equipment, supplies, etc.

Municipalities like Surrey, which has an RCMP contract, are encumbered with 90 percent

of those costs. The RCMP, federally, pay 10 percent of those costs. The province has

no skin in the game with this.

Looking at the statistical data, which shows that Surrey is actually operating as

one of the safer communities in the province, with a low crime rate overall in respect

of all the other communities that we have in the province and a low caseload, I can't

see a reason why the minister and government would be going in the direction that

they're going right now. I can't see the data that indicates that Surrey is not a

safe community. Surrey is a very safe community.

The undue pressure that the men and women in both police services, the RCMP and Surrey

police service, have been under in Surrey since this whole fiasco started in 2018….

They need to be commended. They have continually done an outstanding job to ensure

that the citizens of Surrey are living and playing and working in a very safe community.

In addition to the RCMP municipal forces that we have in Surrey…. Surrey also has

the RCMP divisional headquarters in Surrey, employing hundreds of people living and

working in the community of Surrey. There are integrated policing units in Surrey.

This goes, again, to my argument in support of…. It doesn't matter what shoulder patch

you wear.

We have integrated policing units in Surrey, operating in Surrey and throughout British

Columbia, the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit, that look at and deal with

the organized crime and the drugs and the whatnot that we have right across the province

here. That unit is comprised of members of just about every independent force and

RCMP force in British Columbia. They work very well together, and they do some very

good work in bringing a lot of these folks to justice.

We also have the traffic units. We have forensic identification units that are integrated,

where everybody works side by side.

We have the platform that the B.C. Liberal government brought in back in the early

2000s, when Rich Coleman was the Solicitor General, PRIME. What it did is…. It brought

all police agencies in British Columbia together under one platform of operational

file maintenance so that everything was recorded on the same platform. Police agencies

had access to information from one agency to another. We could track individual criminals

going from point A to point B throughout the province.

Those were the things that established police working collectively together right

across the province for the good of people in the province.

[2:30 p.m.]

There have been situations in the province in the past where agencies haven't worked

together. PRIME addressed that and other….

The travelling criminal in British Columbia doesn't care what shoulder patch a police

officer wears. They don't care about the boundaries of municipalities. They don't

care whether it's federal jurisdiction or provincial jurisdiction or municipal jurisdiction.

All they care about is taking advantage of the weak and vulnerable people that we

have in all of our communities and selling drugs and doing whatever they need to establish

their lifestyle in the province here.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Relying on one police force in a transition, like this has been presented to us, to

me is not the issue here. I think that what we see and what we've seen take place

since 2018 has been more politics than it has been focused on the safety of our communities,

of Surrey. Politics should not come into play when it comes to public safety.

I look at the initial intent of the mayor at the time, in 2018. I looked at that initial

report that was written. I went through it in detail, and I was flabbergasted at the

lack of detail I saw in that report and the false assumptions that were made in that

particular report. It was void of anything that I — and I'm sure the minister felt

it, as well — could have made to support it from a Solicitor General perspective.

I'm sure that's why he had another look at that and designated another individual

to take another look and provide another report.

When I looked at that initial report, it was my estimation based on…. I'd only been

out of that chair for a matter of months when that took place, but it was my estimation

that the estimates in that report were about $200 million short of reality for that

change. The metrics never got any better throughout that whole process.

This is, I'm sure, the concern of the municipality of Surrey. What is it going to

cost the municipality of Surrey to implement a brand-new police service who have to

look at bringing on their own equipment, all the information management systems, the

training? There are a number of issues that they have to look at there. It will be

the responsibility of Surrey to pay those costs. And none of that was articulated

in a form that I saw that I could have any confidence in and make a decision saying:

"Yeah, this is the way we're going to go."

The other factor that indicates to me that this is political is that the current mayor

of Surrey ran on a platform that they would retain the RCMP. This was a significant

factor for that whole community. The election results came in, and that mayor won

her election.

This Bill 36 to me is an indication…. It's the government taking a sledgehammer, like

I said, to kill an ant. It has disallowed the mayor — duly-elected mayor — to retain

the RCMP, which was her legislative choice under

section 3 of the current act. She

was exercising that choice, and she was exercising that choice because, as I read

into the record earlier,

section 15 says that the municipality of Surrey is wholly

responsible for all the costs incurred for policing within that community, wholly

responsible for providing a detachment and a lockup and all the necessary infrastructure

for a police operation to work in that particular community.

Those are big dollars when you're looking at a police department with 850 members,

let alone the support staff that a lot of these police agencies have working within

the building as well — hundreds of people employed in the infrastructure that supports

that. So this is a big ticket item.

[2:35 p.m.]

In my experience, policing generally accounted for 25 to 40 percent of a municipality's

budget — large municipalities, small municipalities. That's a significant amount of

change when you look at all the pressures that a municipality has in order to provide

the services for the people that live within the boundaries of their area and to maintain

the infrastructure that they have.

When the minister this morning in question period reiterated several times that his

focus was on public safety — I'm looking at the reports that initiated the transition

— and then, unfortunately…. I would have liked to have seen the report that the minister

relied upon, with the 500 pages of redacted information on there, to find out what

was in there that compromised public safety to such a degree that he would take this

sledgehammer approach to the city of Surrey and try and cut them off at the knees

so they have no choice in how their community is policed.

I looked at the crime resources and the crime data that we have in B.C. I looked at

Surrey. As I've mentioned, low caseload, low crime rate in comparison to many others

— a crime rate of 65 crimes per 1,000 when two detachments in B.C. are over 200. That

has a significant impact on the resourcing level of those particular detachments.

If the minister was citing that there are public safety issues in Surrey and he's

going to bring the sledgehammer approach and going to take all options away from municipalities

to determine how they're going to be policed, what about these other police departments

and detachments in British Columbia with crime rates at 208 and caseloads of 120 or

165 cases per officer per year? Will he be knocking on their door as well and saying:

"Listen. You guys are not doing a very good job here, so step aside. We're going to

come in, and we're going to ensure that plan B takes place without any input from

your local government." That's not right.

We've got 64 RCMP municipal contracts in B.C. in the large — 15,000 and above — municipalities

in B.C. or the 5,000 to 15,000 municipalities in B.C. When I was a district officer

in northern B.C., I think there were 12 municipal contracts that I had under my area

of jurisdiction. On a regular basis, I would present before council and I'd say: "I'm

looking at the crime rate. I'm looking at the caseload per member. I'm looking at

the effects that the high, heavy workloads have on the members of this detachment.

I think you need to add more resources to that." But it was anecdotal. I could only

provide the anecdotal information based on my own experience.

Oftentimes I would have 100 or 150 criminal investigations in my file cabinet at the

different detachments I worked at. I solely was responsible for the conduct of those

criminal investigations, to try and get them to a point where I could prosecute or

recommend prosecution for the various offences. Some of them were very serious offences.

That's when you start making mistakes, like I mentioned earlier. That's when you don't

take a statement properly, following the jurisprudence and the protocol set out by

the court. That's when you forget to provide a warning for somebody. That's when you

overlook a certain judicial authorization or process and getting that authorization.

At the end of the day, you throw a serious investigation, the prospects of charge

and prosecution, out the window because you don't have the time and resources necessary

to spend on that. That's what I looked at as a Solicitor General and a police manager:

is public safety being compromised by these excessive workloads?

In the early 2000s, maybe late 1990s, I was concerned enough about the anecdotal presentations

that I was making to the various municipal councils that I went to my boss. Bev Busson

at the time was the commanding officer for British Columbia.

I said: "There's something wrong here, and I would like to study this. I'd like to

get some money and get a group of people to look at this and find out how the complexities

of policing have changed since the Charter came out in 1982, but even before that,

and how it has affected the cost of policing right across the country."

[2:40 p.m.]

I did get a sum of money for that, and we were able to hire a local university here

in British Columbia to do the study. It was a 30-year analysis of complexities of

policing. I can't remember the exact title that they gave it at the end of the day.

It came out, and it did indicate that in 1973, when I joined the RCMP…. That was the

start of the study area, and it went for 35 years.

We looked at all the different laws that had changed during that period of time, and

impaired driving comes to mind because impaired driving is a common file that our

police officers face, unfortunately, in many of our communities across the province.

The amount of resources that it took to investigate an impaired driving offence and

take it to court had increased something like 600 or 800 percent between 1973 and

2002, I believe it was.

That's significant, and that's an impact on these detachments. I was looking at the

detachment numbers, where a detachment had an establishment of 30 members in 1980,

and in 2002 they still had 30 members. Yet the law had changed. The constitution came

in and changed. Then the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came in and changed, and the

Bail Reform Act came in.

We looked at all the different case law that impacted the complexities of all these

investigations, and we found that domestic violence offences took 1,500 percent more

resources to investigate and get to the point where we could prosecute if necessary

or find alternate means, yet that was hardly looked at by the governing bodies and

municipal governments. Even the provincial governments, to a significant degree, ignored

that information and still piled all the work on the police officers out there to

get the job done.

And they did. The police officers worked tirelessly to get the job done. They worked

under extreme circumstances. They worked under extreme threats of violence, in many

cases. They worked hours without their families, because they just have to work, particularly

in theses small communities. They're on call all the time.

There are a number of things that impacted the lives of the police officers to the

point where it caused a lot of separations. It caused a lot of anxiety, and then when

you mix that with the pay scales and the differences with the RCMP and municipal forces,

there was no question why we couldn't attract recruits to the RCMP. It wasn't because

of anything more than the money.

The ability…. The career that an individual has within a police service of any kind

— it doesn't matter what shoulder patch you have — is far-reaching. It's not just

a career as a police officer. You have individual careers in the marine section, running

boats, flying airplanes, becoming a forensic expert in certain fields, becoming an

expert in a multitude of different disciplines within the policing milieu that is

required, that every service requires.

There are a lot of people that are attracted to that kind of a lifestyle — the ability

to transfer around the province. A lot of people just want to settle in one community,

particularly when they've got a family. They want to settle in a nice, friendly little

community or a large community that has a neighbourhood where they can raise their

families and carry on without any worry, and they've got their job every day.

There are a lot of folks out there that join the force to travel, to experience life

in the Arctic, to experience life in the mountains, to experience life in the small

First Nations communities, to taste that culture and to look at how life is in another

part of the world. They gain their expertise in those areas, and they transfer from

one detachment to another.

That cross-pollination is what helps the RCMP and any police force that does that

to develop the expertise and the experience that we need in today's world of policing.

Today's world of policing is not reliant upon going out and doing something. It's

relying upon somebody with a breadth of experience to deal with a multitude of personal

issues that we see in our communities.

[2:45 p.m.]

You become a counsellor. You become a negotiator. There are a number of things that

you do in order to talk somebody out of a situation or to convince somebody that the

direction they're going is the wrong direction.

It's a fulfilling role, and at the end of a 32-year career, I counted the number of

lives that I know I had saved, and I know that the same thing happens with the members

in Surrey and Burnaby. It doesn't matter where they are. Vancouver police department,

New Westminster police department, Victoria police department — all these men and

women who are working relentlessly and tirelessly every day to make their communities

safe.

I look at the situation that Bill 36 addresses here — Surrey transition. I wonder

how it feels to be a police officer working in Surrey when you know that the provincial

government is trying to kick them to the curb and has voiced their opposition to the

RCMP as the police force of jurisdiction in Surrey. Conversely, the members that have….

A lot of them are RCMP members that have quit the RCMP to go and join the Surrey police

service, probably because it's new. It's exciting. "There's a brand-new police force

in town. Let's go and try it out for size."

They'll find out that it's the same old, same old once they get into the car. The

badge on the car is a little different. The badge on the shoulder is a little different.

But the work is going to be the same. It was something new.

They've been working in this era of uncertainty now since 2018, and that uncertainty

was getting worse and worse and worse. The mayor was trying to make her point with

respect to: "We're the ones that pay the bills." People in Surrey are the ones that

are paying the bills. They're the ones that are going to be forced to pay these exorbitant

prices for a police force that the majority of people in Surrey voted not to have.

So it put her in a bit of a predicament, and I can't blame her for pushing back and

fighting to try and maintain her ability to follow the legislative process, to abide

section 3, their choice to retain the RCMP as their police force of jurisdiction.

At the same time, the province was working against that. That's why I say it was political.

It was motivated politically more than it was on the basis of public safety. Public

safety has not been compromised in Surrey, according to the statistical data I've

seen here.

Now, if there's something different in this report with the 500 redacted pages that

has caused the minister to be so concerned about public safety in Surrey that he has

chosen to bring this sledgehammer approach in there, I think it's time that all of

us have the ability to see it.

All of us here in the opposition ranks and the people of Surrey need to see: "My goodness.

What is compromising the safety in our community that is so significant that the minister

and this government have taken a sledgehammer to the ability of municipalities to

choose their own police force?" I think that's the crux of the issue here. We need

to find out what that information was.

Now, the minister has alluded a couple of times to the fact that it relates to the

RCMP's inability to staff, to their concern as the province of jurisdiction in B.C.

here, where we will see RCMP members coming from outside of Surrey to join the Surrey

detachment. It will impact the ability of these other detachments to provide that

level of service.

But that won't happen. As a detachment commander…. I was a detachment commander at

one time. I oversaw 40-odd detachments during the latter part of my service. It's

incumbent upon the detachment commander to make sure…. There's an operational requirement

to make sure that we have proper staffing levels, to ensure that there's an effective

and efficient level of policing in all of our communities.

I've seen it many times. I've signed off on the paperwork for many situations like

that, where I'll say, "Yes, Constable So-and-so or Corporal So-and-so. I know you

would love to get down to Armstrong or Vernon or wherever you might be," or Surrey,

in this case. "But unfortunately, because of the resources that we have" — we've got

a member on sick leave; we've got another member disabled or whatever the situation

is — "we need to retain you for at least another six months to a year. Can you live

with that?" You negotiate those kinds of things at the end of the day.

[2:50 p.m.]

Then you also, at the same time, go back to our HR office. You say: "HR folks, I've

got a member that really wants to transfer down to such-and-such a detachment. It's

going to leave a vacancy here. He's one of our senior members, so I'm hoping that

you can find another senior member somewhere in the thousands of police officers that

we have here in B.C. that would come and replace that member when he decides to go."

We also need to make sure that we have a cadre of cadets that are coming in that we

can rely on to fill in the blanks and to start the training. These smaller detachments….

The big detachments gobble up a lot of cadets on a regular, routine basis as well.

The ability to go and work in a small detachment where you experience firsthand….

You know, you're the first person on the scene for a homicide. You investigate the

serious sexual offences because there's no other policeman around. You're the one.

I recall, many times, driving by the window of a store in some small community when

I was a police officer. I'd look in the window, and there's little me sitting in this

police car with the white doors and the crest on it and people looking at me as one

of the resources in town that was going to help them. And I'd think: "Oh, my goodness.

Okay."

That's a heavy responsibility when you're in a community, and I'm one of three, one

of six or one of ten police constables. You get to know a lot of…. You learn the ability

to deal with people in a very tactful and diplomatic way, particularly when the nearest

help is two days away or three days away. That gives you different skills as well.

When those folks end up going to a larger detachment, they bring those skills with

them. They can de-escalate situations to a significant degree, and they're a real

asset. The cross-pollination that we get, the training that the RCMP members get throughout

the province here and across the country is second to none because of that. That's

one of the reasons why.

Now, the opportunity is available, and I've seen many members from municipal forces

join the RCMP in order to get that kind of experience and then go back to another

municipal force a few years later with those skills in their pocket, and they become

a much better resource for that particular community at the end of the day.

There are just so many factors that lead to good policing — other than shoulder patches,

other than inventing a brand-new police department in British Columbia. We've got

12 independent forces in British Columbia as it is. I guess 13 wouldn't make much

of a difference. But is it necessary at the end of the day? I don't think it is. It's

not going to provide any different level of service to Surrey unless they add the

resources — very similar to, perhaps, what Vancouver police department has.

At the Vancouver police department, they're running probably about 400 more police

officers than Surrey is for about 90,000 more people and a much smaller geographical

area. Their caseload per member in Vancouver…. I'm just going off the top of my head

here. I think it's somewhere around 32 criminal files per officer in the city of Vancouver.

That's because Vancouver has chosen — that's their right as a municipality — to resource

their police department the way they want to see that resourced. Surrey is doing the

same thing, but they're using the RCMP.

What's also happening with this political battle that has been going on in Surrey

since 2018…. No new resources have gone into Surrey to increase the number of police

officers looking after Surrey, yet I think it is the fastest-growing municipality

in British Columbia. It adds thousands of people to the community every year.

Where are the subsequent resource increases in policing to augment the increases that

we see in population in Surrey? I think that has been overlooked, and Surrey is going

to be under the gun again very quickly, if it isn't already, in under-resourced policing

because of the increase in the population that we see in Surrey. That needs to be

addressed.

I'm sure that the mayor has that on her radar screen as well, but for her to plan

how they're going to move forward under those kinds of pressures is impossible in

today's world because of this situation, this political battle that the province or

the government has gotten into with the municipal government in Surrey.

That needs to be straightened out. We don't need the sledgehammer approach. We don't

need a new police department and people thinking that a new police department is going

to change how Surrey is being policed.

[2:55 p.m.]

Surrey is well served. It's a very safe community in respect to many, many other communities

in the province here. It has got an adequate level of resources to address the crime

rate that we see in Surrey right now. The crime statistics that I'm reading from are

from 2021. Things have changed slightly since then, I'm sure, but not to the point

where it would raise the spectre of public safety to the point where the minister

is going to bring in a sledgehammer approach to deal with this particular situation.

I'm looking forward to the committee stage on this. We'll have a lot of questions

to examine all the different issues that we see here. We will try and get to the bottom

of whatever this disastrous public safety issue is that the minister has been referring

to. Hopefully, the public will be able to make their own decision as to what that

looks like.

So until the committee stage, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this.

P. Milobar: I just rise to take my space on Bill 36 to make a few comments and observations around

the bill and maybe bring a bit of another perspective to concerns around the situation

that's unfolding that we see with Bill 36.

So there are a few aspects to this. At its core, I think, it speaks to an underlying

theme that's been developing under this Premier's watch.

Municipalities are free to do what they would like — under the laws that they operate

under, under the province of British Columbia — as long as those municipalities are

doing what the Premier wants them to do. But if they try using the powers afforded

to them under the Community Charter and other pieces of legislation that goes contrary

to what the Premier might like, legislation gets brought in, in this place, to override

that.

It can be as singularly focused as a single piece of property in Vancouver, as we

saw back in April on Bill 26, when the government said it doesn't even matter what

a judicial review might find in terms of due process being followed or not. The government

wants a certain project to move forward. Therefore, they will override any community

concerns, any judicial reviews, and change the laws to suit their liking.

We see the same with Bill 36. I think it's important to look back on policing in British

Columbia and realize that for decades upon decades upon decades, municipalities have

exercised the ability to figure out what policing model works best for them, as long

as it's meeting the threshold of public safety.

Now, you know, there are a lot of people that feel that fire services are mandatory,

and they're not. You need a fire inspector, and that's about it. Municipalities choose

to have fire services because it lowers their insurance rates.

Police is a different matter though. Policing does need to be done to a standard that

will ensure public safety.

The reason there seems to be a lot of confusion as to what's happening in Surrey and

what's happening with Bill 36 is that the government seems to be, on the one hand,

saying that they don't feel that the RCMP can provide proper public safety measures

in Surrey — even though they policed Surrey up until recently, as the police jurisdiction

of record — but they're a fine public safety police force for the rest of the province

that relies on them for municipal forces.

So that type of contradictory thinking from the province makes one wonder why Bill

36 is needed when there hasn't been proper transparency around why it is necessary

to go against the wishes of the mayor and the council on something like this.

Again, as the speaker before me pointed out, this really isn't about what badge or

patch any police force is wearing. We would be having these same conversations had

the decision of the government been the reverse, potentially, and they were bringing

in this type of legislation.

[3:00 p.m.]

It's really, at its core, the legislation and the sledgehammering that is being taken

to the process that municipalities have to decide what type of police force they would

like.

The fact that the government has lacked so much transparency on this creates problems

across the board. If there's not going to be a substantive cost increase to the taxpayers

of Surrey, why is the province offering $150 million? Every time the minister gets

pressed on this, he seems to indicate that there might even be more money available

for Surrey.

At the same time, the minister refuses to acknowledge that there's a financial impact

to every other municipality that has an RCMP detachment in this province based on

his decision. There are shared administrative costs that come into play. Surrey, being

a very large detachment, will, of course, change the formulation of everyone else's

share of those costs. Where's the money to offset and to help those municipalities

— Kamloops, Kelowna, Richmond, Port Coquitlam, Prince George, to name but a few? No

discussion from the government.

Bill 36 gets brought in as a sledgehammer to say: "We don't care what a particular

municipality wants to do, even though they are, up to this point, in their legal right

to be doing it. We're going to change the law." That seems like a pretty heavy hand

of government to come down.

We see it play out time and time again. We see it play out on housing with this government.

We see it play out on a wide range of issues with a municipality.

Now, I can tell you that municipalities…. Again, we've not seen this problem. We've

not seen this trying to go back and forth from police forces, within a municipality,

regularly happen.

The fact that we need to bring in a piece of legislation, that the government feels

it needs to bring in a sledgehammer piece of legislation to override municipalities

would indicate the province has handled this very poorly to this point. It hasn't

been a problem up until this point. The only common denominator in this problem so

far has been this government.

I can tell you that when the RCMP contract was renewed for 20 years, there was a lot

of discussion at the time about going another 20-year term or not. There was a lot

of discussion at the time about the fact that municipalities could opt out, at any

time, of that 20-year contract.

I know. I was the mayor of Kamloops at the time. I wound up on the RCMP contract management

committee set up by the province and UBCM to manage that contract on behalf of all

municipalities around this province.

There was discussion in Kamloops at the time about whether we should continue on with

the RCMP or not. There are regularly conversations in municipalities on this topic,

because they have the flexibility to do that. Even then, there was a very clear and

open acknowledgment that if a municipality wanted to transition in this new 20-year

agreement, it would likely take at least two years to properly transition. Well, here

we are, year 5.

This government has failed miserably in trying to facilitate the transition, if they

wanted that to happen, over the last five years. We are where we are today, with Bill

36, because of the failures of this government. Now they need to, once again, try

to point the finger of blame at anyone but themselves.

As we've heard, police agencies post-Pickton share information now. It's called PRIME.

That's the bigger piece of this. Police agencies do all operate with the same set

of laws, with the same operating procedures. With PRIME, they actually take information

in very similarly now.

Again, I know this because I was on the board of PRIMECorp, which actually managed

that information software. When there were heads of the various police agencies….

New West was there. VPD was there. The RCMP were there. There were municipal forces.

[3:05 p.m.]

Their highest ranks were there. You'd have conversation after conversation around

how to make sure that the information gathered from one force to the other would fit

into that information-sharing software.

Did one police agency have to change how their form was structured to match up with

other police agencies or not? It was that granular of conversations between all these

police agencies to make sure that the public was well protected in British Columbia

and lessons were learned from the Pickton case around gaps in policing in British

Columbia. Then it evolves, and it evolves.

Municipalities don't shy away from these types of conversations. The difference over

the last few years is, again…. This is a government that seems to think that municipalities,

subject after subject, and with Bill 36 highlighted once again…. You're allowed independence.

You're allowed to have your own decision-making as long as it's a decision that the

Premier agrees with. Otherwise, the legislation will change.

That is fundamentally wrong, and it's a problem. When you look at Bill 36, what this

really is trying to do is, once again, circumvent legal processes that people reasonably

expect.

Now, I obviously didn't have a vote in Surrey. To me, this isn't really about that.

But people did vote, and there are arguments back and forth. Low voter turnout. Was

this strictly how you voted or you didn't vote? We go through those exercises in this

chamber all the time, at a provincial level, at a federal level, at a municipal level.

You're trying to interpret the will of the people based on a vote.

The bottom line is that municipalities do have that ability to make changes, election

after election. It's rare that it would happen on policing. Has the government's response

been to fully show the public and all British Columbians…?

Now with the $150 million — and climbing — offer on the table, this is impacting all

the taxpayers in British Columbia. With the administrative costs that are going to

be downloaded to every other jurisdiction in the province that has the RCMP as their

municipal police force, this is going to impact all of those municipalities, as well,

with no conversation from this government yet.

Is the government response, with that as a backdrop, to provide the information and

the detail and the costing to the public, not just in Surrey but for the whole province,

so people can have an understanding of why certain decisions are being made? No.

The solution by this province, by this Premier, is to bring in a piece of sledgehammer

legislation to, once again, override the decision-making authority and autonomy of

municipalities and just say, "Trust us. We know best. Trust us. One badge is safer

than the other," even though the other one had policed that jurisdiction for decades

and continues to police the vast majority of the rest of the province — at least,

the geography.

Communities have always had that freedom and that flexibility to make that decision,

recognizing it might cost more or it might cost less depending on the badge and the

level of policing within the realm of safe communities. They get to make that choice

whether or not they would rather spend more money on policing or not as local taxpayers.

It's not just big cities that make that choice. Nelson made that choice. I don't know

how long ago. They have their own municipal police force. They were fully within their

right to make that decision. It might cost them less today, might cost them more today.

It doesn't really matter. They had the ability as a community. I'm hard-pressed to

say they haven't been policed. Public safety is taken care of in Nelson, New Westminster.

Abbotsford has a long history of how that evolved.

[3:10 p.m.]

With Bill 36, you might as well just tell municipalities that whatever the Premier

wants is what you're going to get for public safety in your community. That's fundamentally

the problem I have with Bill 36. It's based on years and years of my own personal

experience at the municipal level, dealing with RCMP contracts, dealing with policing

contracts, dealing with policing information software that spans more than just the

RCMP.

This really isn't about what Surrey is choosing to do or not do. This is about the

reactions of this province, of this government and of this Premier, time and again,

whenever a municipality decides to invoke the powers that they have to determine what

they would like to see done in their own community, and that's fundamentally wrong.

If the government and the Premier is willing to bring in a sledgehammer like Bill

36 on this, just as they did on housing on Bill 26 and just as he did with Penticton,

where he made sure they knew he had 1,000 tents that he could have shipped up to Penticton

if they didn't like a shelter he was going to put into their community, what's next?

What's next on this government agenda to look at a municipality and say it doesn't

matter?

We've seen the so-called naughty list with housing that's come out. Questionable targets,

a questionable way to calculate it. But again, take that out of the equation, and

it's the mindset. It's the mindset of not only are we the government and we know best,

but we're the provincial government, and when things we're doing are messed up and

are being fumbled along and not being implemented well, we'll find someone else to

blame. If that person or agency is not willing to just accept the blame, we'll change

the legislation around to make sure the public thinks it's really that they're to

blame.

I've not seen this government take any, any semblance of responsibility for things

going on in housing, for things going on with affordability, for things going on with

policing and for catch and release. It's always someone else's fault. It's always

something that happened 20 years ago, or it's something Ottawa did or didn't do, or,

in this case of Bill 36, municipalities daring to actually — I don't know — follow

the rules that have been laid out for them and decide what they want for their community.

That's not a way that you build cohesion in a province when issue after issue keeps

having a downloading effect on municipalities. It does make one wonder when municipalities,

privately, when you talk with them — I still have quite a few relationships and connections

in municipalities across this province — when you have private conversations, how

unhappy they are about things like this happening, but publicly, how they don't really

raise up.

We've heard the same from agencies. It makes you wonder what's being said to them

behind the closed door about access to future infrastructure money or other programs.

Because if the very public legislative agenda by this government, as witnessed in

Bill 36 or Bill 26 or other pieces of legislation, is any indication, you do as they

say or else. You do as the Premier wants or else.

[3:15 p.m.]

Municipalities are duly elected. They go through a very rigorous process, just as

everyone in this chamber does, to get themselves elected. I've never met a mayor and

council that doesn't take their job seriously. Some perform a little bit better than

others, admittedly, across this province at various times. But that's the ebb and

the flow.

To their core, they all are doing what they feel is right for their community. All

you have to do is watch a city council meeting in any community in our province and

watch how much they wring their hands over if they have to add $10 to your recycling

bill for your blue bin pickup in a year and what that does, and the worry they have

about the cost pressure that might have on a home.

So ask yourself why Surrey might be pushing back as hard as they are about a policing

transition where the province won't release any information around what the true cost

impacts to the taxpayers of the residents of Surrey is going to be, while still dangling

$150 million out for a limited time only, and then, when there's the slightest bit

of pushback, saying there might even be more money on the table and not wanting to

acknowledge that all the other municipalities with RCMP detachments are going to see

an increase in their administrative costs when Surrey is no longer represented by

the RCMP.

Just put that lens on it. Just think of your own local councils who take what your

overall property tax bill is seriously. I know people always think that they just

spend at will, but they really don't. They're very constricted. Unlike the provincial

government, they can't run a deficit. Local governments aren't allowed to have a budget

that is in deficit. They don't get to just have $7 billion in deficit, as our current

Finance Minister has, and shrug and say: "Well, inflation is good news."

That's not how municipalities operate, because they're bound by laws by this provincial

government and all provincial governments, and they accept that. So then when you

see Bill 36, which is going to change the laws and their flexibility and their autonomy

to make decisions, it's problematic for municipalities.

Now, most municipalities…. Surrey has a much larger scale than Kamloops, roughly ten

times the size, roughly ten times the size of the detachment as well, just to use

round numbers, to make things a little bit easier. It's not quite ten, but it makes

this analogy much simpler.

So if there's a $10 million cost impact to the residents of Surrey, it's very similar

to a $1 million cost impact to the residents of Kamloops. Why that's important is

that most municipalities all operate the same way. They have limited resources for

revenue. Property taxes collect about 8 percent of all the taxes you pay federally,

provincially, municipally. Municipalities only receive about 8 percent of that. So

they have fees-for-service, things like swimming pool and skating rink fees and stuff

like that, and then property taxes. That's it.

Policing and fire account for 40 to 45 percent of the taxation budget of every municipality

in B.C., especially if you have the RCMP. It might actually be higher in Vancouver

and those, but I'm going to speak, because that's my reference point, of RCMP — 40

to 45 percent of your taxation budget.

Why that's important is because there is no fee-for-service for the police. There's

no revenue offset that the municipality can charge to offset that cost of the police.

The police is about 50 percent. It's about the same cost as most fire departments

are in most cities, which means 20 to 25 percent of the overall taxation budget —

your property tax bill — is policing.

So if you hear a mayor and council pushing back as hard as they are and a provincial

government refusing to talk about costs, just ask yourself: why would a municipality

push back that hard on something? It's because it's a major budgetary line item.

[3:20 p.m.]

People go to a mayor and council and say: "You need to bring our taxes down." You'd

say: "Okay. Well, police and fire are about 40 or 45 percent of the budget, so now

I've got 55 percent of the money to work with. I haven't hired one person to clean

a park, one person to do any roadwork." None of the services that you expect in a

city have been even paid for at that point, and they only have 55 percent of your

property tax bill left to work with.

The cost impacts and pressure of policing are…. Policing is 100 percent needed in

a community. No one is remotely trying to say that is not the case. But to try to

pretend it's not a massive cost pressure to every single municipality simply isn't

accurate. It is.

When I read Bill 36, which is the Premier saying, "You shalt do what I want now because

you're not doing what I wanted to this point" and "Oh, by the way, here's $150 million

plus to offset the costs of the decision this government made," knowing that that's

still going to be an extra cost added on after the fact, that's all I need to know.

It's not about the badge. It's not even about the topic at that point. It's about

a government trying to change a law to run roughshod over any mayor or council without

providing open and transparent views into why that is needed and what the true cost

to that municipality will be.

The precedent it sets just continues on with this government. Time after time after

time, you're going to see this continue to happen. It's happened in Penticton. It's

happened in Vancouver. It's happened with the naughty list on housing, the so-called

naughty list. It will continue. And it shows a mindset of a government and a Premier

that knows best, that will only accept what a municipality is doing if it is 100 percent

in line with what that government is doing.

They don't even want the courts to weigh in on this, with Bill 36. Why are they worried?

Why is the government worried about the judiciary taking a look at everything unfolding?

If it's all rock solid and defendable, I would think they would welcome that. But

instead, in Bill 36, it's trying to attempt, just like it did in Bill 26, to remove

the judiciary that's supposed to be independent, an independent judicial oversight

that people in this province are supposed to have access to. The government wants

to remove that. Again, ask yourself why.

I'm not from Surrey. This, to me, is not about SPS versus RCMP. This is about process.

This is about a government that has failed miserably over the last five years and

created a huge problem within a municipality and will not provide transparency. All

indicators are saying that there must be massive cost implications on this provincial

decision if they don't want to provide any of that. Then they end it all by Bill 36,

to take away what are existing rights of a municipality.

The fact it happens to be about policing is really neither here nor there. As our

critic from Prince George–Mackenzie has pointed out, policing will still happen. The

public will be safe. I firmly believe that. But this is about a government that, for

whatever reason, refuses to be transparent while, at the same time, doubling down

and bringing in sledgehammer legislation.

It's worrisome. It's problematic. And sadly, it's starting to be a regular occurrence

from this Premier and this government. I think everyone in B.C. should be nervous

about that, because again, if you take the actual SPS versus RCMP out and layer in

just about any other topic, this government has shown a willingness to go there.

[3:25 p.m.]

That is why I have issues around Bill 36, and that is why I can understand the concerns

that we hear emanating out of Surrey and surrounding communities around how this has

been mishandled by this Premier and by this government to this point.

I thank you for the time on Bill 36.

Hon. H. Bains: I stand in support of this bill. I've lived in Surrey almost all of my life since

I've been in Canada. It's a great city. The diversity that you enjoy in that city,

the food, the people…. I think they deserve the best and less than no one when it

comes to services. I won't get into how Surrey had been neglected.

I continue to hear, coming from the other side, why we shouldn't be doing certain

things in Surrey, whether it's health care services or education services. We have

a whole list. Public transportation. I won't get into that because that's not what

the bill is all about.

I go back to the time when the previous council was running for election. Their main

platform was that they wanted to bring their own police. They made all kinds of good

arguments: that Surrey is the largest city in the province that doesn't have their

own police force, that they have no control over how the policing model is utilized

to deal with the diversity and the special needs of the city.

They were successful. The mayor at that time, Doug McCallum, and his council were

in a majority. They fulfilled the promise that they made that they wanted to bring

in their own police force, and they would relieve RCMP services with thanks.

I want to say that many people talk about all kinds of different things. I will not

get into the good and the bad of different police forces. I would say that the RCMP

has a great history in this country, in this province and in Surrey. Since that time,

there are all kinds of arguments being made, whether the RCMP should be providing

policing in communities or they should be concentrating on different, higher levels

of service that our country and the province need. I will not get into those arguments.

I do want to talk about…. The people of Surrey have gone through a lot. First, the

council said that they have given us the mandate to bring in their own police force.

So they followed the process, contacted the province, and they received the okay to

go ahead. Talk about the local government's authority.

They said: "Yes, go ahead. Bring your own police force." The transition committee

was put together, and they looked at whatever was needed. They recommended that Surrey

police services made sense. They were almost halfway to succeeding, to continue to

have Surrey police services established as the police in Surrey.

Then the next election came. The next election was debated that, no, they want to

keep the RCMP, and they were successful. They have the majority — the current mayor.

Now they want to go back to the RCMP. What I'm trying to say here is that different

politicians, different political stripes, come, and they make those arguments. One

said: "We want to move on to Surrey police services." Next one comes in and, "No,

we want to go back to the RCMP," although we are halfway through the transition.

[3:30 p.m.]

Where are the people of Surrey? Their safety and security, in the meantime, is being

compromised. That is one thing that is missing with all the arguments that are coming

from that side.

When they talk about the mandate — yes, that's democracy. That is part of democracy,

but we also have to make some commonsense decisions. How many people actually voted,

and how many people voted for that particular mayor versus all the others who were

against that proposal? You can make all kinds of arguments, but at the end of the

day, it has to have the people of Surrey and what is good for them.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

What is good for the people of Surrey? Their safety and security is exactly what should

be at the centre of the discussion. That is being missed here. Sides are being taken,

but that's not what this House should do. Analysis was done when the Solicitor General

provided the information that he requested. The independent analysis was conducted,

and numbers were given that $150 million over five years, or $30 million, was short.

This government decided that Surrey citizens should not be responsible for that extra

cost. So what does the government do? They said: "Okay, we will come in and provide

$30 million a year to fill that gap, over five years."

I think this government is doing everything that it can to make sure that the safety

and security of Surrey and Surrey people and their population is looked after. That

is the number one driving force under this act. That's exactly what this act is all

about.

City, you made a decision to go in one direction. Now you want to go back in the other

direction. What stops you even then, next year, from saying: "No, we made a mistake.

We want to go back to the Surrey police again. We'll call it something else." Or the

next mayor comes in, and they say: "No, no. We don't like this. We are going to go

back to something else." Well, you can't run a city like that. You can't leave people,

especially their safety and security, in limbo like that, in uncertainty like that.

What this act does is say: "City, you make up your mind. Once you make up your mind

that you're moving in that direction, you move in that direction." You can't have

a decision going back and forth and back again. How do you run a city like that?

Politicians can make that decision. "Well, this is more convenient for me to do it

this way." But the people of Surrey are saying: "Move on, people. Move on. You made

a decision to bring in the Surrey police, now move on with the Surrey police." They

have asked the B.C. government, "Help us, because there may be a gap in finances here,"

and the province responded with $150 million.

All we need is cooperation from the city government. People are crying out for help

out there. They're saying: "You made the decision. Move on." They want to get it over

with. They want to know that if they make a phone call, if there's a crime, if they

witness a crime in front of their house and they call police, someone would respond.

That hasn't happened over the years. That hasn't happened.

I remember that one city mayor running for the position said: "We will bring in 100

new police officers." Obviously, they knew that they were short 100 police officers.

Well, why not bring ten a year in the previous ten years? It's not the fault of the

police force. It was that those politicians made those types of decisions. Did they

bring those 100 additional ones? People questioned. Did they? You know, this cry for

help continues on.

[3:35 p.m.]

We were making a phone call that I witnessed a crime in front of my house. They will

take your phone call, but no one shows up for hours, if at all.

I want someone from that side to walk with me, a few neighbourhoods, and I will show

you how many people will tell you they made a phone call and no one showed up. It's

not the police force's fault. They prioritize their calls. They have to, with the

limited resources they were given over time.

I think what people of Surrey are saying is: "Let's have our own police force. We,

then, can decide what kind of policing model we need so we know that when someone

makes a phone call, their call will be answered and responded to." That's all they're

asking.

I think this is what they are saying. You have a nice house. You have a nice neighbourhood.

You have a nice job. But they don't feel safe in their own home, or they walk their

kids in their neighbourhood, in their neighbourhood park, and they don't feel safe

there. If they don't feel safe while they're using their public facilities, nothing

else matters. Nothing else matters.

People of Surrey are tired of this back-and-forth and back-and-forth position that

the city of Surrey has taken. They are saying: "Let's move on." You made a decision.

You're halfway through. Let's have your own police force. The province is willing

to help you bring in our own police force so that we can have safety and security

better than before.

Is this going to solve all our problems when it comes to crime? Probably not, because

solving crime is very, very complex. There's no one answer, and people understand

that. But let's not make this a political football, as some people are trying to make

it in the city government and here in this House.

Let's look the people of Surrey in the eye. They are asking for help. They said: "Don't

just go back and forth and back again." Their safety and security, their children's

safety and security, is important. We've seen incidents where shots were fired even

at a school.

People don't feel safe in their own homes. They understand that there are issues out

there. But what they are asking for is that when they make a phone call to the police

station, their call is answered in a timely fashion and is responded to in a timely

fashion. That's all they're asking. That's not too much that they are asking.

Let's not make this a political football any more than it has been out there. Let's

pass this legislation and move on. That's exactly what the people of Surrey want us

to do.

E. Sturko: I'm just going to speak for a couple of seconds here about a couple of statements

made by the member for Surrey-Newton. I want to clarify that it's actually not about

a transition back to the police of jurisdiction. It's not about going back to the

RCMP.

The fact of the matter is that the police of jurisdiction has remained the RCMP since

the beginning, the outset of the proposal of the policing transition, and has not

changed over to the Surrey police service. In fact, it's not halfway complete. It's

not even close to being halfway complete. Thanks to the mismanagement of this NDP

government, it's not even halfway close to being done.

Today I'm rising to speak to Bill 36, the Police Amendment Act. I want to begin by

being very clear that my statement regarding this bill is not an endorsement. It's

not a critique of any of the police services or the officers, whether they're from

the RCMP or the SPS, who are currently serving in the city of Surrey.

[3:40 p.m.]

We have a great deal of respect for anyone who will put on a uniform and patrol the

streets to keep our community safe. My statement today is a critique of this government

and its decision to strip away the powers of the lawfully elected municipal government

and their fundamental right to decide their own policing model.

Subsection 7(2) of Bill 36 states: "Despite the Police Act, the City of Surrey…."

It goes on — despite the lawfully elected mayor and council, who were elected on a

platform of choosing to keep the existing police of jurisdiction. Despite having a

lawful mandate, this government has written legislation to force them to continue

with a law enforcement transition process which they don't want and which they've

stated that their municipality cannot afford.

The second-largest city in B.C. will effectively have one of their fundamental rights

— to decide upon a service model and how much of a tax burden they're willing to place

on their taxpayers — forced on them, and forcing them now to decide what other local

services they're going to have to cut to afford this transition.

If this stripping of municipal powers can happen to B.C.'s second-largest city, then

it surely should be a concern for smaller cities, for smaller municipalities, because

it's not only Surrey that's going to pay. Right now, every municipality that is served

by the RCMP in B.C. pays a shared administrative cost, which gives them a savings

advantage. How much will their municipal costs increase when B.C.'s largest detachment

and its 800 members are removed and are no longer paying their share of administrative

costs?

The minister has pledged $150 million for the Surrey transition. It's nowhere near

enough, but he has pledged $150 million, and I hope that he is going to be announcing

soon the payments to every other RCMP-served city whose town's costs will now go up

because of his decision. These costs are likely to be between 5 and 20 percent in

division administration costs alone.

This is all coming at a time when British Columbia is facing an unprecedented affordability

crisis, housing crisis and overdose crisis the likes of which our country has never

seen. Six people a day are dying; health care is in crisis.

I can't in good conscience stand by and watch these costs to taxpayers continue to

rise, higher and higher, at a time when I have people coming into my constituency

office in tears because they're not going to be able to get urgent cancer treatments

for surgeries to save their lives. This is how this NDP government is choosing to

spend your tax dollars. Bill 36 makes it clear.

This minister has stated that he made his decision based on safety, because there's

a requirement that he ensure "adequate and effective" policing. This is true; however,

adequate and effective policing isn't defined in the Police Act nor has it been defined

in Bill 36. This was an opportunity for all British Columbians to see how the minister

made his determination regarding safety. Once again, this minister failed to do that;

this government has failed to do that. It's a lack of transparency that has continued

from day one of this botched transition.

It surely couldn't have been based on crime rates, because under the current police

of jurisdiction, the crime rate in Surrey has been trending down for the last ten

years, and they have never received any notice of deficiency in the last 72 years

of service in the community.

The minister stated that he made his decision because he was concerned that retaining

police of jurisdiction would create a situation where officers might leave their detachments

across the province to fill vacancies, and that would need to be them going to replenish

jobs in Surrey. He stated this belief despite receiving assurances from the national

police that they would be able to fill those 100 to 200 vacancies without disruption

in the rest of the province.

On the other hand, the minister makes no mention of where the incoming police service

will recruit upwards of 1,000 police officers and the consideration for the disruption

and instability that it's going to create in policing all across the province.

[3:45 p.m.]

In fact, the minister didn't do a service-to-service comparison because — as the public

was notified after the decision was made — the minister had advised, we've learned

through the media, that the incoming police force actually doesn't have an HR plan.

So how could he have known how many officers would need to be recruited? How would

he know what would be more disruptive to the policing environment?

At the time he made his choice, he didn't know how many officers would be needed in

Surrey. He didn't know how many would leave their detachments to join the incoming

police service from across B.C., other municipal forces or across Canada or how many

would need to be trained at the Justice Institute. It begs the question: how on earth

did the minister have sufficient information to form an opinion based on the potential

for destabilizing police across B.C.?

I'm going to be bold, and I'm going to say that he didn't have enough information

to make an argument on the basis of safety. Based on what the public can glean from

the court petition by the city of Surrey, it's becoming clear that there was no basis

to invoke a decision under the Police Act citing safety. That's why this government

is ramming through Bill 36 to make up for their shortcomings.

It's another example in a long list of legislation that the NDP has rammed through

to crush opposition to their political will. We saw it with the Kitsilano Coalition.

We saw it with provincial lawyers and their unionization, and now we're seeing it

in Surrey. Municipalities should be worried. What's next? What's next? What other

powers?

It's clear, after seeing this legislation, that there was no basis for ramming through

a decision. It feels like a political decision. It feels like bullying.

I can tell you that I, too, am a resident of Surrey. I hear from my constituents,

and I hear from people all across the city that they're afraid of something else besides

crime, and that's their tax bill, because they're not sure how, in the middle of an

affordability crisis, we're going to be able to afford to live in Surrey.

One of the best things about Surrey is its affordability. It's been a place where

people across this province have been able to come. People from around the world have

been able to come and eke out a small corner of the world to make their own, to have

a great life in Surrey — actually, I should tell you — one of the safest communities

in B.C.

Statistically speaking, Surrey is one of the most safe communities in the province

of British Columbia. We have a lower crime rate than Vancouver, less of a case burden.

We've been well served by our current police of jurisdiction. We've been well served

by keeping the costs of safety in our community low.

It's actually not only police that create safety in a community. It's actually ensuring

that we have adequate activities for people to do, making sure that kids have access

to libraries, pools, clubhouses, parks, playgrounds.

These are all things that won't be able to be afforded when our property tax goes

up in the double-digit percentages. How will people be able to afford leaving their

homes, going out for activities? How will we continue with a lot of the anti-gang

programs that we have in Surrey, when a lot of them are dependent on parks and recreation

that we won't be able to afford because of this decision that's being forced by the

NDP government on the citizens of Surrey?

There are lots of arguments back and forth about: "Well, you know, there was a mandate

from the previous government, but more people showed up for him and didn't, and how

many people. You know what? It doesn't matter. There was an election, a lawful election

in the city of Surrey and a government that had a clear mandate. It's clear to me,

based on information that wasn't analyzed…. Members from Surrey-Newton and other places

can say that there was an independent analysis, but an analysis of what?

We now know it was not a force-to-service comparison. There was no HR plan. There

has not been and there still is not a completed transition plan. It's like the province

of British Columbia's government, the NDP, are forcing the citizens of Surrey and

our city council and mayor to write a blank check on a project that they don't even

know how it's going to be completed.

[3:50 p.m.]

It's not going to just be $30 million extra a year. At this point, we don't know what

the true cost will be because they don't have an end-game. They don't know how many

people. They don't know how much it will cost to get the information technology. It's

not fair. It's not fair to the taxpayer.

While I agree that people are fatigued with the policing transition — I'm fatigued;

the men and women, the people who are serving in Surrey in uniform are tired — it

is truly mismanagement by the NDP government from day one of this project. Approving

a police transition with an incomplete plan, unrealistic financial expectations, no

HR strategy and no legal framework is an absolute cluster. It is completely irresponsible.

The reason that our community finds itself in the situation that it is in now — facing

huge tax burdens for the individual, being forced to undertake a transition that people

who elected the mayor and council clearly indicated that they do not want…. This is

all being foisted upon taxpayers' shoulders by the NDP government and their mismanagement,

their lack of leadership, their lack of transparency, for what is clearly political

will.

You might have gleaned that I'm not in support of Bill 36. I feel that it is an abuse

of power. It is stripping away and setting precedents to remove authority from municipal

governments. Why bother having municipal elections? Why bother making promises to

people that will elect you, if the government can simply write legislation to suit

its needs — to bully, to pressure, to push its way, to force you into a decision?

Like I said, talking today on Bill 36 is not an endorsement of one police force over

the other, because I have great respect for both the Surrey police service and the

RCMP. I think that both of them are capable. Both of them have shown a loyalty and

dedication to our city.

This is about a government that has at every corner, at every turn in this transition,

just simply messed the bed and left us with something that nobody wants to have to

clean up. I'm sure the RCMP are sick of it. I'm sure the SPS is sick of it.

Now we're in a situation where not only does your vote for a mayor and council to

pause the transition and to keep the police of jurisdiction count for nothing, essentially,

under this government, but they're also going to be removing the members of the police

board — the police board that, as the member for Surrey-Newton said, is supposed to

be advocating for the resources, advocating for how many people you need, and making

decisions and choices for your community about policing that are in the best interests

of your community. That's being stripped away under this legislation.

Instead, it's being replaced with someone from the government, a director from the

ministry. Instead of a group working together — with a mayor, with people with a vested

interest in our community, people with knowledge of policing, people with knowledge

of different community groups, Indigenous representation — now it just comes down

to one or two people working for the government who are going to dictate to Surrey

what's in their best interest: "Government knows best." We see it at every turn. Every

opportunity to do the right thing, and this government does the wrong thing.

I want to wish every member of the RCMP and every member of the Surrey police service

the very best in this stressful time. For the officer in charge of the RCMP and to

the chief of the Surrey police service, thank you for your dedication. Thank you for

working together and trying your very best to keep the morale high among your members

in what is a terrible time.

It has been a terrible time for members working in Surrey RCMP and SPS for a number

of years now. We know that this is not your fault. This is not laying the lack of

leadership at the feet of police leaders. This is a lack of leadership that starts

from the Premier and runs through the ministry and into this chamber. This is clearly

at the feet of the NDP government, which is why I will not be supporting Bill 36.

I thank you for the opportunity, Madam Speaker. Thank you very much.

[3:55 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 36, the Police Amendment Act.

It has been interesting listening to this debate. I had the benefit of spending about

15 months on the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act. One of the positive

experiences that I'll take away from my time in here was my experience on that committee.

It was tough, arduous work.

We spent many, many hours in those 15 months hearing testimony, hearing from policing

services, hearing from communities, hearing from Indigenous leaders, mayors and councillors,

listening to leaders in the policing community and hearing from other stakeholders

that engage with policing on a regular basis.

We worked very diligently to come together with a set of recommendations that fulfilled

the mandate that we had as a committee. It's important to acknowledge that the name

of the committee was about reform — "Reforming the Police Act." That committee started

before the snap election in 2020, and it continued through to this parliament with

some new members and with some of the members that had been sitting there originally.

We have memories that reach back to the summer of 2020. We know that it was a particularly

tense time. COVID-19 — there were more questions than answers. Then, as well, the

murder of George Floyd and the impact that that had, not only on the United States

but on the discussion and the public debate that was happening here in our province.

The members of the committee were seized of this opportunity to present to this government

a set of recommendations that fulfilled the mandate, as I said, of reforming the Police

Act.

What's important for the public to understand about our committee process is that

unlike this chamber, where we come in here and the partisan divide is easily identifiable

— either physically by this red carpet in between us, or in the vote when we stand

and vote and the Clerks call out the names, or in Hansard , where you see this side and that side — in committee, we work to an end that is

agreeable to everybody. We work toward consensus.

We spent a lot of time deliberating on those 11 recommendations. At the time, the

three political parties that were represented in the House were represented on that

committee. Part of the reason why I feel so good about that work that we did was because

where there was disagreement, we were committed together to working toward agreement,

so that when that report was finally tabled here in April of 2022, I believe it was,

the report had agreement by all the members of the committee and, as an extension,

by the members of this place. Consensus had been reached.

Consensus wasn't easily found. It was negotiated, it was discussed, and it came through

effort. I think when the public looks at their governing institution, that's what

they hope for. That's the hope that they have for the people that they send to represent

them in rooms like this or at the council table at their local government or in the

federal parliament, the House of Commons, in Ottawa.

[4:00 p.m.]

They hope, when they elect us, that we come here and work collaboratively, that we

take our differences of opinion, and we round the edges a little bit. We take some

sandpaper, and we work on them until there's a smoother finish than was there when

we first showed up or when the issues were initially laid before us.

The volume of content that we accumulated in that committee was immense. We had over

1,000 people participate in one way, shape or form. I think that's even a conservative

number. I think that there was far more than that.

In those recommendations, distilled from all of the things we heard…. The experiences

of people who engage with the police, the experiences of police who engage with the

public, the experience of the experts, of the academics who study policing, the experience

of former Solicitors General, of people who led policing in this province and in other

provinces informed those 11 recommendations.