Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Thursday, October

19, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 1:01 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

MEL BEVAN

Hon. M. Rankin: Today, I would like to acknowledge in the House the passing of a very important Indigenous

leader, a great Canadian. Sm'ooyget Satsan, also known as Mel Bevan, passed away on

October 10 at age 82.

A renowned Indigenous rights advocate, hereditary chief, chief negotiator for the

Kitselas Nation, respected elder, teacher, mentor, writer and friend, Mel had a storied

career that spanned over six decades, serving his own nation, the Tsimshian people,

as well as others.

Chief Bevan was born on the Kitselas Indian Reserve in 1941 and was a speaker of Sm̓algya̱x.

As the elected chief councillor, Mel would often hold meetings in his kitchen in the

early days where he would share his deep knowledge of First Nations culture, governance

and aspirations to self-determination.

He dedicated his life to the advance and recognition of Kitselas title and rights

and for the title and rights of all First Nations.

Mel was there at the very first British Columbia Chiefs conference held in Kamloops

in 1969, where the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs was first founded.

He was there at the beginning when negotiations started on the Kitselas treaty, since

1994, and he served as lead negotiator for the Kitselas First Nation during most of

the years of treaty and self-governance negotiations, leading up to overseeing the

final stages of the negotiation this year. In the days leading up to his passing,

Mel remained instrumental in the negotiation of the Kitselas treaty.

My most recent meeting with Mel and Chief Councillor Glenn Bennett took place about

three weeks ago on the shores of the Skeena River.

Mel's life was celebrated in the communities of Kitselas and Kitsumkalum, and just

this week, memorial services, funerals and feasts were held in his honour.

Mel is best remembered as a man of love — love for his land, for his people, for his

family. Working with Mel has been a deep privilege.

I'd like to recognize two distinguished lawyers, Albert Peeling and Mark Stevenson,

who worked alongside Mel on behalf of Kitselas, as well as Chief Don Roberts of Kitsumkalum.

Mark Stevenson described Mel as a friend, a mentor and a boss, and he told me Mel

was also the smartest man he ever met.

[1:05 p.m.]

I quote Mark Stevenson. "Mel was capable of explaining in excruciating detail the

complex fiscal arrangements, and then, in the evening, he would explain the same issues

in a way that a six-year-old child could understand."

In addition to Mel's work on treaty, his life and achievements are monumental in the

development of Indigenous peoples in Canada. Mel helped found numerous local and provincial

Indigenous organizations — for example, Canada's First Nations Radio, CFNR, and the

Muks-Kum-Ol Housing Society in Terrace. In 2021, Mel published Silent Voices: Rule By Policy On Canada's Indian Reserves , a book that captured his lifetime experiences in First Nations governance.

Mel's passing is a great loss to Kitselas, to the Skeena region and to our entire

country. My thoughts are with his family and friends and the Kitselas Nation.

Today I honour the man and mourn the loss of Sm'ooyget Satsan: Mel Bevan. His decades-long

work is a legacy that will continue to shape reconciliation for generations to come.

May he rest in peace.

T. Wat: I rise today to honour the incredible life of a close friend and someone that the

Chinese-Canadian community was truly blessed to have. Kathy Ho passed away over the

Thanksgiving long weekend.

Kathy was the president of the Vancouver Film and Television Artists Society, an organization

dedicated to charity and the promotion of local arts and artists. She was also my

former colleague and program host of Kathy's Music , one of the longest-running programs broadcast by mainstream broadcaster CHMB AM

I'm forever grateful for her great support for my initiative to call on the B.C. provincial

government to proclaim the first Sunday of every May as Buddhist Culture Day, even

though she was suffering from cancer and preparing for the opening of her tea shop

in my beautiful riding of Richmond North Centre.

Kathy led a very meaningful and fulfilling life. She will always be in our heart.

Orders of the Day

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

Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 31, the Emergency and

Disaster Management Act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 35— SHORT-TERM RENTAL

ACCOMMODATIONS ACT

(continued)

Deputy Speaker: My understanding is the member from West End will not be finishing his remarks as

he has another job to do here.

H. Yao: I just want to take the opportunity to express my sincere support for Bill 35, addressing

some of the Short-Term Rental Accommodation Act.

For a start, I do want to take the opportunity again to express my sincere gratitude

to Richmond South Centre for allowing me to represent them.

Housing is one of the bigger challenges. I think, instead of calling it housing issues,

we have a home issue. People are looking for a way to create a home. We're looking

forward to allowing individuals to settle down in the community, establish roots and

form connections.

One of the reasons why I am so supportive of Bill 35 is that it starts off by saying,

if we actually are able to address some of those multiple-unit short-term rentals,

we can return about 16,000 whole house units back into the housing market, allowing

more young people to be able to find different kinds of home options and addressing,

as one of our multiple-prong approach, the housing crisis that we're dealing with.

One of the key things that was brought to my attention is that over 28,500 short-term

rentals are listed active each day in British Columbia. Many people are utilizing

their own primary residence and create a sub-unit to create additional income. We

understand that is a different way of addressing the issue.

We have 28,500 short-term rentals listed active each day, and then almost 50 percent

of those units have multiple listings. It creates a concern.

[1:10 p.m.]

It's telling us many individuals are taking advantage of a short-term rental and running

it like a hotel. It's not fair for a lot of businesses who actually spend money and

effort to create brick-and-mortar facilities like hotels to support local communities'

tourism industry.

At the same time, a short-term rental is meant to just be simply complementary. It's

not meant to steal or take housing units away from our housing stock in British Columbia,

away from an individual who actually needs a home to rent, to purchase.

We're looking at a number of short-term rentals that's been increasing 20 percent

year by year. That is an incredible, shocking figure for us to think about. If we

increase something by 10 percent, by compound interest, it only takes ten years to

double the number. When we talk about 20 percent year over year, that scares me.

That tells me short-term rental is growing at such a rapid pace that it's squeezing

our housing market and putting a lot of young people…. It's putting the housing market

into an unaffordable range. This is definitely one of the many issues that need to

be addressed, and I'm very thankful for the Minister of Housing placing such a strong

emphasis on addressing this issue.

As a Richmond MLA, I often have to also ask myself…. The figure that has been provided

for me: how many of them are addresses with illegal units, hidden within a community.

I remember I used to live in an apartment building and often saw people come in and

out with suitcases, on a regular basis, even though, back then, the building was a

non-rental unit. We did not allow rentals back then. That reminds me how many opportunities

for a family to go buy a home are being taken away because somebody, in the name of

profit, decides about purchasing multiple units and, because short-term rentals might

make more money in the short run, decides to run an almost hotel-like business in

our city.

I know that I have faith in our local government. I have faith in our elected officials

over at the city of Richmond, like when they actually put out a plan supporting our

city development in regard to how we can make sure we develop more areas appropriately

for our city.

But when you have illegal markets happening in the background or markets functioning

in a way that doesn't match the development target, it puts all of our numbers…. It

puts all our efforts to support a holistic, healthy community at risk. That's why

I'm very, very excited to be able to see that Bill 35 is being put on the table for

us to have a good discussion around.

Another figure that…. I almost want to say it's not just shocking; it's almost heartbreaking.

As I mentioned earlier, 20 percent year by year. But if you look at the total number

of the short-term market, it's dominated by 10 percent of the operators, who actually

make 50 percent of the profit.

It has become a very profit-driven market, to the point that it has become an industry

when it was initially designed just to be supplementary — a little household income.

This deviation from the initial design of short-term rentals is something that I think

is addressed by Bill 35.

I also want to emphasize that we are having a housing crisis. We also have a labour

shortage. Many people who are making close to minimum wage probably want to work near

where they live, because, obviously, they're dealing with a lot of transportation

expenses and travelling costs. They want to spend more time with their families too.

One of the goals we are trying to really focus on is to allow young people to find

units within our city. I know, even for Richmond, short-term rental unit listings

are everywhere. If we can convert them into homes for young families, how great that

would be to help us support our labour market, to allow people to actually find local

jobs that can support them and support their families and allow schools to be supported

by local individuals.

That's why, when we're looking at this short-term rental issue and how it has become

a bigger burden upon our housing market when we are addressing the housing crisis,

I'm, again, very thankful for our Minister of Housing really tackling this issue to

allow us, through different strategies, to release different housing stocks back to

the market so that we can create more homes. Not for-profit units, not some kind of

hotel-mimicking system, but homes back into our community.

We do not want to build a tower where people come and go and nobody knows who one

another is. We don't want to build an apartment where the neighbours don't know one

another because they can change every day.

[1:15 p.m.]

We want people to have neighbourhoods — neighbourhoods where people have long-lasting

relationships with the area where they spend time in.

If you look at the community amenities, you're talking about swimming pools, hockey

arenas. You're talking about basketball courts. All those are justified when they're

being utilized by the taxpayers in a way that's meaningful and rewarding for the local

community. But this kind of short-term rental, when you have multiple listings that

are not within your primary residential units, is creating a hotel-like market that's

taking away many, many homes and eroding the very sense of neighbourhood that we British

Columbians have cherished in the past.

I would like to even go back to a little personal anecdote, story. I remember when

I was a kid, one of the things we always loved to do was play hockey on the streets

in front of my house. Kids come together. It's a fun activity to participate in. Of

course, we have a lot of scars, wounds and laughter as we come together and form a

neighbourhood. That's what British Columbians are looking for.

British Columbians are coming together to say: "What can we do?" We really ask ourselves:

"Can I know my neighbour? Can I go to across the street to borrow a container of sugar?

If we have some kind of issue, do I have someone who I can have a relationship with,

and I can name them by their first name, instead of seeing a stranger carrying a suitcase

in and out on a regular basis?" That places a question mark. People often say: "Is

this apartment not even safe, because we have a bunch of strangers we have never met

before?"

That's one of the reasons why I really want to emphasize…. I am pretty sure all our

colleagues, everywhere, believe that all British Columbians want to have neighborhoods.

All British Columbians want to have a community. All British Columbians want to have

an opportunity to come together and celebrate the fact that we're all British Colombians.

That's why I'm so thankful for Bill 35 placing a greater emphasis on how we can actually

release some of the hotel-like market units back into creating homes.

I think one of the things we want to talk about is…. Instead of calling it the Short-Term

Rental Accommodations Act, we should really talk about: how can we create more homes

for British Columbians? This is just why I'm so excited about this policy.

I think one of the interesting parts about this, too, is that I had a conversation

with multiple municipal elected officials about short-term rentals. They struggle

with it. I've seen every level of government, from federal, provincial, even municipal….

We all understand we are under a lot of housing crises at this point. A lot of housing

challenges need to be addressed, or the fact I like to say: the lack of homes.

The municipal governments are trying their best to address this issue. They want to

step up. I know the councils and the mayors are doing whatever they can to make sure

we create more home units for British Columbians. That's the reason why Bill 35 will

actually strengthen and increase the fines that local government can charge: to strengthen

the ability to enforce the local rules. It will require a short-term-rental platform

to share their data with the provincial government and local enforcement and encourage

short-term-rental platform accountability, to make sure local rules are followed.

Of course, if you look at some of the strengths and the benefits of Bill 35, it really

focuses on how we can actually work with different platforms to really understand

how we can remove those inappropriate units. I also want to emphasize that I would

love to see what we can do to help our local government to address some of those hidden

short-term rentals that have been within our community as well.

I know somebody might say: "You know what? If the short-term rentals with Bill 35

can release about 16,000 or even maybe 8,000 units, that's perfect. But why doesn't

your government build 8,000 more units?" Our government is building. We're working

on the building of different units. For student-housing units, we've built 8,000 already

and are adding 4,000 more to it. We continue playing catch-up and building more units

to address the housing issue.

With this Bill 35, it will help us also prevent new units that are being built being

purchased into short-term rental. We want those units to continue to be…. We want

to be building homes. That's a key word I want to continue to emphasize: we are here

to build homes.

We will continue working with British Columbians, with different levels of government,

with different industries, different sectors to really ask: how can we create a number

of homes available for our younger generation, for our seniors who are looking for

a place to settle down? We're looking for ways to ensure British Columbians can stay

in British Columbia.

I know there were stats that were shared with us that close to 250,000 people in the

last few years have moved into British Columbia. It shows British Columbia is growing.

It show British Columbia is actually thriving.

[1:20 p.m.]

We have also a number of immigrants coming in too. They're bringing in skilled workers.

They are bringing different talents. They're bringing their different perspective

and culture to enrich, to diversify and to strengthen British Columbia.

We want them to be feeling welcome too. So that's why our government is doing so many

different great works towards a different level of services to ensure that we're investing,

investing and investing, so that we can invest early instead of worrying about a future

expense where we have to play catch-up and with proper interventions.

If we talk about short-term rental, this is, again, one of our many strategies that

we'll commit to. We need those housing markets to be released. The housing stock belong

to British Columbia as formal homes. They can be rented out, they can be purchased,

but do not turn them into some form of profit-generating hotel-like units.

There is an expectation that if people own a primary unit and have a sub-unit within

the primary residence, they can use it. If they have multiple units, of course there's

a limitation to it. But in the end, people shouldn't be able to go around saying,

"Because I am financially able to, I'm going to buy multiple units in a community

and start renting them out like hotel rooms," and then taking away the very niche

stock for young people to call home.

I also want to emphasize one thing in Richmond too. Richmond is a very diverse community.

I want to speak from Richmond's perspective as well. Richmond is a very diverse community

where we want our young people to be here. We have a lot of individuals who are well

off. We also have individuals who are struggling.

I think one of the things we are trying to do is we always focus on how we can — all

people in Richmond or British Columbia — all prosper together. But when it comes to

Richmond, we're looking at the ride-hailing, we're looking at short-term rentals,

and we're looking at different kinds of services. We also need to understand some

of them need to be addressed. That way, the proper benefit of the bill can be implemented.

That's why, again, I'm going to go back to talking about how we can increase and strengthen

tools for local government. So we're really asking ourselves: how can we ensure that

local government can find ways to address those people who are violating the rules,

who are turning units into inappropriate usage or, I should say, taking them out of

the housing stock so that we have less homes to really appreciate for young people

and for seniors?

With all that being said, I do want to emphasize the importance of why I support Bill

35. I really believe that political…. I'm hoping all of our colleagues from across

the aisle will also stand up, as well, so that we can all join together and fight

for homes for all British Columbians.

A. Olsen: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 35, the Short-Term Rental Accommodations

Act. I think it's important to acknowledge, just out front here, that these changes

that are being proposed — at least the ones that we can see and the ones that have

been spoken about — have been supported and are supported by the B.C. Green caucus.

We called for many of the initiatives that have been outlined in this bill earlier

this year in alignment with calls from the Union of B.C. Municipalities in order to

better support local governments in addressing the impact of short-term vacation rentals

in our communities. I have been hearing for the last number of years, since I was

elected in 2017, anecdotally and in a lot of information from our communities, about

the impact that short-term vacation rentals have had on the housing market and on

the housing supply.

Oftentimes when we talk about housing supply in the political sphere, it's about building

new units. This is an example, I think, of one of the areas in which we may be able

to take advantage of units that are already built. Part of the challenge with, of

course, building new supply….

I'm not saying that there won't be new supply built. Of course, that's what will happen.

But if building new supply is the only way that we're going to get supply online,

then it's going to take a very long time for us to achieve what the people of British

Columbia, the future people of British Columbia, need in terms of finding stable,

secure housing.

Even more to that, or in addition to stable, secure housing or the product of stable,

secure housing, is a sense of belonging in the communities that they're living in.

[1:25 p.m.]

I think with that sense of belonging, the sense of being able to be part of the community

that you're living in, seeing yourself being a part of that community — not just today

and tomorrow but for weeks, months and years to come, decades to come — means you're

making more than a real estate investment in that community. It means you're making

a much deeper investment in the socioeconomic fabric of that community. You're volunteering

for community organizations. You're stepping up when the parents advisory committee

needs volunteers to support the grads or whatever initiatives that they have.

There's a wide variety of organizations that I come into contact with as an MLA who

are seeing the stability of their organization be eroded because of the mobility that

exists in our society. There will always be mobility. I'm not suggesting that there

won't be that mobility.

I do want to highlight that when people are in tenuous housing situations, when they're

renting where they can find a place to rent rather than where they want to live, when

they're unable to grow deep roots in a community, it plays out negatively in all parts

of their life. It makes it more difficult to find a job that you can commit to long

term. It makes it more difficult for your children to be able to make lifelong friendships

like I've been able to benefit from. I have benefited from living in the community

that I was brought home to as a baby.

One of those reasons why someone like me, who grew up on an Indian reserve in this

country, first got elected, across the line, in the municipal government, was because

of those lifelong relationships that I was able to benefit from. I was able to contribute

and give back to the community because my housing, the place that I live, the place

that I belong to, was secure.

One of the great challenges that we're facing with a housing affordability crisis

is the displacement of people, the inability to grow deep roots into the community

that they're living in. They're fearful of the fact that they might one day be uprooted

and have to move somewhere else. They might have to move to a place that they can

afford because the rents are increasing.

In that context, then…. Of course, their transportation costs will increase, as they

spend both more money to buy themselves a vehicle and get themselves insurance or

more time on transit, in which investments have languished in recent years.

As we see these threats that people are facing in their lives, the inability to afford

the place that they're living in, the fear that the place that they're living in….

The costs continue to increase. The further they get away from the places that they

work or the places that they recreate or the places where their friends are, the more

pressure that comes on to those families and on to those British Columbians from the

increased costs of transportation.

When we take a look at supply, part of the equation is going to be: how many more

units…? Again, the economic framing of housing is in units. How many more units can

be built?

This bill highlights the opportunity to, perhaps, find some…. We've heard some numbers

be thrown around. I think that it is inappropriate, at this stage, to throw numbers

around about how many might be available or how many this bill might make available.

That happened when the Strata Act changes came in earlier this year. Numbers were

thrown around, assumptions were made, yet the only thing that was really built was

expectation.

Knowing exactly how many units came on the market because of that bill is very difficult.

Knowing how many units of housing are going to come on the market because of Bill

35 is going to be difficult to understand.

However, we have been experiencing a decade and a half of economic disruption from

these, largely tech, companies. We handled and dealt with this with respect to self-directed

passenger transportation. Uber, the Kleenex brand of self-directed…. Airbnb also.

They talk more about industry disruptors than individual companies.

[1:30 p.m.]

I think that it's important to recognize that as government moves slowly and market

disruptors move quickly…. Their whole business model is about moving quickly and breaking

things. What has been broken, when it comes to the disruption of moving housing, homes

that could be made available for people to live in, to establish their nest, to establish

a place to build a life, security…. What we see when that gets broken are all of the

symptoms that we see happening when people can't find a safe place to lay their head

at night.

One of the most critical things that human beings need in order to be well balanced

is a good night's sleep, a safe place to go, a safe nest to be able to build a life

out of. By the pure commodification of housing — "housing market" ruling all, "housing

market" being a primary indicator of the health and well-being of our economy — when

we hear that language, when "housing units" are the primary thing that we're trading,

we're not talking about, as the government indeed called their new housing plan, Homes

for People.

I think it's important to acknowledge that when we start talking about housing as

a home rather than as a purely economic unit, we're beginning to talk about that place

in a way that creates that security. I'm very appreciative of that. We have seen a

disruption, largely by tech companies, as I mentioned, and the short-term vacation

rental platforms were exactly that: disruptors. The government has been incredibly

slow to move.

We at the B.C. Green caucus, going back into the confidence and supply agreement since

2017, have been advocating with this government to take action to regulate and enforce

those regulations at a provincial level. Instead, what we've seen is this fragmented

approach, leaving it up to local governments and not giving them the tools or access

to the tools that they need in order to be able to do the job. We see community after

community taking their own approach to it. It's a highly ineffective and highly inefficient

way to do it.

At first blush, when we take a look at this legislation that's in front of us, we

can see some really important initiatives that are going to be put in place. Unfortunately,

many aspects of this bill are still left to regulation. We are in a situation, again,

where important pieces of this legislation are enabling, leaving it up to the minister

to negotiate the final terms and bring them in, in regulation.

We heard the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness profiling yesterday that the enabling legislation allows great flexibility. That's

true; it does, but for members in the opposition and for members of the public, it

also creates instability, because we have no idea, until those regulations are brought

in, of what they will be.

It gives us no time, on the opposition benches, to ask questions about why the government

made one choice over another. It gives us no time to be able to test the quality of

the decision that was made, to push it through those tests that we provide, as members

of the opposition, to ensure that it can withstand those tests.

Unfortunately, we have a situation where the broad strokes of this legislation appear

to be heading in the right direction. Unfortunately, it will be up to us to try to

ask crafty questions in the committee stage to get to the bottom of what the intention

of the minister is going to be. Thankfully, the minister, in this case, has appeared

to be speaking very forthrightly about what the intentions are, and we hope that that

continues to play out.

We are pleased to see legislation that comes forward that listens to the Union of

B.C. Municipalities provincial advisory group and that has factored in some of the

recommendations that we made in our call earlier this year: platform accountability,

regional districts having the ability to issue business licences, data-sharing, increased

fines. These are important initiatives.

We're pleased to see the government go above and beyond on the principal-residence

requirement and the non-compliance clause. We'll have to see how those play out as

the debate of this legislation rolls on.

[1:35 p.m.]

I think it's important to acknowledge, as the member that represents the southern

Gulf Islands, the critical housing crisis that our communities on the southern Gulf

Islands face. I'm grateful for the opportunities that the minister has given me and

my local elected government colleagues to meet with the minister and to meet with

their staff with respect to the specific challenges that the southern Gulf Islands

face.

The southern Gulf Islands are in this unique situation where they are rural communities

surrounded by water, only accessible by ferry, making them quite rural. But they're

part of the CRD, which makes them urban. There's this perspective that…. They get

caught in this kind of no man's land in the middle.

We see initiatives get rolled out by this provincial government, intended to support

communities but neglecting the southern Gulf Islands. We saw that with the building

communities fund. The building communities fund was a $1 billion that provided local

governments the much-needed resources that they needed in order to be able to invest

in their infrastructure.

Earlier this session, I called for the provincial government to provide that funding,

year over year, until a new fiscal framework had been negotiated with the Union of

B.C. Municipalities. Local governments need more than a one-time injection. They need

an ongoing injection.

What we found on the southern Gulf islands — what my CRD director colleagues in the

southern Gulf Islands, Paul Brent and Gary Holman, found — was that the money then

earmarked for helping communities went to the regional district and municipalities,

which benefited from those funds distributed amongst those communities and also the

islands.

There was no direct access to those funds for the southern Gulf Islands, the per capita

funding. Indeed, it was intentionally designed to not support electoral areas like

it was designed to support municipal governments. That was incredibly unfortunate,

and that left potential resources off the table for local government officials.

We've met with this government on several occasions. I say "we" — I and my local government

colleagues. They've written letters. They've passed motions with the Minister of Finance

about the speculation and vacancy tax for Saltspring Island. I recognize that each

of the islands is different. In the community of Saltspring Island, their elected

leaders there have specifically requested from this government, two annual cycles

in a row, to be included in the speculation and vacancy tax.

Yet this government continues to be reluctant to give the communities a tool that

they feel that they need. When we talk to the provincial government about this, when

we talk to the Minister of Finance, they provide a response back to us that says:

"Just ask." So we asked. "We'll consider you next year."

We've got all this pressure around Saltspring, in particular, a community with 11,000

or 12,000 people in it. All of this pressure, all the communities around Saltspring,

are a part of the speculation and vacancy tax. We've got this one little area that's

not. That's what those local government officials have been asking this government

to act on, and they've been reluctant to do so.

The former B.C. NDP government that created the Islands Trust created it on the principle

of preserve and protect. If that was the case, that has been what my local government

colleagues have been pleading for. That's the message that I've been bringing on their

behalf to this place, to continue to live out the original vision of that trust. One

of those ways would be to listen to the local government officials.

Another one of these issues — I've talked to the minister about this recently — is

the pilot program for secondary suites. Again, the local governments on Saltspring

Island and the southern Gulf Islands have been left out of the initial first year

of this program. I've been seeking assurance that they will get access at some point

— this is a three-year program, as it has been explained to me — but again, they're

excluded from the outset.

I've been told that the purpose of this program was to support communities that need

housing in more urban areas, where the housing needs are more acute.

[1:40 p.m.]

I can't think of a place where the housing needs are more acute than on each of the

southern Gulf Islands, where one or two homes for people make a massive difference.

We're not talking 1,000 or 2,000 homes. We're talking one or two homes that can make

a difference as to whether or not the Mayne Island child care facility, which this

government invested in, has ECEs that can live on the island and work in it.

I remember the Mayne Island community coming to me and saying: "Will you support our

request for funds for early childhood education spaces?" I said: "Absolutely. I'm

all for it."

I know members on the other side of the House who live part-time on Mayne Island were

very supportive of it. I raise my hands to the minister for supporting it.

As soon as that was built and as soon as it was opened, I heard immediately from the Mayne Island child care centre that the

next advocacy was…. "We need help getting ECEs. We need to find a place for them to

live."

We have a school on Mayne Island that has an old house on it. They're fundraising

right now in order to renovate it so that the school can have a teacher. A basic need

of a school is to have a teacher.

We've got this housing unit sitting there, and it's being fundraised in order to turn

it into a place. That's fine. That's one way of doing it. However, this is an example

of where one unit, where one secondary suite, on Mayne Island, funded by that new

program, would have a remarkable difference as to having a spot for an ECE to provide

child care, for having a teacher able to live on the island and work in the community

school.

We meet every month, the southern Gulf Islands forum. It's a forum of the CRD directors,

the islands' trustees, the local Chiefs of the nations that are within the southern

Gulf Islands. We meet on a monthly basis. We also meet twice per year for four hours.

The vast majority of the time that we've spent has been talking about the housing

woes on the islands.

I need to take some space in this discussion, in this debate about this bill, to just

put on the record…. When this government is designing housing policy, it need not

leave the southern Gulf Islands out because it's not urban enough. Indeed, the housing

pressures that we're experiencing on the southern Gulf Islands have been exacerbated

by short-term rentals.

Both the Islands Trust and the CRD have been looking at each other to find ways to

create the regulations that are needed in order to support the workforce on those

islands. People, when they get in their car and they drive down to Ganges or when

they drive into Village Bay or when they drive to the stores on Galiano, are hoping

that there will be people there to make the cup of coffee. They're hoping that there

will be people there to keep those stores open.

That's becoming increasingly marginal. It's becoming increasingly marginal whether

they can find the farmworkers that are needed in order to make those farms viable

in the southern Gulf Islands.

When we create these housing programs and we exclude…. When we create housing programs

like B.C. Housing created and the decisions that have been made, historically, about

the project on Drake Road, as an example, on Salt Spring….

B.C. Housing only does purpose-built. That was the decision. We're going to do purpose-built.

It was three years ago that we started that conversation. I think it was two years

ago that they made the announcement. Two years ago they made the announcement. Purpose-built,

Drake Road, not a unit available yet.

Building purpose-built, based on the model that B.C. Housing does everywhere else

in the province, just isn't possible on the southern Gulf Islands. My elected colleagues,

community leaders on Salt Spring, community leaders across the southern Gulf Islands

continue to express to this government and to B.C. Housing that the model that works

elsewhere in B.C. just simply doesn't work for the southern Gulf Islands.

Find ways to be able to repurpose, reuse, take advantage of supply that already exists,

perhaps houses that are on the market right now. Have a fund that can renovate those

spaces and turn them into multifamily. Strata some of them. Maybe they can be rental

housing.

[1:45 p.m.]

Find ways to be able to think outside the current box that B.C. Housing is operating

in. Look at the places that are already built. Look at the places that have water

hookups already attached to them and that are already approved. Work with the local

government bodies there to find ways to repurpose those to create homes for people,

which is the name of the plan. I continue to encourage this government to support

those ideas and to think outside the box.

I know the impact of short-term rental accommodations on the southern Gulf islands,

in particular. We have them through the Saanich Peninsula as well. This issue has

been most acutely felt on the southern Gulf Islands. We know that those STVR platforms

As I profiled in the opening parts of this speech…. I talked about the security of

housing and the sense of belonging and how we need to return to that.

I also want to talk about the fact that this has had an impact on investors as well.

The lack of government action on short-term rental platforms allowed, for the last

four or five years, for this business model to be entrenched in our society, for entire

buildings to be designed and built and then become, basically, rental platform hotels.

Unregulated hotels, basically, is what they've become.

A lot of people have invested a lot of money working and operating in that system.

Now the government is making a change. I understand. I can hear the feelings of people

who are now caught up in that.

I think it's a lesson for us, as we're looking at the response that we have here to

this particular platform, this particular disruption and future disruptions. The pace

of government's response needs to be quicker. We need to respond more promptly. We

need to begin to understand the issues that are being created in real time rather

than wait for them to become entrenched and not put in place measures at an earlier

stage or not phase in measures.

We have a highly commodified housing market. We have it. It's intentional. It's the

way it was designed.

I've seen the impact of this from the other side of the line. I grew up on an Indian

reserve in this country. It has been made clear to me since the very first day that

I was able to understand these things how the Canadian and provincial governments

created a housing market that generated wealth on one side of the line, and they created

a housing program that generated poverty on the other.

It's important for us to acknowledge. When we talk about the commodification of housing,

it is at the root core of our housing philosophy in this country. It is, and becomes,

the primary wealth generator for Canadians. Canadians and British Columbians have

been doing exactly what governments have wanted them to do since the end of the Second

World War — invest in housing.

Housing starts continue to be one of the primary markers of a healthy economy, the

number of housing starts, what the housing market is doing, the real estate market.

The income that this government makes off of housing continues to be the top of two

revenue streams. The top few revenue streams of this government are in real estate.

It's important to recognize that if we are going to deal with housing unaffordability,

a housing unaffordability crisis, to understand the problem that we are facing…. It

is a philosophical one embedded in the root of our housing system.

If we are going to stand in this place and say that the commodification of housing

has created a scenario where people can't afford to rent the place that they're living

in…. They're paying 50 to 60 to 70 percent of their income to rent. That's causing

incredible stress and tension on people, exasperation, fear. It's not sustainable.

[1:50 p.m.]

If it's going to take 20 to 30 years for people to save up in order to get a mortgage,

the system that was created decades ago is not working for us. For us to work around

the edges of that and not actually attack the core of it, which is that the wealth-generating

housing system that has been created in our country is not serving us, if all we're

prepared to do is talk around the outside, then we're going to continue to face symptoms

of this problem.

We need to identify the problem at its core. That is that the commodification of housing

is what a lot of Canadians and a lot of British Columbians have bought into, because

that's what these government bodies across the country have wanted them to buy into.

It's at the core of our economy.

Changing that is going to be painful, and it's going to be challenging, and it's not

going to be done easily. But it won't be done at all if we don't identify it and name

it and recognize that what we are doing is trying to find a way to have a conversation

with people who have everything that they've earned put in their real estate.

So when we stand up in here and talk about the commodification of housing, what we're

talking about is what British Columbians and Canadians know about their housing. That

is the stability that they have. That's their retirement.

It's a wicked problem, and it will not be solved by frittering around the edges. However,

that said, I'm thankful that this bill is in front of us. The structure of this bill

and the ideas that are put forward for us to debate we support. With that, I'll take

my seat.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM .

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

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I thank all the members in the House that took the opportunity

to speak to this very important piece of legislation. I know that we'll have a fulsome

discussion in committee stage. I look forward to having a thoughtful and respectful

exchange at that point.

With that, I move second reading.

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

Rental Accommodations Act.

Division has been called.

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

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Second reading of Bill 35 approved on the following division:

yeas — 67

Anderson

Babchuk

Bailey

Bains

Beare

Begg

Bernier

Bond

Brar

Chandra Herbert

Chant

Chen

Chow

Clovechok

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Davies

Dean

Doerkson

Donnelly

Dykeman

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Furstenau

Glumac

Greene

Halford

Heyman

Kahlon

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Leonard

Lore

Mercier

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Olsen

Osborne

Paddon

Parmar

Paton

Phillip

Ralston

Rankin

Robinson

Ross

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Sharma

Shypitka

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

R. Singh

Starchuk

Stewart

Stone

Sturko

Tegart

Wat

Whiteside

Yao

nays — 2

Banman

Rustad

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

next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 35, Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act, read a second time and referred to

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

after today.

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

[2:10 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 36 — POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 36; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 2:11 p.m.

On clause 1.

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

Prince George–Mackenzie.

M. Morris: Thank you, Chair. It is a little awkward doing this on Zoom. I'll be doing this, along

with my colleague from Surrey, for the afternoon here.

Clause 1(b). I have a question. It now inserts the minister's approval on the choice

made by the municipality. Does not subsection (3) in the current act…? An agreement

under subsection (2)(

b) or (

c) states it "must contain terms that the Lieutenant Governor

in Council approves." Would this not provide for the same authority? Would an OIC

normally be prepared under the direction of the minister's office anyways? This sounds

like it might be a duplicate.

Hon. M. Farnworth: To the member: is your question based on

section 3(

b) or

section 3(2)(b)?

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

[2:15 p.m.]

My question is with respect to clause 1(b), where it says: "Subject to the approval

of the minister under

section 3.1(2)(a), a municipality…." This clause, which is now

inserted, appears to duplicate the provisions under

section 3 of the current act,

where it says: "An agreement under subsection (2) (

b) or (

c) must contain terms that

the Lieutenant Governor in Council approves."

I'm just curious, because normally it would be…. Any term that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

approves is normally something that the minister puts forward?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There's no unnecessary duplication. It doesn't change except for the reference to

3.1(2)(a).

M. Morris: I'm curious. In one area, we have the minister's approval, which inserts the minister's

approval on the choice made by the municipality, but under the current act, it still

provides for an agreement under subsection 2(

b) or (

c) and contains the term "the

Lieutenant Governor in Council approves," which is the minister, by all intents and

purposes. Are those two separate approvals, then, for different things?

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

cabinet or by the minister?

M. Morris: I'm just curious. There seem to be two levels of approvals here. One is under the

new clause that I referred to, under sub (b), and the other one is in the act under

sub (3) of

section 3, which is an OIC. I'm just…. What does the OIC do differently

than what the minister's approval does under sub (

b) of clause 1?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thanks to the member for the question. It is still one approval by the minister, but

the cabinet also has the ability to specify terms that can go into the agreement.

M. Morris: So it's still one approval, but there are two processes for the approval. The OIC

would be the cabinet input, which would be different than the minister's approval.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Cabinet could preapprove agreements that would need to be in an agreement. That's

a separate process.

M. Morris: Okay. Thank you.

I'll go to subsection 1(c). I've got a question there. Does this new clause (

c) indicate

that the agreements made up to this point by ministers are not made on behalf of government?

Is it not already the case that any agreement made by a minister is made on behalf

of government, or has something changed here?

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

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

agreements made on behalf of government.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct.

E. Sturko: Dealing still with section…. It says 1, but

section 3 of the Police Act that we're

reviewing right now. What information will the minister base the decision for approval

or disapproval on?

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

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

In clause (b), it says "subject to the approval of the minister." So that's why I

was asking for what information you will base this approval or disapproval on.

Hon. M. Farnworth: What you're talking about is just a reference to

section 3.1(2)(a), which is in the

next section.

A. Olsen: Would this bill and these amendments have been necessary had the situation in Surrey

not occurred the way it has occurred over the last few years?

[2:25 p.m.]

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

A. Olsen: The specific aspects of this bill that are reflecting…. The later clauses in this

bill that deal with Surrey weren't in any way the motivation behind this bill coming

forward?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think it would be fair to say that without Surrey, we wouldn't know about the clarity

issues in some of the sections of the act that need to be changed, and that's why

these changes are coming forward.

A. Olsen: There was a special committee that reviewed reforming the Police Act. There were 11

recommendations which were made to this minister, that were tabled in a report more

than a year ago, about a year and a half ago now. I'm just wondering why it is and

whether or not the changes that were recommended in the Reforming the Police Act were

considered in….

We're bringing forward amendments to the Police Act. None of the amendments that are

in here were reflected in the report — or few of them were, if any. I'm just wondering

why it is that we're not seeing a comprehensive bill here that covers the other areas

that have been exposed by the minister's own committee.

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

The work is being done in the ministry. I've indicated on a number of occasions publicly

that we are taking a phased approach on that and that there will be other legislation

coming forward that deals with those recommendations, because, in part, it requires

some significant consultation around those recommendations — particularly with UNDRIP,

for example — and with local government.

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

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

M. Morris: I've got a couple of questions on clause 2, and I believe my colleague from Surrey

also has some questions on clause 2 as well.

I'll start off with this one. If a municipality chooses to provide policing services

with their own department or chooses to contract with an existing department, does

the minister consider timelines that the municipality may need to present these options

to their constituents as part of a municipal election platform, for an example? The

timelines are kind of vague within the legislation here.

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

[2:30 p.m.]

The only thing the minister would consider is that the provision of policing and law

enforcement by that proposed model that they would want to — whether or not it would

adversely affect the ability of the minister or the local government to fulfil their

respective duties under sections 2 and 15(1).

M. Morris: So….

The Chair: Member.

M. Morris: Sorry, Chair, you'll have to…. I'll offer my apologies for the rest of the session

here. I'll try to honour the protocols here.

How much notice would the minister provide municipalities when they will be crossing

the 5,000 population threshold? Does the minister provide advice to these municipalities

of their options, the projected cost of retaining the RCMP under a municipal contract?

What process takes place here?

Hon. M. Farnworth: So a couple of things. We monitor B.C. Stats in terms of the populations and, obviously,

when the census comes out. We start to engage with them about 18 months to two years

out in coming up to that 5,000 threshold.

I can also tell you that, for example, at UBCM, they are always raising with me as

Solicitor General, and no doubt they did when you were Solicitor General, that: "Hey,

we're starting to get close to that 5,000 mark." But we engage with them early on.

M. Morris: Are there provisions to invoice these municipalities for policing services under an

interim RCMP municipal agreement until a municipality has officially made their decision?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. No, there is no agreement. They are responsible

from the day they cross that 5,000 threshold for policing services.

E. Sturko: Will every current local government with over 5,000 persons have their agreements

in place? Will they have to be nullified or need to be redone if they were not via

consent of the minister on behalf of the government or in any other way? Is any part

of this legislation retroactive to municipalities other than Surrey?

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

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

on?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be based on material provided to me — so, for example, what plans they have

or records that we may require.

[2:35 p.m.]

It could be things such as staffing levels that they're looking at, that they are

proposing, what the crime stats are in the area. Are there any emerging trends, for

example? Those are the kinds of things that would be taken into account.

E. Sturko: Were staffing levels and crime statistics taken into account when the decision was

made with regard to the Surrey policing transition, from both?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Those specific questions are the subject of the JR, so I'm not in a position to be

able to provide information here.

E. Sturko: Well, can the minister please provide an index of subjects that will be required to

be flushed out in order for a minister to provide a sound basis for their decision?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That will vary from community to community and will be based on the size of the community

— the location will play a big part — but also on the model that they are proposing.

Then that is assessed by my director of police services and the ministry.

E. Sturko: So is there no set standard in terms of looking at, for example, a model that would

go from our national police force to municipal police forces? Is there no index of

criteria that the ministry would be using to assess these plans?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, because it varies from community to community. In fact, that's true right across

the country. There's no sort of checklist. It varies from community to community,

what specific needs are, where they're located. All of those things come into play.

E. Sturko: Can the minister please confirm, then, that there was no framework in place at the

time when the decision was made to green-light the Surrey policing transition — no

framework of criteria that would need to, with certainty, be fulfilled in order for

that green light, that transition to take place?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I was exercising, at the time, my authority under section (2), and the question that

the member is posing relates to the JR issue. I can't provide further information

on that.

E. Sturko: Can the minister, then, confirm that the judicial review of the Surrey policing transition

is going to go ahead or is underway at the moment?

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

who filed the JR.

E. Sturko: The concern I have at the moment is that many of the questions that I would like to

ask on behalf of the public seem to not be able to be answered as a result of a judicial

review going on into this process.

[2:40 p.m.]

If we won't be able to have the public's questions answered as a result of potential

ongoing court proceedings, can we ask that this legislation be stood down so that

we can have all the public's questions answered at the time when that decision is

made?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No. The bill isn't going to be stood down. The JR is in the hands of the city of Surrey,

and they're quite free to ask questions related to the various sections in the bill.

But the decision to do the JR was the decision of the city of Surrey. The legislation

before us is completely separate from that JR.

E. Sturko: If it's completely separate, then why will the minister not provide answers and clarification

of the questions that I'm asking?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are two separate processes underway, and the questions that you're specifically

asking relate specifically to Surrey in terms of the JR.

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

them alone?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Because under the Police Act, I'm the minister responsible for maintaining and ensuring

adequate and effective policing.

E. Sturko: Will regulations contain the explicit information required that will provide the basis

for decision-making, one way or another, for which police force that a future community

would be choosing?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer would be no. There's no regulation-making authorities in these changes

that are being proposed.

A. Olsen: Has there ever been another incident in the history of the province where we've seen

a situation where a decision to change policing services has been made, and then a

different decision to stop that process has been made that would require, I guess,

section 3.1(4)(

a) and (b)?

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

M. Morris: I'm a little concerned over the minister refusing to answer some questions because

of the JR. I'll have to put some thought to that.

The terms "adequate" and "effective" are subjective terms. I'm just curious as to

how the minister determines if a municipality is or is not providing an adequate and

effective level of service?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be on the advice of the director of police services as to whether adequate

and effective is being adversely affected.

[2:45 p.m.]

M. Morris: I understand that. I just…. What metrics are available for the director that the minister

is aware of that provide some kind of structure around determining what adequate and

effective policing is that the minister makes his determination on to either direct

or order some municipality to go in a certain direction?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It could be a number of factors that are taken into account. Staffing levels, obviously;

crime rate; the nature of the community, for example. Let's say a resort community,

because of significant population fluctuations during the course of the year may be

taken into account.

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

at.

M. Morris: Again, some of the things…. We're talking about some pretty serious decisions that

the minister has, or the authorities that the minister has, in order to now direct

a municipality on how they're going to be policing their community.

The clause brings up the minister's responsibilities for their respective duties under

section 2, to determine adequate and effective levels of policing. Like I said at

the beginning, these are subjective terms.

How does a community know what the terms are or what the references are that the minister

uses to make those evaluations down the road? I'll get into some statistical data

coming up here, but I'm just curious. Does the director have a set of metrics that

he or she uses in order to provide this direction to the minister to make these fairly

significant decisions?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The adequate and effective that my colleague refers to in terms of the legislation

is standard wording that's in this province and, in fact, every other province across

the country.

What we do is work with the local community, because they bring a plan to us. Then

we work with them on that plan. As I said a few moments ago, when communities are

coming up to the 5,000 mark, we've been starting to work with them 18 months to two

years ahead of that time.

M. Morris: I'm still at a loss here. This is a significant factor. This is one of the things

that I considered when I was sitting in your chair a number of years ago, because

adequate and effective were subjective terms.

[2:50 p.m.]

I was relying on the published crime stats that your ministry puts out on a regular

basis, on an annual basis, that analyze crime rates and caseloads and serious crime

— all those types of things.

I'm just wondering if this is one of the key ingredients that the minister uses to

determine whether or not adequate and effective policing is provided at a particular

police department.

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

As I said a moment ago, we look at things such as staffing levels. We look at things

such as crime rate. We look at things such as the nature of the community. We look

at, obviously, the size of the community. All of those things come into play.

Particularly as a community is approaching 5,000, when they are moving from where

the province is paying to where they're paying, we work with them to make sure that

the plan they have is the right plan, that it's able to be implemented going forward

and that it will ensure adequate and effective policing.

M. Morris: I'm still not…. I understand there's a variety of things that we look at here. I'm

very curious and determined to find out what the criteria is that the minister bases

these very serious decisions on, with respect to Surrey, especially. This is what

started this particular bill and brought this particular bill forward, the issue that

Surrey identified in providing clarity to the Police Act.

In providing clarity to the Police Act, it should be providing clarity to what the

respective duties are for the minister under

section 2, in determining what adequate

and effective policing is, because we have a variety of detachments and police departments

in the province, with crime rates that are very low to crime rates that are extremely

high, that haven't seemed to hit the minister's radar.

We have caseloads that are low in some cases, like Oak Bay and other police departments

—caseloads that are in the teens. Then we have detachments like Prince George and

Penticton, where the caseloads are well in excess of 100 or 120 or 150 cases per police

officer. So if we're providing clarity to the Police Act, what is the clarity being

provided to determine, to put the metrics around, the

section 2

definitions that we've

been referring to?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's all of the things that the member has mentioned. In fact, the variation is some

of…. All of those things are taken into account. The other items that I mentioned

— such as the size of the community; the location of the community; impact on adjacent

communities, for example; impact on provincewide policing — form part and parcel,

because every community is different.

It's not like saying, "Okay, there's a framework that says at this point, it must

be this," or "At this, it must be that." It's the work done by the director of police

services within the ministry on the plan that's put forward, taking into account things

that you've just mentioned, the things that I have just mentioned, all of those things.

E. Sturko: The minister had said in his response to my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie

that a determination is made, whether a policing service would be adequate and effective,

by looking at things like staffing plans, HR plans.

Let's go with a hypothetical, and the hypothetical is that, let's say, there was a

policing transition taking place in B.C. somewhere, some other community. It was going

to be leaving the RCMP, and the other was going to a municipal force potentially somewhere

in B.C.

[2:55 p.m.]

To determine whether or not it would have an impact on other communities, would you

have to have HR plans available for both police services in order to make a determination

on which one will be adequate and effective?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's awkward dealing with hypothetical situations. But the reality is, if what the

member put forward….

In terms of the question, you would be dealing with a police department as it exists

today with a staffing level as exists today, and then you would have a proposal for

it to transition to another police department. It would be wanting to know: how does

that impact on other communities? Does it impact on the rest of the province, for

example?

E. Sturko: Would it be important to know the number of officers required for the incoming hypothetical

police service and to see a completed HR plan in order to determine whether or not

it would have an impact on, for example, if it was in the Lower Mainland, neighbouring

Lower Mainland police services or even in the greater police community across British

Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member's question and the approach that she is taking. However, that's

getting very, in essence, into what the JR is looking at.

[3:00 p.m.]

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

Even though this particular piece of proposed legislation, this bill, deals with my

home community, Surrey, British Columbia, and it deals with one of the most important

policing issues that we've ever faced in our community, I'm not allowed to ask specifically

about that because of a judicial review.

I'm proposing a hypothetical question now. This is a very concerning issue that needs

to be answered. How on earth could a minister, if they didn't know the actual number

of officers required for this new hypothetical police force, determine the impact

on neighbouring towns in the province? Without knowing whether they were looking for

maybe 200 more people or 2,000 more people, how would they know whether that would

draw from RCMP detachments, VPD, other municipal police forces?

This is at the heart of understanding whether or not this minister has the ability

to make a decision on what is adequate and effective policing in British Columbia.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, I appreciate the approach the member is taking, but the hypothetical that she

is putting forward is the exact path of the process which is the subject of the JR.

E. Sturko: Again, I'm going to voice my deep concern, as a member of the opposition, that not

only is the minister not able to answer direct questions about what is at the heart

of this bill, the Surrey policing transition, but there was no other reason for this

legislation. I actually saw the minister himself on television talking about it: "Surrey,

just wait till this legislation comes."

Now here I am actually representing my community. I'm the MLA for Surrey South, and

I'm here asking questions that pertain to the policing transition — not allowed to

be answered. I asked, then, for this bill to be set aside until we find out whether

or not it will be impacted by a judicial review — not allowed.

Then I asked some very important and pointed hypothetical questions. Okay, we're not

talking about Surrey. I'm sorry that potentially it is similar to the Surrey policing

transition, but I think the public would have the right to know.

Is it important for this minister to understand the full extent of staffing requirements,

HR plans and how other communities would be impacted — particularly if he were going

to be making a decision based on whether or not it's adequate and effective policing

— and to invoke his power under whether or not it's considered safe?

I would think that at the heart of this ability to impose a decision on a community,

one ought to know, should know, must know, how many police would be required and if

there should be an HR plan from both the pre-existing, incumbent police and the one

that's coming in, and how, if a minister had to make a decision, this is going to

be safe. Potentially, it would destabilize policing in British Columbia. Potentially,

it would rob members from other municipal detachments and destabilize, for example,

the Lower Mainland.

To not be able to get an answer is not acceptable. I would ask again either that this

question be answered or that this bill be set aside until after the JR.

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

As I said, I appreciate the approach the member is taking, but there is a JR on it.

We did not put that JR in place. The city of Surrey put that JR in place. If that

JR were not there, I'd be more than happy to be able to provide the answers that the

member is looking for.

Second, no, we're not setting aside the bill. To do that would create even greater

uncertainty. That's not, I think, what anybody wants to see.

[3:05 p.m.]

E. Sturko: Well, I don't understand how Surrey residents can accept uncertainty in understanding

how on earth the minister would have exercised his power, under the Police Act, to

impose a decision, if we can't have any information on whether or not he would even

think it important to know all the HR information or to have clarification on how

he makes his determination into whether or not policing will be destabilized in regions

like the Lower Mainland or in other areas of British Columbia, as a result of not

knowing what those HR implications potentially are, because of not having full information

at the time of decision-making.

My real question to the minister, as this legislation got tabled after the JR: did

this minister put this legislation in after the JR, knowing that he would then be

able to not have to answer questions on behalf of the citizens of Surrey?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer is no. Frankly, it's ridiculous to suggest that. The idea that they're

going to draft an entire bill in the course of two days just does not happen. I made

it clear, back in July, that I would be bringing forward legislation. So no.

E. Sturko: How can the citizens of Surrey — or anyone in this province, for that matter — trust

that the minister has not abused his power, has not arbitrarily made a decision without

a proper review and analysis of information, when he will not answer questions as

to whether or not, even hypothetically, he believes it would be important to have

all of the HR information and know exactly how many police officers would be required

in a hypothetical policing transition in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Right since the very beginning, I've taken my role as Solicitor General very seriously.

We do not make arbitrary decisions. I have extremely professional individuals working

within my ministry that deal with these subject matters when they arise. To suggest

that somehow it's arbitrary, I think, is wrong. I just completely disagree with that

assertion.

E. Sturko: In looking at an overall framework, if the minister were looking at making a decision

based on the unique circumstances of any community in British Columbia, as he earlier

mentioned, looking at it uniquely and not necessarily based on an actual framework

but on criteria, would having complete human resources plans be a part of those decision-making

processes?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer would be yes, if a plan was also being developed under the direction or

the supervision of the director of police services which ensured that adequate and

effective policing was maintained while that was underway.

E. Sturko: In that case, you're saying that in the absence of an HR plan, the director of police

services would step in and then make an HR plan, and that would be directed, then,

for them to use.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The director of police services would be engaged, supervising something and offering

direction. That's how they'd be involved. It's not the director of police services

preparing a particular plan.

I'd also add that we are way outside, now, this particular

section of the bill.

E. Sturko: Well, bringing it back to the section, we're talking about the determination of adequate

and effective policing.

I'm trying to hammer down for the public, particularly because we've had some major

decisions made in this province based on the criteria of adequate and effective policing,

particularly here in my community. These questions are directly related to how we

define and how we figure out how we sort out what is adequate and effective policing.

Let me just try to clarify my understanding of what you just said. If a hypothetical

community wanted to do a policing transition, they don't need an HR planner to know

how many police officers might be needed, regardless of whether or not that may or

may not destabilize a region or a province, as long as they continue to work and figure

things out as they go along, with the director of police services. Is that the correct

understanding?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No.

E. Sturko: So would you feel confident in making a decision about, for example, whether or not

a police service was adequate and effective, whether or not it may lead to the destabilization

or instability of policing across the province? Would you feel comfortable and confident

in making your decision in the absence of an HR plan?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I make a decision based on the information provided to me by the director of police

services based on a whole range of information that they gather by working with the

parties involved in a potential transition.

M. Morris: I'm troubled by some of the responses that I'm hearing. We are still trying to get

to the crux of adequate and effective policing services and the criteria under which

the minister makes his decision.

The elephant in the room, of course, is Surrey. The minister has stated publicly that

he has brought this bill forward as a result of the situation with Surrey detachment.

[3:15 p.m.]

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

responds. Your ministry publication on Police Resources in British Columbia, 2021 …. Under the heading "Municipal Police Statistics for 2021 — RCMP Municipal Units:

15,000 Population and Over," on page 9, it lists 31 detachment, 31 municipalities.

It lists their populations, their authorized police strengths, the crime rates and

caseloads per officer, amongst other data.

The data indicates that the crime rate in Surrey was 65 crimes per 1,000 population

in 2021. The average crime rate for this group of municipalities was 83. So of the

31 municipalities, 20 have higher crime rates than Surrey, and eight of these municipalities

have crime rates double that of Surrey.

Under the same heading, it indicates the average criminal caseload per officer for

these 31 municipalities is 63. The average criminal caseload for Surrey per officer

is 47. There are 23 municipalities on this list whose officers carry higher caseloads.

In fact, there are several municipalities where officers are carrying double of what

Surrey's caseload is.

Another publication put out by the minister is the British Columbia Policing Jurisdiction Crime Trends, 2012-2021 . On page 12 of that publication, that indicates that the crime rate in Surrey has

steadily declined from a rate of 87 crimes per 1,000 population in 2012 to 65 in 2021.

Based on that…. And I know that the minister doesn't want to get into the weeds on

Surrey because of the JR. I disagree with that because this is the time that we need

to air how the minister makes his decisions.

This indicates to me, as a former police officer…. Because these are the same statistics

that I would use to assess the effectiveness and adequacy of my detachments under

my command when I was policing, this seems to me like Surrey is running a pretty good

operation here.

So I'm curious. The minister has publicly stated that he's very concerned about the

public safety aspect of Surrey moving forward with the RCMP. How does he base a decision…?

We can throw Surrey out for now, but based on these statistics, I am curious…. I don't

know any other information available to me — other than that redacted report that

the minister provided, with all of those blank pages on that — that we can measure,

that the public can see how this bill is going to work, moving forward.

Help us through this as to what criteria you have used to determine that things are

so serious in Surrey that the RCMP, the national police force of Canada, can no longer

provide an adequate and effective policing service for the city of Surrey.

[3:20 p.m.]

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

This is not about whether or not the RCMP are doing a good job or a bad job or any

other police agency is doing a good job or a bad job. They all are doing the best

job. This is about safe and effective policing during a transition. That's what it's

about.

As I said, there's a whole range of issues when a community wants to transition. So

going from 5,000 up. It's working with the ministry, and it varies from community

to community right across the province. It's not just one thing, as I said, that's

taken into account.

M. Morris: This is not a transition of a merging municipality coming over the 5,000 mark or increasing

to the 90 percent contracts by going over the 15,000 mark. This is a community that

has an established strength of 850 police officers, roughly, and that has got policing

statistics that support the notion that it's a very well run and effective police

service. The crime rate is quite low in comparison to the majority of other over 15,000

RCMP detachments scattered throughout the province here.

That criterion, if I was looking at it…. If I was sitting in the Solicitor General's

chair like I used to, I would be looking at this information to try and help me evaluate

adequate and effective policing services.

The other thing that I would like to know is: what are the factors that have contributed

towards the minister's appraisal that public safety is in jeopardy by moving forward

with the national police service as the contract police for the city of Surrey? It

could be for any other detachment. There are 23 of them here that have higher crime

rates. What other criteria would the minister be looking at?

As a police manager, as I was…. I looked after the northern 80 percent of the province.

Some of the criteria I looked at were: how close, proximity, were backup resources,

specialized resources? All of those factors played into how I would manage the resource

levels that I had.

We have Surrey. We have Richmond. We have North Vancouver. We have Langley. We have

a number of other large — Burnaby — and significant detachments in close proximity

to Surrey or in close proximity to each other. You could smother the area with added

resources and police officers in the event of some mishap that required those kinds

of resources. We don't have that available to us in places like Prince George or Kamloops

or Fort St. John or some of these other municipal detachments that we have here.

I am desperately trying to figure out what criteria the minister uses to determine

adequate and effective police resources when all the published information that we

have, through the crime statistics, show that Surrey is very well policed. It's got

an adequate level of resources, and it's a very effective service in keeping the crime

rate down.

What other factors are there that were redacted in that 500-page report or that he

would consider for Burnaby if Burnaby was going through a transition to another police

force? This is what the public needs to know. This is what we need to know to properly

assess the validity of these amendments for the bill.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the questions from the member. Many of them are actually, really, estimates

questions. He is asking about the decision as it specifically relates to Surrey. That's

not what the bill is about.

[3:25 p.m.]

When it comes to the redacted information…. I know the member knows that that is police

information. It's not information that I am empowered to release. The member knows

that. That is RCMP information. I can't make that any clearer than I just have.

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

As was mentioned by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, the use of the words "adequate"

and "effective" is subjective. Those are subjective words. They leave a lot of definition

to be filled in by whoever it is that is hearing those.

Further to that, in 3.1(2)(b), there is also subjective language. If the minister

decides to reject a proposal brought to them by a municipality, the minister may "reject

the means proposed by the municipality if the minister considers that the provision

of policing and law enforcement by the proposed means would adversely affect…."

Now, part of the challenge here with the responses coming from the minister is…. I

think that what my colleagues and I are interested in understanding is…. What information

is going to be required in order to inform the minister's decision?

In 3.1(2)(b), "if the minister considers…." This is seemingly leaving it just up to

the minister, based on the feelings of the minister at that moment or what the minister

is considering at that moment. So without putting some definition….

I'm going to go back to, I think, the beginning. The first question that came from

the member for Prince George–Mackenzie was around the

definitions of "adequate" and

"effective."

We know that there are words that are used and that there are specific

definitions

for them. Can the minister clearly define what adequate and effective is? I think

it would help provide some clarity for our members here from Surrey.

I recognize that the minister, actually, doesn't want to engage. The minister is feeling

limited by the engagement on Surrey. However, as I pointed out at the beginning, in

section 1, this is about policing in other communities.

We can't have it both ways. We can't stand in here and say that this is about changes

that need to be made for communities that are approaching 5,000 and that this is how

their policing is going to be sorted out and then, when a question comes…. "Oh, there's

a JR now, and we can't talk about it."

I'm just wondering. The problem here, with the way that the language is used, is….

It's left up to whoever is reading it to define. It's left up to the minister to determine

what they consider….

I think that what I and my colleagues are looking for is the clarity that needs to

be here. This mess was created by a lack of clarity, a lack of information and a lack

of definition around how the minister was making decisions and acting.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member, and I'll restate what I said, which is

that the issue around the definition of adequate and effective policing is right across

the country.

It's not specifically defined because it varies from place to place. It varies from

community to community. It varies on a whole host of things that must be taken into

account when a decision is made — for example, staffing levels, emerging trends, what

the demographic of the community is. Crime stats would be part of it. The nature of

the community. Is it, for example, a rural community that is primarily agricultural,

or is it a rural company where you have work camps?

All of those things are part and…. I'm trying to answer the question. If the member

thinks it's funny, safe and effective policing, he should say so.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

All of those things come into play, and at the end of that, the work done within the

ministry by the director of police services and his staff, working with that community,

working on the plan that they have put forward…. All of those things are part and

parcel of how a minister, the Solicitor General, will make that decision. Those decisions

that are made and the decision that is made by the minister have to be seen to be

fair.

That's why the JR process is in place, so that those who have been subject to the

decision have the ability, if they choose to, to seek a judicial review.

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

I'll just ask this, then. How is this any different than the decision-making tree

or the decision-making framework that the minister currently resides under?

It seems to me that fair and adequate policing is something that was established prior

to this, and the minister can make these considerations. What part of this isn't already

within the minister's purview, as the minister is the sole person with the responsibility

to ensure that communities have safe and effective policing in their communities?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: What this does is it clarifies the process. That's what we're dealing with in the

changes that are being brought forward. So clarifying that process.

In the

section that we're on, it shows deference to the local government, to the municipality,

in subsection (a). Then, at the same time, it also allows the Solicitor General to

now take, clearly abled, into account

section 15 subsection (2).

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

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah.

M. Morris: If we're on the road to trying to get clarity to the process, for some reason that

clarity is not emerging.

I'm having trouble still trying to assess how the minister makes the decision to go

in whatever direction the minister is going to go when it comes to adequate and effective

levels of policing.

I only have my own experience as a police manager. Coming up through the ranks, I

looked after 40-some detachments in the northern 80 percent of the province. Many

of them were municipal detachments. Many times I met with the municipal governments

to assess adequate and effective levels of policing. We struggled through the process.

We looked at crime rates. We looked at caseloads per member. Those were the two key

areas that I looked at, because that tells a story.

Then you look at violent crime. If you've got a high crime rate and you've got high

caseloads and a high violent crime rate, I would be doing my utmost to put more resources

in there to ensure that there are adequate resources to address that.

When I sat there, I got my advice from the director of police services, and we talked

about these things on a regular basis. The police services were assessing the adequacy

and effectiveness of policing based on those same criteria.

That's all I had to rely on when I looked at Surrey and when I look at other detachments

here. When I look at the statistical information for Surrey detachment, it is well

served. It is an adequate and effective level of policing on the ground in Surrey.

I'm still trying to find why or how and what other criteria the minister used to get

there. I'll go back…. I'll look at…. The minister doesn't want to talk about Surrey,

so let's talk about Burnaby.

In that same document that I referenced earlier on — the municipal police statistics,

2021 — Burnaby is at the top of the list. It has a crime rate of 52 crimes per 1,000

population and a caseload of 43 criminal files per RCMP officer in that detachment.

In my experience as a police manager and as an investigator, when you start getting

down into that 50 range of criminal cases per member, that's pretty good. That's a

workload that members can work with. To me, that doesn't present any kind of a flag

to indicate I've got to go and knock on the detachment commander's door in Surrey

and say: "You need to change. You need to get some more resources in here, Mr. Mayor."

Surrey is not much different than that. But when I look at other detachments here,

there's one with a crime rate of 208 crimes per 1,000 population and a caseload of

120 criminal files per police officer. To me, when I see that, that sets off some

bells. I've got to go and have a look at that, find out what their minimum resourcing

levels are and what we can do to try and rectify that and provide some relief for

the constables and the police officers on the ground and make the community safer

for the people.

[3:40 p.m.]

There's another one here, as well, where the crime rate is 205 and the caseload per

officer is 155. To me.... I'm sure that the minister has access to that same document.

I'm curious as to what steps that police services have been taking and bringing that

to the minister's attention, with respect to an adequate and effective level of policing.

Those are municipal responsibilities. There are a number of provincial responsibilities,

as well, that have extremely high caseloads that are under the full purview and control

of the minister. Fort St. James has a crime rate of 286 crimes per 1,000 and a caseload

of 93. There are a lot of persons crimes up in that particular jurisdiction.

When I look at that, there's quite a difference between what Surrey has and what Burnaby

has and these other detachments. Looking at everything.... I look at the availability

of backup resources. When you're in Prince George, you rely on a couple of hundred

officers here in the vicinity, so you've got some pretty good resources available.

Fort St. James doesn't have that availability. If they called out every man and woman

that was on the detachment, they'd only have a dozen or so people showing up on scene,

and it would take hours for other resources to get there. We take that into consideration.

When the minister talks about the availability of resources, the impact that these

transitions will have on the province — because that's part of the effective part

of his duties — there is no detachment commander in British Columbia that will allow

their detachment to lose resources below a minimum level of staffing.

If a member wants to transfer to Surrey or Burnaby or wherever they want to go, that

member will not be allowed to transfer until such time as backup resources come in.

Everything is working together here. I am really curious as to why….

The minister said several times publicly that he is very concerned about public safety

in Surrey under the national police force moving forward. If we are having trouble

with the national police force providing resources and service to Canadians, and Surrey

is where this is all going to blow apart, we've got to ask some serious questions

here.

I think it's incumbent upon the minister to make sure that we are aware of what the

criteria is of his decision- making process. To bring the clarity that this bill is

supposed to bring, I'm hoping that the minister can say that: "I've looked at the

statistical data for Surrey. I'm not concerned about those issues. It didn't lead

me to make my decision here."

He's saying that perhaps it's an HR issue; it's a staffing issue that the RCMP provided

him with criteria that he can't release. The RCMP statistical data has been available

for the public out there. I'm really curious as to why the minister is reluctant to

reveal the information that he used to make his decision.

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

from.

I'll just say this: none of that relates to this bill. I've outlined, I think, a number

of issues in terms of what goes into the decision-making and how it impacts this bill.

But what the member is talking about does not relate to this bill.

M. Morris: Well, on the contrary, I disagree. I think it does relate to the bill because it's

all based upon the duties of the minister under

section 2, the adequacy and effectiveness

of policing.

All the statistical data I've had access to, that's publicly available, indicates

that Surrey is very well-policed. It's got an adequate number of police officers there.

It's effective. The crime rate is down. The caseload per officer is down. Crime is

not running rampant on the streets, as we see in a number of other jurisdictions across

the province here. I think it is pertinent to this particular case.

[3:45 p.m.]

I'm really wondering what the other criteria is that the minister is deferring to

arrive at the conclusion that public safety is at significant risk in Surrey moving

forward with the RCMP because if that is the case, then we are in trouble with many

of our other detachments around the province here. We need to know. The public needs

to know. We need to know.

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

Deputy Speaker: Member, on clause 2.

M. Morris: Yeah. Thank you, Chair. We're till on clause 2, and we're still trying to get a definition

or an understanding or clarity to adequate and effective policing, which is the duty

and responsibilities for the minister in moving forward with this clause and with

the other amendments in the act here.

If we can't get by what the definition of adequate and effectiveness is and how he

bases his decision to make these pretty substantial decisions — respecting Surrey,

but this could be any detachment that we have that might be going through some kind

of a transition in the future.

I think it is pertinent to the case, so I'll just ask one more time. Is the minister

prepared to reveal all the elements that he uses to determine adequate and effectiveness?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I've already outlined a number of factors that are taken into account when it comes

to making a decision, factors that go to the director of police services, go to the

staff within my ministry and then come up to me.

I've outlined those quite comprehensively, and the rest of it that the member is talking

about really does not relate to this bill. He says he disagrees, and I disagree with

him. We're going to agree to disagree.

E. Sturko: In a previous answer to a question posed by my colleague, the House Leader for the

Third Party, the minister was talking about the determinations and decisions that

were being made and referenced that that was one of the purposes of having a judicial

review. If a community felt that the decision-making was unfair, there would be an

opportunity for judicial review.

If a judicial review took place in a different city, and the outcome of that review

was that the decision made by the ministry was unfair or somehow flawed, would that

mean that the outcome or the decision could be overturned?

[3:50 p.m.]

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

The municipality, if they feel that it wasn't reasonable or fair, has the ability

to go to a JR process. The court or the judge reviews that decision. Depending on

what they find, the decision either is in favour of the local government, the municipality,

or it's not. If it was ruled in favour of the municipality, it would come back to

the Solicitor General to make a decision based on what was before them.

E. Sturko: Just to confirm, then, if a municipality goes through the judicial review process

because they deem a decision made by the minister to be unfair or based not on correct

information, then…. If the court ruled in their favour, that court decision would

go back to the ministry, and there's a chance that they may repeal the previous decision

that they made.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There is a JR process underway right now. That process will work itself through. I'm

not going to comment at this time on something that's still underway, while that JR

process is active.

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

taking place in another community in the future….

The community felt that the decision that was being imposed by the minister was unfair.

They then received a favourable decision from the judicial review process. Is there

an opportunity, then, that the minister would overturn his decision and that they

could renegotiate, potentially, a different path?

Why I'm asking you is because related to this process…. I would like to have some

clarification here as to whether or not…. So a decision, even if deemed final…. If

there is a court review that says this was an unfair process, can it be reversed?

Is the decision by the minister, in this section, final, with no judicial or administrative

processes to change that decision?

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

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

As we were going through clause 2…. We were discussing adequate and effective policing.

The minister had supplied an answer to the House Leader of the Third Party that included

reference to a judicial review in cases where decisions made by the minister were

deemed to be unfair by a municipality.

My question is…. In a situation where a judicial review is undertaken…. If the court

decided with the municipality, is there an opportunity, then, for that decision to

be overturned?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The JR process will unfold, At the end of it…. It will follow the course of law, and

the province would apply whatever law exists at that time.

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

Depending on whether or not the minister could get this bill passed in time, then

he would be able to ignore the outcome of the JR. Is that what the minister is saying?

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

to Surrey?

E. Sturko: No, I'm not asking specifically as it relates to Surrey. I'm asking specifically as

it relates to this new legislation. If, for example, under….

I guess it's subsection (2) here. If the minister rejects the means proposed by the

municipality — say they had an election or something like that — and then they wanted

to appeal that decision, is there any mechanism?

If they did go to court, for example, and have a judicial review, would the outcome

of that review impact the decision? Is there any ability for them to, based on whatever

the outcome of that decision would be, seek a new consideration for their plan going

forward?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The JR process will unfold according to law. The province would apply whatever law

exists at the time. Nothing in this

section impacts the JR process.

The Chair: Member on clause 2.

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

[4:00 p.m.]

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

changes?

For example, if a municipality decided to go with a transition away from their police

of jurisdiction based on a false budget — maybe only a 10 percent tax hike and $40

million in cost for the transition, to later find out it was going to be $500 million

and much greater than a 10 percent tax hike, hypothetically — would there be any chance

of changes or any process to stop, change, review or reverse the decision of the minister,

or do they just simply have to spend themselves into ruin?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, I appreciate the creativity of the member opposite me, but this is awfully

close to the situation in Surrey. I think the member knows that. That is not what

this

section is about.

M. Morris: Just on clause 2, still, there was reference to the respective duties of the minister

under

section 2 but also the municipalities under subsection 15(1). I look at 15(1).

If a municipality is complying with 15(1)….

I'll just kind of read a little bit of it here:

"…a municipality with a population of more than 5 000 persons must bear the expenses

necessary to generally maintain law and order in the municipality and must provide,

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

a) policing

and law enforcement in the municipality with a police force or police department of

sufficient numbers (

i) to adequately enforce municipal bylaws, the criminal law and

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

It also has to provide for accommodation, equipment and supplies, like the detachment

vehicles, the radios, the computer systems and whatnot, and for the detention of anybody

that is arrested to be held in jail there.

I'm curious. Has the minister ever been advised in recent times that we have municipalities

that are not complying with their responsibilities under

section 15.1 of the Police

Act?

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

M. Morris: It is. The bill, under clause 3.1(2) of this new amendment, talks about that the minister

can "reject the means proposed by the municipality if the minister considers that

the provisions of policing and law enforcement by that proposed means would adversely

affect the ability of the minister or municipality to fulfill their respective duties

under

section 2 and 15 (1)."

I'm curious. The duties are well laid out under

section 15.1 of the Police Act. Is

this one of the considerations that the minister will take into consideration in ordering

a community or a municipality to change police forces or to comply with an order of

the minister?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In response to that, if a municipality were looking to change its model of policing,

the question would be whether or not they could do it without adversely affecting

requirements under

section 15.

M. Morris: Has the minister or the director of police services undertaken any work to determine

whether any detachment, whether it be Surrey or Burnaby…? Has it come to the attention

of the director and to the minister, through the director, that there is a detachment

in jeopardy of not meeting their obligations under 15(1)?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In answer to the member's question, I would just make this point. This is not about

whether a community is meeting its responsibility under

section 15, but rather it's

whether or not communities that are under a proposed transition — whether their proposal

would adversely impact

section 15.

M. Morris: Okay. The minister would then be relying on some significant information in order

to come to any conclusion that a municipality, in the future, could not meet its responsibilities

under

section 15 of the Police Act.

What steps would the minister take under normal circumstances to advise a municipality

that they were in jeopardy of not meeting their obligations under 15(1)?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think that the member is mixing two different things. This is not about communities

that are not in a transition. It's not about audits.

I've laid out the criteria that are taken into account. As I said, this is about whether

or not communities that are in a potential transition — whether or not they impinge

on their requirements under

section 15, and if they adversely impact.

M. Morris: We're looking at RCMP municipal detachments between 15,000 and up. The command structure

under the RCMP also monitors those kinds of things. If there is a detachment within

a municipality that is not meeting their obligations, and the municipality has not

been stepping up to the plate to provide sufficient resources….

There are a number of things. I recall meeting with municipalities several times over

the years regarding this, so before the ministry is even involved, the RCMP management

is involved in addressing those concerns.

Are you aware of any municipal detachment that might be facing transition? Or, if

you want to speak about Surrey in this case, where RCMP management has stepped in

and gone to the municipal government and said: "You're getting close to breaching

your responsibilities under

section 15 of the act, and you need to take these various

steps"? Is the minister aware of any RCMP management intervention in this area?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That question is not relevant, and even if it was, that would be confidential RCMP

information which I would not be allowed to disclose.

M. Morris: I'm just asking if the minister is aware of any intervention by management for any

detachment or any municipality with respect to that. That part of the question still

stands, but I'll also add this.

[4:15 p.m.]

Under

section 40(1)(b), the director of police services is required "to maintain a

system of statistical records required to carry out inspections, evaluations and research

studies." Can the minister advise us if there are any records of inspections, evaluations

or research studies that the director has provided to the minister as part of the

minister's decision-making process with respect to the municipality's responsibilities

under

section 15?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We're not amending

section 40. This is not relevant to the amendments to the bill

that we have in front of us.

Deputy Speaker: Member, on clause 2.

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

I'm still trying to figure out the clarity that this bill is supposed to provide with

respect to the minister's decision-making powers granted under clause 2 and the

definitions

of "adequate and effective policing" under his duties, but also, as mentioned under

that clause, the responsibilities of the municipality.

I'm just trying to get to the bottom of how a municipality is notified that they may

or may not be meeting their obligations and responsibilities under

section 15, which

leads to the decision-making process under this clause that the minister has.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, this has nothing to do with the process under

section 15. This is about a transition

process, and that's what the focus needs to be on.

M. Morris: I go back to where it references the duties of the minister and the duties of a municipality

under this particular clause. It's all integral to the decision-making process under

this particular clause that the minister has — these new powers that the minister

has.

We need clarity as to what the minister considers and how much effort he puts into

determining whether a municipality has not lived up to their responsibilities and

obligations under

section 15.

What criteria does he use? Who does he speak to with respect to that? Who does the

director speak to? Has the director provided any research reports under

section 40,

as an example? Has the minister spoken with the managers of the police force and the

municipalities with respect to his concerns over not meeting their obligations under

section 15?

[4:20 p.m.]

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

section 15

applies.

The first is an existing police service that is not able to provide law and order.

In that case,

section 17 would apply. That

section is not being changed.

What is being added is an amendment which will allow the minister to consider potential

impacts based on the municipality that is proposing a different police model, based

on the potential impacts of the proposed model that's being brought forward.

M. Morris: I'll just ask one more, and then my colleague from Surrey South can probably step

in. I'm just going to read the amendment here under clause 2, sub 3.1(2).

"After receiving a request under subsection (1), the minister may do either of the

following: (

a) approve the means by which the municipality proposes to provide policing

and law enforcement; (

b) reject the means proposed by the municipality if the minister

considers that the provision of policing and law enforcement by that proposed means

would adversely affect the ability of the minister or municipality to fulfill their

respective duties under sections 2 and 15 (1)."

That's why we've been trying to get clarity on this. This is a significant power that

the minister has: to reject the means that are proposed by the municipality. I'm still

not clear on how the minister determines whether he would reject that information

or not.

I guess I have one more question before I turn it over to my colleague from Surrey

South. If the decision by the minister with respect to this particular clause is rejected

by the municipality, what recourse does the municipality have to ask for a review

of the decision? Is it just the JR process, or are there any other laws of natural

justice that prevail within the act and the ministry that would look at this?

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

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

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

E. Sturko: Noting that it applies to all of British Columbia, I'm going to ask a question again

that was earlier rejected — on the premise that it was too close to ongoing processes

that are taking place in my home community.

[4:25 p.m.]

I think if this applies to all of B.C., British Columbians should know: if a court

decision is in favour of that municipality, if the JR decision falls in favour of

that jurisdiction, will that result in the potential to overturn the decision by the

minister? This is legislation that does, after all, apply to all of British Columbia.

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

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

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said, the JR process will unfold. Whatever process is in place, this does not

modify that process. However a JR process unfolds, we will apply the law that exists

at that time.

E. Sturko: Can the minister please inform the House — this is under clause 2, sub 3.1(3), about

providing information — exactly what "information, plans or records" will be required

to be provided to inform a decision by the minister?

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

that the member asked.

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

additional costs on those local governments?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think any local government that was thinking of transitioning to another policing

model would be providing the information along with that proposal to the director

of police services. It may well be that the director says, "We need some additional

information," and the local government would provide that. I would expect that they

would have that information.

E. Sturko: Did the government do any consultation with local governments prior to introducing

this legislation to determine what impact cost would be in terms of, now, this requirement

to provide the information, plans, records that the minister requires?

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

As I said in my previous answer, it is information that we would expect that they

would already have in terms of the development of a proposal.

E. Sturko: Did you speak with UBCM specifically with regard to the costs that might be associated

with these changes in legislation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I would expect that if a local government was deciding, in the future, to go down

a transition path, they would be talking with the director of police services within

my ministry in terms of the kind of information they would be looking for and would

be providing that information, so there would not be an expectation on our part that

there would be additional or onerous costs.

[4:35 p.m.]

E. Sturko: The question was: can you explain in detail what type of consultation regarding the

financial implications you had with UBCM?

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

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

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

The view from the ministry is that when you start to go down a path of saying, "We

want to transition," they would be engaged with the ministry in terms of: "Okay. What

kind of information are you looking for?" That would, no doubt, form part and parcel

of the proposal by the local government in terms of what they want to do.

I mean, it would be, in that sense, no different than saying: "Hey, we have a project,

and we want to see it go ahead. What information do you need?" The expectation is

that you provide that information.

E. Sturko: Did the discussion with UBCM and the consultation about financial implications include

discussions about the future implications of this legislation that would impact their

municipal policing costs when other municipalities leave the RCMP for their own municipal

police and the impact that has on divisional administration costs?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes. UBCM raised that issue with us, as have local governments. We have also informed

local governments that those costs are done on a per-capita basis. They would only

change if, let's say….

[4:40 p.m.]

This is from an RCMP transition. If the number of RCMP were, for example, to have

left the province of British Columbia, then that would impact those costs. If those

officers are staying in British Columbia, then there would not be an impact to those

communities.

E. Sturko: Was a full analysis done, then, in terms of how many of these positions that currently

are, for example, at the Surrey RCMP…?

If that police detachment is dissolved and those members are to be distributed to

other detachments, are you saying that every member's position is going to be transferred

to other detachments throughout the province and that there will be no loss of positions

for the RCMP in British Columbia?

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

The Chair: Through the Chair, Member.

E. Sturko: Thank you, Chair.

Based on what the minister just said, that's the way…. It would prevent a div admin

cost going up if they're going to not have any of those positions leave the province.

So will the minister confirm, then, that no positions will be eliminated, that they

will be all accounted for by distributing those position numbers amongst all the RCMPs,

and has a full analysis been done to determine what cost impact it really will have

on other municipalities?

From what I've been told, there could be a significant impact on them, between a 10

and 15 percent increase per member. So I want to know, on behalf of taxpayers, what

type of analysis was done.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's not relevant to the bill. What I explained to the member…. She asked how it

works and the way that UBCM asked. We answered UBCM, and we told UBCM how those costs

are determined, and it is on a per-capita basis.

E. Sturko: I do think it is relevant, because we're talking about new legislation impacting police

transitions, deciding the way in which policing will be done in municipalities, deciding

the fact that power can be taken away from a municipality to make its own decision.

If the minister deems that effective and adequate policing, that the standard is not

met, it's hard to determine how that standard is being met without the transparency

that that would require.

It's relevant because we were talking about if there are cost implications — for example,

when the minister is expecting and now legislating that information plan documentation

be provided. But also in the larger context of this bill as a whole, there are cost

implications.

What, in terms of this legislation, type of analysis was done to have the minister

so confidently able to say that it will not result in cost implications for municipalities

across B.C.?

[4:45 p.m.]

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

around the legislation.

They've asked questions on the cost of getting information that the director of police

services or the minister might require.

We have met with local governments on a number of occasions —both in terms of their

formal structure, in terms of their policing committees — as well as independent or

individual local governments at UBCM on the issue of the E division costs.

It has been explained to them how it works — when that is on a per-capita basis —

and that it really does come down to whether the officers stay in British Columbia

or leave British Columbia.

That's the process that would be in place, and that's the process that local government

has been advised of.

E. Sturko: Based on whether or not officers stay in British Columbia or leave British Columbia,

if you could just clarify once and for all for me, then: is the intention to keep

all those positions in British Columbia?

[4:50 p.m.]

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

is about.

In answer to the member's question, police officers are able to go anywhere in the

province, and there are communities all over the place. So it comes back to what I

said earlier in terms of how the E division component or the E division admin costs

are dealt with, which is on a per-capita basis.

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

E. Sturko: I'm just going to ask one more question, and then I'm going to pass it on to my colleague

from Prince George–Mackenzie.

The documents that the minister will be requiring –– are they going to be made public,

those that can? I understand that you'll say, "Oh, police information" and I get it.

You know that I get it, but what can be made public.

Will there finally be some transparency for communities moving ahead into the future

so that people can actually see what the minister is basing their decision on?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. I know the member gets the issue of sensitive police information,

and that's what gets redacted. My expectation is that information we received from

a local government or in terms of a transition or a proposed transition that they

would make…. All the information that can be released, would be released.

The ministry obviously consults with police in terms of information that is sensitive

and has to be redacted, and that's how I expect that the process would be.

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

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

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

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

I have listened in to some of the review on clause 2, and specifically around the

references to the duties under clause 2,

section 3.1(2)(b). I appreciate that the

minister has commented again that this is to provide a general framework.

Of course, under the existing Police Act, the

section 2 that's referred to in the

provisi