1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 21, Number 8
[ Page 15759 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
Hon. A. Petter: I notice in the gallery today Bob Porter, who has had a longtime association with Fletcher Challenge Canada, and some associates. I would invite the House to make them very welcome.
Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 31.
I apologize, Mr. Speaker, I forgot to call Committee of Supply in Section A for the purposes of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Forests.
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
The House in committee on Bill 31; D. Lovick in the chair.
S. O'Neill: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
S. O'Neill: It's a pleasure to welcome to the Legislature today a group of 27 grade 7 students from Ashton Creek Elementary School in my riding. They are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Alan Harrison and several adults. Will the House please make them welcome.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.
On section 4, section 27.
L. Fox: I just want to ask for some clarification on section 27. As I understand it, that's all part of section 4. We've seen over the last ten years a number of clauses like this in municipal legislation, which indeed give the respective community the permission not to go before the people in order to sign a franchise agreement with the gas company. I guess the question that I have is: why would we not change the Municipal Act to allow municipalities -- when it's in their best interests and the taxpayers' best interests -- to have the authority to sign such a franchise agreement, so we wouldn't have to see these amendments almost on an annual or semi-annual basis?
Hon. D. Marzari: I will inform the House and the member that in fact the ministry is presently looking at a separation of those issues, which do need assent of the electorate and which you would fight for if situations arose where the electorate was not given the power to give its approval to taxpayer expenditures -- it would be most upset. We will separate those issues from issues such as this one, where obviously there is a franchise agreement. It's going to be ongoing. There seems to be no contention; in fact, the legislation simply hasn't been drawn up to recognize these particular occasions. So I should inform the House that we will be separating this out by legislation, I hope, in the near future.
Section 4, sections 27 and 28 approved.
On section 4, section 29.
J. van Dongen: I just want to thank the minister for her involvement and assistance in the amalgamation of Matsqui and Abbotsford.
Further to that, I want to raise an issue from another part of my constituency, the Chilliwack River valley. I have recently written a letter to the minister about that. As the minister probably knows, we have quite a lot of difficulties in the Chilliwack River valley. I have been asked, as their member, to pursue discussions about the possibility of the Chilliwack River valley separating from the regional district that they are involved in now. I understand that there has been precedent for this, where small communities have been able to set themselves up as separate legal entities. I think the minister announced one or two in the past year. Maybe she could comment on that.
I have also had representations from another group in the area that wants to discuss the possibility of amalgamation with the district of Chilliwack. I will also pursue that with the minister and her staff.
I wonder if the minister could comment on the first scenario: the one of setting up a separate village or some other such entity.
Hon. D. Marzari: At the present time, three regional districts are amalgamating. They are moving toward amalgamation in the upper valley, and that's appropriate, I think, for good planning for the whole of the Fraser Basin. I suggest that if we want to look at amalgamations or boundary extensions, we do that after the three regional districts have pulled themselves together. We should definitely look at it then.
As for the first issue, I will promise the member that I will be reading the Blues and reviewing his letter with staff, and we'll see what we can do over the next month or so to give him some assurances, one way or the other, as to whether or not we can act on his request.
Section 4, section 29 approved.
Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. D. Marzari: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
[10:15]
Bill 31, Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1995, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call adjourned second reading debate of Bill 37.
[ Page 15760 ]
VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT
(second reading continued)
Hon. C. Gabelmann: A minor point of order, hon. Speaker. The member for Okanagan West adjourned the debate. If another speaker speaks now, I would hope the House would.... Here he is. My stalling tactic has succeeded.
C. Serwa: It's sincerely a pleasure to rise and speak on the philosophy and principles of the Victims of Crime Act. I'm also appreciative of the sister act -- Bill 38, the Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 1995 -- which we'll be discussing shortly after this particular debate.
In the history of this government there has been a lot of legislation that I've not been very happy with, and some has been brought forward by the Attorney General. In spite of the mediocrity of a lot of that legislation, this particular bill is a very good piece of legislation. As a matter of fact, it's an act of brilliance. If there is any bit of legislation where the public interest will be well served, I think it is in legislation such as this. As a matter of fact, I think every member in the Legislature, not only government members but opposition members, can feel very proud of the philosophy and principles contained in the Victims of Crime Act.
I probably can't say too much in support of the philosophy and principles. When we get into the sections, there are concerns that I may have, but I'm very, very proud of this act and the opportunity to partake in second reading debate on it. I'm also proud of former Attorneys General, especially Les Peterson of the former Social Credit government. He brought in the Criminal Injury Compensation Act in 1972, which was also an understanding and an awareness of the necessity to bring forward legislation that concerned victims of crime.
I'd like to pay tribute today to people like Rosalie Turcotte, Keith Kemp and all of the other private citizens who have laboured long and hard to focus public and government attention on the plight of crime victims and, in particular, of the families of homicide victims, who were not being fully recognized by the Workers' Compensation Board in their narrow interpretation of the previous legislation. I think we're all aware that under ancient Anglo-Saxon law the emphasis was on the basis of restitution. If someone had been victimized at that point in time, restitution was first and foremost. Over a long period of time, and certainly in recent years, the focus has been moving away from that. There's a great deal of public concern with respect to the rights of the victim and to restitution not only for the immediate victim but also for the family of the victim. There are tragedies and occurrences which instil memories that will last a lifetime, as well as other damages that occur. This particular legislation has an opportunity to address it, and I think the very, very sound principle of restitution is, in fact, being restored.
There are some concerns that I think we all share about judicial matters, sometimes with respect to sentencing and sometimes prior to matters coming before the courts -- plea bargaining by prosecutors. I don't believe that the public interest is being served in a number of these cases, and often it's a matter of expediency in the process. I think we're losing something in the criminal justice system when we're depending on expediency in the court system simply to facilitate the flow of work, without being acutely aware of the harm being done to those who have been victimized.
There are sections in this particular bill that give me cause for some concern. I think one is the concept of the accrual of a fund. The accrual of the fund, as the Attorney General indicated, would come from a surcharge on all of the fines that are paid to the province for infractions of provincial legislation. This would occur certainly with Transportation and Highways, for example -- whether it be speeding offences, overweight-trucking fines or perhaps the wrong type of permit. Nevertheless, those types of offences appear to have a surcharge on them. I would suggest that under the Forest Practices Code or the Forest Act, in all probability, offences and fines will also have this surcharge, and so will environmental infractions and all other infractions.
The question in my mind is: is this going to turn into a cash cow? What control is there? What percentage will the surcharge be? Will this be put into a dedicated reserve fund, where there is some form of adjustment? Those are the types of questions that I think we have a right to ask and the Attorney General has the responsibility to answer.
The concern I think I have, which is perhaps shared by a lot of members in this Legislature, and certainly by a lot of private citizens, is: what is the effect on the criminal? When we talk about restitution, there has to be an obligation on the criminal, the individual who has victimized. What will happen there?
Certainly the compensation fund is very necessary for providing the support services, the counselling, and for dealing with the other damages that the victim or the victim's family is faced with. But it seems to me that there is also a responsibility through this legislation to ensure that the perpetrator has a responsibility, and that may be done through the prison sentence, for example, and through work-related requirements. I have no difficulty with that. I think the public at large feels that corrections institutions are not serving as a deterrent to crime. But there is an opportunity that is not being utilized, when we look at them as a source of rehabilitation for teaching practical work for those individuals while they're incarcerated. It may be a good thing, and perhaps some of the proceeds or some of the assets should be used first and foremost as part of that restitution.
While the victim and the victim's family are covered under this legislation, somehow it appears that the criminal who has caused the damage is once again evading a fundamental responsibility. That's my concern, although I agree that you cannot get blood from a stone in most cases. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the Attorney General could proceed, because not all criminals are without assets. In the case of drunk driving, where someone is killed, for example, it's still a criminal act, and the person will have assets and resources. It seems to me that the Attorney General and the ministry, through this legislation, should be as determined to get some form of restitution from the perpetrator of that as they are with respect to spousal maintenance, for example. There should be every assistance from the Ministry of Attorney General to support victims and victims' families in the legal process, to enable some form of restitution from the perpetrator of a criminal act.
There are a number of other elements that cause people a lot of concern. Some have to do with the parole system. While it's outside of this bill, the individual can still be potentially victimized by early release. We've seen situations where someone who was given a lifetime sentence can virtually be
[ Page 15761 ]
paroled or can come up for parole within five years, and this is causing a great deal of concern in society.
In spite of some concerns about some elements of this bill, I'm very, very pleased to support Bill 37, the Victims of Crime Act. I think if the Attorney General is to be remembered fondly in the minds of most British Columbians, he will be remembered mostly for legislation such as this, which is coming before the House today.
A. Warnke: I suppose victims' rights is one of those issues that concerned me prior to my entry into public life, and I've been interested in it for several years now. As a former educator who studied justice and jurisprudence, certainly it was one of the issues I pursued. It's in that context that I'm very pleased that efforts are being made to put in some sort of institutionalized form appropriate legislation that enhances victims of crime.
It's very fair that many members of the public have a view that over the years and decades, offenders of crimes have had their rights enhanced. I would suggest that it's probably appropriate and accurate to feel that in reality the enhancement of offenders' rights has been at the expense of victims. Therefore what is required is some sort of balance. Make sure that an offender has his or her day in court and that justice is served, but also make sure that justice is extended to victims. Victims' rights need to be enhanced.
I also want to join the member for Okanagan West, who paid tribute to two groups of people: those who have been advocates over many years for victims rights, and those who have been affected by crime itself -- not only the specific victim, in the case of murder, but also the victim's families, and so on.
It's in that context that I'm actually pretty proud of my role, because it is one of those issues that motivated me to get involved in public life. I'm usually pretty modest about these things, but I do want to put on the record some of the comments I have made in the past.
On April 22, 1992, I said in this House:
"...the public seems to be asking that more attention be paid to the victims of crime; and that some sort of compensation be allocated toward individuals who are victims of crime along the lines of restitution. More philosophically speaking, the public seems to be thinking that more and more attention ought to be paid to the victims of crime...."
On June 9, 1992, I further said in this House:
"...society has not paid sufficient attention to the victims of crimes. I am one of those who feel that not only do we need an awareness that victims have rights, but in an institutional context it is extremely important to expand the rights of victims...This not only applies to the most heinous of crimes in our society, but I would like to see the expansion of victims' rights in a more broad and general sense."
[10:30]
On May 14, 1993, I again said in this House:
"We have to advocate restitution for the victim. Victim restitution schemes are...a very progressive way to go, so as to not just focus on the offender but to also relate what the nature of the crime is between the offender and the victim. Too often we ignore the victim, and I think it's extremely important to understand that the victim is a centre of our community as well."
Finally, on June 2, 1993, I asked this question in this House:
"...when will the Attorney General take concrete action to enhance victims' rights and recognition of their just place in a court of law?"
I'm very pleased that the Attorney General has taken this initiative. I would also say that I really appreciate the comments on this bill by members from all sides of the House, and especially some of the comments made by the member for Okanagan West, the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, and my own colleague the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, who was quite eloquent in his response to the Attorney General's opening remarks. I appreciate these.
I did note that there has been a lot of emphasis -- almost an exclusive emphasis -- on the victims of murder. Murder, and especially serial killing, has perhaps finally driven us to understand that victims' rights need to be protected and enhanced. I would like to pick up on one remark I said in this House three years ago: I would like to see victims' rights that are not exclusive to murder victims but are for victims in a more general sense. There are many different serious crimes and, maybe some people would say, not so serious crimes.
Take, for example, the case of breaking and entering. That hasn't been mentioned so far in the context of this bill. It may not necessarily involve violence; sometimes it does, and it certainly has the potential for involving violence. But even breaking and entering violates something very sacred and important to the individual; there is a violation that has taken place.
When we talk about victims' rights, I would hope that we are not going to be exclusively concerned with the victims of extreme violence and murder. I would like to see us address violence in general, even what some people might call very small crimes, or whatever. It's an attitude that I think is extremely important: we have to move in a direction to restore the balance in favour of victims' rights. As a matter of fact, I would share a common view with the public that we have gone too far in terms of enhancing and protecting the offenders' rights. What is radically needed is some sort of balance to ensure that victims' rights are enhanced.
In that sense, I appreciate what the Attorney General has said. In the conclusion of his remarks, he did say that this is one step further ahead. If I really wanted to be radical, I would say that that's not enough. But I understand what potential problems.... One never knows what becomes latent in a particular piece of legislation -- that was unintended and creates problems later on. I appreciate and understand the conservative approach that is necessary.
At least what I can compliment the Attorney General on is that the legislation was introduced -- the first step -- a few years ago, and now we are moving into a second step. At least we didn't procrastinate and wait until the legislation was really forced on us, although there is a view that perhaps the legislation is not moving in the right direction of victims' rights as fast as it should be. But I appreciate that any move in this direction to enhance victims' rights is the right direction.
I would also suggest that when we're talking about victims' rights, perhaps we could broaden our scope as to what constitutes a victim. Sometimes a victim of the state.... I suppose there are those who, quite validly, quite justifiably, say that the state and the police force sometimes engage in criminal activity. We have some evidence of that. The Attorney General certainly knows of a few cases like that. This has to be addressed.
In the case that my hon. colleague for West Vancouver-Capilano pointed out -- the case of Danny Perrault.... As a
[ Page 15762 ]
matter of fact, he's been vociferous on this, to his credit. He has pointed out how the state and the government are responsible for those kinds of actions. I would suggest that an example such as Danny Perrault shows how the offenders' rights have gone too far in one extreme, all at the expense of victims' rights -- not only the victims in the past but also potential victims in the future. This is where I think the member for West Vancouver-Capilano could be commended.
In terms of the principle of the bill, I have just a few comments. I'm extrapolating three aspects of the bill from that. Certainly legal representation and the enhancement of legal representation are important. As a matter of fact, when we get into the substantive parts of the bill, they outline the respect that must be extended to victims -- the right to courtesy and respect. But it's more than just courtesy. It's an assurance to victims of being heard and of knowing that their applications will be received and acted on. In this context, I would suggest that the opening is noble enough, but we really have to get across the idea that the victims, the victims' families and those who share the victims' situations will be assured of being heard, that their applications will be received and that they will receive appropriate legal representation.
I like the move toward more legal representation, because the Crown may too often take up a case.... There are members of the Crown.... My colleague and I have pointed out in this House a few examples of where the Crown has miscued and messed up in a case at tremendous expense to the victims. We are headed in the right direction when victims themselves have the opportunity to be legally represented, not based just on the money that they unfortunately have had to spend out of their own accounts as a result of someone else's stupid or evil actions. That is so important.
Secondly, there is an emphasis on information and providing that information to victims and victims' families, and it is so essential to enhance this. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi raised some interesting points on this, so I will not expand.
Third, there's the compensation. This is a tricky area. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the fact that the Attorney General has to move very cautiously and conservatively in trying to set up a system of compensation. This is groundbreaking territory, so we have to be very careful how we move in this direction.
On some of the decisions in terms of compensation that have been handed down, not only in this province but across Canada and certainly in the United States, I have as a matter of fact always felt very contradictory, because there are some huge compensations for some of the very strangest acts that occur in society. Some people misbehave, and somehow they are overly compensated and all the rest of it, and yet when it comes down to victims being compensated, we have not in the past moved an inch in that direction. At least I see in this legislation that it is groundbreaking territory, but it is extremely important to recognize that there is appropriate compensation for those who are victims.
Those are just a few comments I want to make. I'm very pleased, and since I was so interested in this issue prior to entering public life, this is one of those issues on which I'm really pleased to see there is some progress. All I can say is that whether it's this Attorney General or successive Attorneys General, whoever they may be, I hope that it is one step further ahead in developing victims' rights. We should not pause; we should stay vigilant and keep after it, adding one step after one step after one step. Let us hope that we restore the balance. If we favour victims' rights over offenders' rights and move in that direction, I would not be displeased.
L. Fox: In the absence of our critic, I want to rise and put on record that we in the B.C. Reform Party support the principle of Bill 37 and the subsequent bill, Bill 38, because they work together. What we will do is seek considerable discussion at committee stage to try to understand the applications, the parameters and how this legislation is going to work.
I also want to join some of the other members in the Legislature in congratulating those who have been advocates of this kind of legislation, many of them for years, and particularly those who have suffered firsthand -- families that have suffered, and families of victims who have suffered. They have chosen to dedicate much of their energy towards this type of legislation and to prove the need to all members of the Legislature for this type of legislation.
So with those few words, just to be on record that we support the principle of the legislation, we look forward to the clause-by-clause debate. Hopefully, at the end of that we can have a good, solid understanding of the intent of the actual mechanics of this legislation.
M. Farnworth: I too would like to take the opportunity to rise and speak briefly on Bill 37, which I feel is an important piece of legislation that somehow can often be overlooked. Bill 37, Victims of Crime Act, is part of a package that the government is introducing to address a need in society -- the need of victims to recognize that their rights are protected and looked after, and that it's not just the person who has committed the crime whose rights are protected or whose rights, as the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston said, have been enhanced.
Recently we've seen a great deal of public concern. Over the past couple of years we have seen efforts to get the federal government to change the Young Offenders Act. We have seen a call for stiffer sentencing. We have seen cries for governments to crack down on crime and to make the streets and our communities safer. People wonder what is being done. Well, we can tell them that this government is doing a great deal. Much of the criminal law of this country is federally regulated, but there's a lot the province can do. We've done that through such things as community policing and legislation such as Bill 37, the Victims of Crime Act, which is going to guarantee that victims of crime have rights, that their needs are looked after and that they're not just somehow swept aside or pushed aside as the justice system does the work that it must do. There is going to be funding to ensure that victims' programs are maintained, through a dedicated surcharge on fines and costs levied by the courts, so that they are not subject to the vagaries of government and cannot just be cut or decreased. They're there, and they can be only spent on victims' services. That's extremely important.
[10:45]
The bill recognizes that victims have the right to know -- the right to information, the right to be informed and the right to be told what is going on. One of the worst things that can happen to a person after they have been a victim of a crime is that they're not told anything. They're just kept in the dark, and that's not right. One of the things this legislation does is ensure that people are informed. It ensures that they can have
[ Page 15763 ]
legal representation; it ensures that the impact of the crime committed against them can be presented in court, that their pain and anguish can be heard and that there are opportunities for them to ensure that they are not ignored.
This piece of legislation is part of a package that goes with Bill 38, the Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 1995. Together, the two make a very powerful statement that the victim, who has for too long been ignored in the criminal justice system, will no longer be ignored. People can feel that the justice system works for them as much as it works for the accused. I think that is one of the most fundamentally important things that the Attorney General has accomplished in the last three years, and it will go a long way in ensuring that people recognize that the justice system continues to evolve in such a way that they are protected, their rights are protected and their rights are enhanced.
So with that, I commend the Attorney General for the introduction of Bill 37, and I look forward to its speedy passage.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would like to add my support to the bill on behalf of those people who, over the years, have come to my office to raise concerns about what seems to be the rights of perpetrators of crime and not the rights of victims. I would like to relate a little story. When I was a student, I became aware of some victims of family violence who were struggling to find out where the guilty party was. He was the father in the family, and he had threatened in the courtroom to get even with the family members who had testified against him. It tore this family apart. They were never sure; they always had to be aware that this man would come out one day. And it was not by any right they had, but only by some kind of unusual cooperation of members of the police that they found out his actual date of discharge from a prison in Ontario. The man came back into the area.
These people had to contact senators, very senior municipal politicians, police board people and so on just to find out the whereabouts of this person. They actually set up some kind of defence around their house: an alarm system. The police agreed to cooperate, and the family did that. And sure enough, this person did carry out -- or started to carry out -- his revenge on the family: a very brutal beating of the mother and some of the children. In fact, this guy, when he was living in downtown Vancouver, had a bomb. He was going to take the bomb to the house. Fortunately, I can say, he blew himself up as he was crossing the street, before he could additionally victimize other members of his family.
I worked with that family a bit, and members of my family worked with some of those people, trying to keep them safe and trying to.... I know my mother-in-law did a lot of work, trying to make sure that the victims knew what was going on.
I am very pleased that now, some 24 years later, we are finally seeing the rights of victims enshrined in law. I would like to commend the Attorney General for those practices that were started over the years and continued with our government, and for the many things we're doing to make things better for victims. Putting into legislation and codifying what is current practice, so that it is now law, is commendable. Like the previous member, I think that when we couple this with Bill 38, we have turned the corner on establishing the victim's concerns and rights to privacy in the courtroom and to not being victimized again. That is, in fact, something to be celebrated.
Sherri Bartley in my region has come in over the years, asking us to strengthen the law to protect victims. For me it's a happy day to be able to rise here and lend my support to the principle of this bill and commend the Attorney General for all the anti-crime activities, which make a list as long as our arms. We are leaders in British Columbia in this, and I think this is a legacy that this Attorney General can take into our next term of government.
The Speaker: The hon. Attorney General will close the debate.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I want to thank all members who participated in the debate for their advice, comments and, not least, support. I agree with members who indicated that there are a number of questions to pursue, and it is appropriate that we do that in committee stage. I will attempt to answer as best I can and in full detail at that time why certain decisions were made about the way the bill was written and what certain provisions mean, and go from there.
But I thought, in an overview way, that I would answer some of the questions and comments that were raised by members in second reading debate. The official opposition critic, I think, was wondering about the implementation date. We're targeting January or February of next year as the time of proclamation. Work is proceeding now as much as it can in advance of the House having dealt with the legislation. The fine surcharge is anticipated to raise somewhere between $3 million and $5 million, although we don't know what that is actually going to raise until we have some experience with it. We now spend somewhere around $6 million on the victim services program, so this will add at least another $3 million to provide an enhanced set of services which are contained in the legislation.
The goals section is an interesting issue. The member for West Vancouver-Capilano, I think, was not sure that we were serious here. In fact, we are. The best way of illustrating the problem with enshrining some of these desirable outcomes as rights is if you provide as a right, for example, that the accused and witnesses should not have to be in the same part of a courthouse awaiting trial, should not have to bump into each other in hallways. You're going to have to redesign and rebuild a lot of courthouses. Many of them are very, very old and are designed in a way that doesn't enable that. It would be an immense capital construction proposition to fix that particular problem overnight. We have to set them as goals to ensure that in new courthouse design those kinds of goals are taken into account. But that's section 8, I think; when we get to that, we can spend more time on it.
The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi raised a number of specific questions. I'm just going to respond generally now; we'll have an opportunity in committee to get into more detail. He asked how the bill will assist victims in new ways. Let me just say that some of the new assisting provisions will include the right to legal representation, which some members of the opposition have indicated. It places a statutory obligation on the Crown to give victims the opportunity to present a victim impact statement in court. While that happens now in most cases, there's not an obligation to do so. Through the surcharge, it provides a funding base for
[ Page 15764 ]
victims' programs. It provides an accountability mechanism, through providing the ombudsman access to victim services. I think that simply providing a statutory base for victim services adds to the legitimacy of the issues.
The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi asked what the standard will be for determining if information would prejudice a case. The standard stays the same as has existed for some time; nothing changes in that respect. He asked about subsection 6(1)(c), about information on the reasons why a decision was made respecting charges. Crown's discretion in releasing information on charge approval continues; again, nothing changes. He asked how victims will receive information about their case. Most often I would assume that victims will receive information by way of telephone conversations. But in some circumstances Crown prosecutors will also talk with victims, as will Crown victim services workers, when it's necessary to talk directly.
The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi also asked how we can say where offenders will be when they're released. Under the bill, we're talking about providing information about offenders who are on a supervised release. We only know where people are while they're under supervision. Once the end of the supervision period and the end of their sentence occurs, then of course we don't know where they are. He asked what is provided in other provinces. I'm not going to take the time of the House now to do a province-by-province comparison, but I do have what people call a matrix, which will enable me to answer any specific questions that come up in committee about the status of various rights and goals in other provinces.
The member for Langley asked about the central registry for protection orders. That's not in the legislation. That was in the announcement of Bill 37 and Bill 38. We also announced the central registry for protection orders, but that is a policy decision that doesn't require legislation.
The member for Okanagan West made some comments which I appreciate very much. I can assure him the fine surcharge won't turn into a cash cow. It's a dedicated fund. It's to be administered by the Attorney General's ministry for victim services programs. It doesn't go into the Finance minister's pocket to have some other purpose accomplished. This is an AG program and will be for victims of crime. I think the member's comments were general. Beyond that, I know he will have some specific questions in committee, which we can deal with there.
The former critic for the official opposition, the member for Richmond-Steveston, talked about requiring a balance between offenders' and victims' rights, and while I think that's right in a general political sense, we're talking about very different kinds of rights here. The accused, first of all, is not an offender and is not guilty while they're accused. There's often an assumption that just because somebody is being tried, they're guilty. Of course they're not guilty until the court determines that. What we're doing with the accused is a very fundamental thing: we're talking about the potential of taking away their liberty. Those rights are very important, and nothing I say or do, and nothing this legislation attempts to accomplish, diminishes in any way the appropriate rights of the accused. The very worst thing that can happen -- not the very worst thing.... One of the bad outcomes of a justice system that does not properly protect the rights of the accused is that falsely accused persons can end up having their liberty taken away from them for things they did not do. So those rights are important; they're not diminished by this.
But what we are really saying -- and this is the major political statement in this legislation, which all members support -- is that the victim has been forgotten. The victim is victimized at the time of the crime and then is victimized again by having to go through a court process that is really hard to understand sometimes, particularly when nobody tells you what's going on. We're trying to enhance that information and enhance those rights, and everybody supports that.
The member for Richmond-Steveston talked about including less serious crimes, and I think the legislation does include all types of offences. In terms of the definition of victim, it includes those who suffer physical or mental injury, significant emotional trauma or economic loss as the result of an offence. So it's pretty broad, in my view.
[11:00]
The member also said that victims and their families must be assured of proper service. Well, we provide a pretty extensive service package now, well supported by volunteers in communities across this province. At every opportunity I get, I thank the volunteers for doing the work that they do.
That's a very, very rough and general response. I'll get into more detail when we get into committee stage. With that, once again, I would move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 37, Victims of Crime 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. C. Gabelmann: I call second reading debate of Bill 38.
CRIMINAL INJURY COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading)
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Amendments to the Criminal Injury Compensation Act are part of the government's commitment to provide exceptional services to victims of crime. There are essentially three amendments made by this bill. First, parents and families of murder victims may now apply for compensation under the act. Second, those who are criminally injured on the job will now have access to pain-and-suffering benefits under the act. The third amendment removes an onerous administrative requirement from the act.
The Criminal Injury Compensation Act already provides benefits to dependent family members of murder victims. This amendment expands eligibility to parents and other family members who have suffered the loss of a family member. Non-dependent family members will be covered retroactively to January 1, 1991. This date was chosen because in 1991, a more strict interpretation of the act led to the complete exclusion of non-dependent family members. Before 1991, family members were considered regardless of dependency.
With respect to the second amendment, those who are criminally injured while working will now be eligible for pain-and-suffering benefits under the act. Although these indivi-
[ Page 15765 ]
duals may receive benefits through the Workers Compensation Act, they do not receive pain-and-suffering awards under that legislation. In effect, this amendment corrects a disparity between those criminally injured while at work and those criminally injured away from work.
The third amendment removes an administrative burden from the legislation. The criminal injury compensation program will no longer be required to report each and every application with my office. They will continue to provide me with a list of appeals, however, by way of policy.
This bill will most profoundly affect parents who have lost a child, and will assist families to cope with their tragic loss through grief counselling and other services. I move second reading.
J. Dalton: To start, the official opposition and I congratulate the Attorney for bringing this bill forward. It is long overdue. We have to examine it carefully, however, to see whether there is not more that we might do, perhaps even bringing in some amendments. As we've been discussing at some length on the previous Bill 37, and as my colleague from Richmond-Steveston in particular put on the record, we have to be expanding anything we can do in the way of providing services, compensation, etc., to victims.
A statement that I made last year in this House on private members' day comes to mind. The title of my statement was "The Forgotten Victim," and we all very much have to pay heed to that forgotten victim. These two bills we're dealing with now, Bill 37 and Bill 38, certainly make some progress in that direction. It's an ongoing struggle, and we have to be ever-vigilant as to how we deal with it.
The amendments to the Criminal Injury Compensation Act are unfortunately long overdue, and I must pay some recognition to the too many victims we have all been in contact with and are well aware of: the Flathers, the Duggans, the Cadmans, the Simmonds, the de Villiers, and of course, the family of Dawn Shaw of Comox, the family of Mindy Tran of Kelowna, the family of Melanie Carpenter of Surrey and the family of Pamela Cameron of Surrey. We can never forget the families of the Olson victims, and I could go on. As all members know, the numbers are unfortunately legion, and it is not just in this province. We can go right across the country and identify others.
I would like to give credit to people like Doreen Prevost of North Vancouver, the person who is very active in my community dealing with Citizens United for Safety and Justice. I cite her name because she is one of those unrecognized troupers out there who work hard and for no financial reward whatsoever to bring these causes forward. We must give recognition to CRY, CAVEAT and SafetyNet. I must compliment my colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour, who has met on many occasions, and again just recently, with the Flathers and the Duggans of North Vancouver, who, of course, are truly victimized. I think it's fair to say, in the case of the Duggans, very unfortunately, that not only are they victimized, but they're facing the further ongoing tragedy that they cannot find the remains of their murdered daughter.
These tragedies are not only unfortunate, they're demonstrative of a very serious cancer in our society, and if these two bills can in any small way cut out even some of that cancer, they are long overdue.
Within the bill itself, we're very pleased to see the expansion, as the Attorney General has commented this morning, of the definition of immediate family. We're very pleased as well to see the pain-and-suffering aspect brought into this legislation.
When we get to section 13 -- just to flag this for the Attorney -- we may want to have some expanded discussion at committee stage about the dates. The Attorney did comment this morning about January 1, '91, but perhaps we will want to explore that a little further and see whether there may not be avenues, even when we're at committee stage, to perhaps expand this bill to the next, long-overdue step.
The other comment I want to put on the record deals indirectly with what this bill is seeking to accomplish, and of course, that's compensation for victims. The point I would like to make....
At this point I must give credit to a constituent, a very good friend and, I think I can honestly say, one of my political mentors: David Marley, who's a Burnaby lawyer and lives in West Vancouver. David and I speak probably daily on these bills and many other things of a political or legal nature. I mention David Marley not just so he'll feel good. I guess he won't be tuned in this morning, because he is out there earning a living. David Marley, as some members will know, was mentioned last Saturday in Barbara Yaffe's column in the Vancouver Sun. Of course, she was commenting in this article on many of the things that we're either doing here this morning or that I think government should be directing its mind to. Perhaps most importantly of all.... This is the point that David Marley is advancing through actual civil legal actions that he is taking, on behalf of the Cadmans in particular. He is seeking through a civil action to bring accountability to the offender, the person that we are all trying to deal with indirectly by compensating the victim. Perhaps it's too easy to slip into the fault of forgetting there has to be accountability for those who offend. That accountability expands beyond the Criminal Code and the penalties that we can seek through criminal proceedings. There's another case in Ontario that I'll refer to in a moment. What David Marley and others are advancing is this: let's drag these offenders into the civil process and make a very clear statement that their actions are unacceptable.
I am reminded that earlier this morning my colleague from Richmond-Steveston made a very good point about government involvement. For example, we all know, unfortunately, that there were some foul-ups in the way that the Danny Perrault case was handled. So when I speak of civil action, I'm not discounting the very fact that government itself should be held accountable.
That is true in some of these cases that Barbara Yaffe has written about in her column of last Saturday. She mentions an Ontario case where the relatives of a victim, a 23-year-old woman murdered in Toronto, are suing both the federal government and four men associated with the crime for $60 million. Well, I guess that's accountability if that action is successful. The case is based on the family's belief that government was negligent in granting one of the four men, who earlier was ordered deported, a stay of deportation, enabling him to remain in Canada -- a very sad comment. In another case coming out of Toronto about a 25-year-old Toronto police officer who was killed, the family is seeking $60 million, the contention being that the government neglected to enforce a longstanding deportation order for the person having now been charged with the murder of the police officer.
[ Page 15766 ]
In British Columbia, coming back to the Cadman case, David Marley is representing the Cadmans. They're suing the B.C. government and the father of the person who was convicted of the 1992 murder of Jesse Cadman. The Cadmans are asserting that both James Deas and provincial officials failed to ensure that a court-ordered dusk-to-dawn curfew imposed on Isaac Deas was properly enforced. That is very interesting, hon. Speaker.
Again, let me commend people like David Marley, and Chuck and Dona Cadman, who are prepared to put their names on the line, so to speak, and get into this groundbreaking civil process of accountability for those who offend. I think we all have to give very serious thought to that.
One other point I would also like to give David Marley credit for is dealing with bankruptcy laws. This, of course, is well beyond the purview of this act, and even of this provincial government, but the federal government is now looking at changing bankruptcy laws. Mr. Marley would like it reflected in any change in bankruptcy laws that any civil judgment of the nature I have just referred to not be wiped out by a declaration of personal bankruptcy. It's too easy to escape the clutches of justice, so to speak, by having a civil process and a judgment brought in, and then the judgment debtor conveniently declares bankruptcy -- end of the ball game. That is hardly a message that we want to pass. Certainly I would encourage the federal government to look very seriously at the recommendation that Mr. Marley and others are advancing in that regard. That's the other point I want to put on the record.
We have to look at this bill both from the point of view of what it's trying to accomplish, and, appropriately, government compensation where needed; but I would like all members to reflect on the fact that government can not be all and do all for everyone. It's not just the expense; I think it's too easy for us all to fall into the trap of saying that if there's a problem, government will solve it. Government cannot solve it financially or socially. This bill has a particular purpose, and we will support it very strongly.
However, we must also cast our minds at every waking moment to the fact that those who offend -- particularly those who victimize others emotionally and financially -- should be brought before the civil courts and made accountable. In that way, government cannot, and should not, be seen as interceding in the process. Government can stand back and say: "Fine. Let citizens take care of these things themselves." However, government also has to be aware of the fact that it may become a defendant in some of these cases -- and is, in fact, a defendant in some of these cases. Government itself will be held accountable through that sort of civil process.
Again, I applaud the Attorney General for bringing this bill forward. We look forward to other comments and, of course, to committee stage of the bill.
[11:15]
D. Jarvis: I rise to make some comments with regard to Bill 38, the Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 1995. I appreciate that it is a companion bill to Bill 37, the Victims of Crime Act, which has just been put forward and which I support as well. I'd just like to make a couple of comments about two incidents that happened in my area, in North Vancouver. Two years ago Lynn Duggan, a young lady in her prime, was brutally killed in her apartment. One year ago Dr. Verne Flather, a well-known MD in North Vancouver, was shot down outside his residence by a mentally disturbed patient.
Before I go further, I would like to say that at the end of last week, following the introduction of this bill, I met with people from the groups CRY, Advocate and Crimestoppers, and with the Flather victims and the Duggan victims, with regard to announcements and proposals trying to get people to go out and search for the remains of Lynn Duggan, which we believe are somewhere in the Lynn Valley area of North Vancouver. At the time, young David Flather said to me that he's still in a bad state of trauma, and he feels that he's not in a position to send a letter to the Attorney General or the Premier. David asked me if I would write on his own and his sister Patti's behalf to thank Mr. Harcourt and Mr. Gabelmann personally....
C. Serwa: The Premier and the Attorney General.
D. Jarvis: That's all very well for the member for Okanagan West, but I prefer to quote my constituent in the way he asked me to quote him.
They say that they appreciate what the minister has done to alleviate their pain and suffering -- knowing that all these victims have rights, too, and that has been done in this bill. So rather than write, I will take this opportunity to personally thank the minister and his government.
I'm quite sure Merv Duggan and his wife Marlean and son Brad would feel the same way and, of course, there is no question that their daughters Julie, Cheryl and Cindy would, and their nephew Justin, who was five at the time, when the four of them actually discovered that the daughter was missing from the blood-splattered apartment. Rather than get into any specific detail, I would say that they would definitely want me to thank the government on their behalf as well. There's no question that this bill is helping to ease the depression that overcomes these extremely close families. We are all there to support them, but sometimes other questions come up when they need support, and that would be when the government comes in to help people.
We were all beginning to think this was a classic case of government and the law being something of an ass in the sense that nothing was being done, especially when it came down to the situation with the WCB. It denied indemnity, as the claimants had not suffered any mental or nervous shock, or on the basis that the claimant was not a spouse or an under-aged child or not present at the time of the crime or not a defendant. So there was no room for compensation or moneys for counselling to deal with part of the loss. In the two instances in my riding, which are directly close to me, the situation was that the post-traumatic syndrome the victims were suffering from was severely affecting their way of life and those around them. These incidents couldn't have been closer and were subject to a post-traumatic syndrome shock. The fact is that you have a twin sister who discovers that her sister is missing, and you have parents of that victim, adult children, older children and siblings. Who could be more affected than they in a situation like this? I believe that this bill probably has looked after this situation, and it is appreciated.
For those who aren't aware of it, Lynn was not found in her apartment. Her body is still missing, and it has been two years now. All that was found was a blood-spattered apart-
[ Page 15767 ]
ment, as I said. More recently a skull has been located in a different part but has been traced to the Lynn Valley area.
Hopefully, the federal government will bring in mandatory testing for DNA in violent crimes. This situation can conclude where the body may be found, as there are several people who have been linked to this murder. Unfortunately, due to the DNA problems that we have in this country, they can't come to a conclusion. It is long overdue. In the Flather incident, it is generally thought that this newly-proposed gun law, had it been in place at the time, may have saved Dr. Flather's life.
Nevertheless, this bill will bring some solace to both these families and others in this province. We will all benefit from the fact that they are going to be able to get some counselling, and it was prohibited for them to take that at that time. As a matter of fact, young David Flather has already had his first counselling session, and we all hope that he will be the better for it shortly.
In any event, I appreciate this bill. A lot of people look at it and say that it will cost a lot of money. Of course, I'm an advocate for spending as little of the taxpayers' money as possible, but there comes a time, when there are circumstances such as this, when these types of bills are necessary; dollars should be spent to help our society, especially victims of crime. I thank the government for bringing this bill forward at this time. I will support it.
The Speaker: Hon. members, before recognizing the member for Richmond-Steveston, I will just reflect on the interjection by the hon. member for Okanagan West admonishing the member who just took his place for referring to members by their personal names. While there was no malice intended, obviously, in that expression by the member, it is customary practice in the House not to refer to members by personal names, and there is cause for that. In this particular case, no harm was done, but I'll just remind all hon. members that that practice is still in place.
A. Warnke: Just a couple of minutes; not a lot here. Bill 38 -- as has been pointed out by others, including the Attorney General -- is part of a package which includes the previous bill we debated here, Bill 37.
However, it does provide me with just one little clarification, I suppose. When we talk about, as I did, the rights of the offender.... I agree with the Attorney General that one has to distinguish between the rights of the accused -- which I believe did not appear in my previous speech -- and the rights of the offender. I think that, just for the record, when I talked about the rights of the offender.... This does point specifically to those who have been convicted in a court of law. Yet I also mentioned, in reflection on some of my earlier remarks -- which might be appropriate here as well, on Bill 38 -- that we have to balance between the rights of the offender and the rights of victims.
In so doing, I believe I made scant reference to the offender as proceeding through the court system. There is a point at which an individual is an accused.... It's a pretty sharp and clear point when a person who is accused becomes convicted and, in that sense, the offender. The Attorney General was quite correct in his previous remarks that the rights are quite different, and I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge that, especially if I'm trying to lay out some sort of philosophical position.
As I see it, the pith and substance of Bill 38 appears in section 4. One can never overemphasize the focus on extending victims' rights to include compensation for pain, suffering, mental or emotional trauma, humiliation or inconvenience in cases where victims are injured in the course of their employment. I guess I'm adding extra emphasis on some of the latter: trauma, humiliation or inconvenience. I'm pleased to see that this is, again, a move in the direction in which we should go; not simply the physical pain that has taken place, but as my colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour has eloquently pointed out, the emotional trauma that's involved when victims have been hurt and victims' rights have been interfered with. As do others, I see this as an extension of the package that's before us.
If there's one further comment I would make, it's that I hope the title is not misleading those who are advocates of victims' rights. The title, Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 1995, might appear to suggest to a lot of advocates that this is possibly a very comprehensive bill. One should emphasize that it is an amendment act. There are a lot of amendments in here, and in that sense it comes almost close to being a housekeeping bill.
Nonetheless, it cannot be overemphasized that this is a move in the right direction. I suppose with Bill 38 -- not Bill 37, but Bill 38 -- I had expected more. It's not a criticism of the Attorney General, it's just that my expectations were that I had hoped we would include more. On this, I think my colleague from West Vancouver-Capilano is correct. We will try to point out that perhaps there could be some additional amendments, and on that I hope the government might respond.
C. Serwa: I'll be brief as well. I'd just like to rise and say that I certainly heartily endorse the amendments to the Criminal Injury Compensation Act, which, again, I have to say, was brought in originally by Leslie Peterson when he was the Attorney General for British Columbia.
[11:30]
Legislation such as this is evolutionary, and once you start on this particular journey, I don't think you'll ever conclude it. I've heard some members criticize this and the previous bill -- the Victims of Crime Act -- saying that it's not enough. But I think that the approach of the Attorney General is prudent, reasonable and rational; it is fundamentally a stepping-stone approach. We're moving in the right direction. Both pieces of legislation are positive, and I think that the important thing about this legislation is something that hasn't been discussed. Clearly the government has heard the will of the people in these matters. It's comforting to hear that that has been recognized by the government of the day, that amendments have been made in this particular act and that the Victims of Crime Act has been written and provided for this Legislature to review and pass. I think that is most positive.
There's another positive element to this basic discussion. The whole of the criminal justice system has to be aware, now that it has come to the forefront of the government, that the public will is indicative and determined that the victim and the rights of the victim have to be emphasized much more strongly now than they ever have been before. I think that this sends a very powerful message to all of the individuals in the criminal justice system. It doesn't matter whether it's the
[ Page 15768 ]
judiciary, the Crown prosecutors or the defence attorneys. There are rights to the victim of a crime, and they have to be respected and honoured. Both pieces of legislation are to be recognized and complimented for that. The approach is correct, the direction is correct, and for the Attorney General and the government, as well as perhaps all of us, it's soul food for some of the days that undoubtedly will come in our future.
J. Tyabji: I rise to support this bill and obviously the previous bill as well, which I didn't speak to in second reading. As previous speakers have said, it's an important first step. It's an important change in emphasis. I think we would be remiss if we didn't say, in acknowledging that there will be some cost associated with this at a time when everyone knows money is tight, that we would recommend that there be a movement to amalgamate some of the same mechanisms we have in workers' compensation and ICBC, where there's an identified injury and an identified government response, and the government response would be in the form of compensation. What we have in effect in this bill, with victim compensation, is a different trigger. Obviously there would be different methods of assessment, but it's very much the same process in terms of identifying someone who has suffered an injury. This is the grounds by which we judge whether or not that injury qualifies for compensation, and here's how we measure the amount of compensation that would be eligible.
Clearly the Attorney General doesn't have jurisdiction over ICBC or the Workers' Compensation Board. But what I find in my job as an MLA, and I'm sure the Attorney General, having been a parliamentarian in this assembly for, I think, 18 years -- I could be off by a year or two, but it's a long time.... I'm sure he has also found that in one's work as an MLA, one is approached by a number of constituents, and what they will have is the same kind of trigger -- whether it's an ICBC claim, because they've been in a car accident, and whether they're on the receiving end or the perpetrating end, there's going to be action-reaction by government bureaucracy.... If we are going to free up a substantial amount of money in order to compensate, it would only follow that we would want to streamline the administrative process. The best way to streamline it would be to integrate all the different boards, judicial processes and mechanisms that we have right now to try to address the problems that are out there.
Philosophically, obviously, we very strongly support the idea that if somebody has been victimized -- has been injured by criminal action -- just as if they've been injured in an accident that may have occurred in a workplace or suffered a loss because of an accident that has occurred on the highways or the roads.... All of these people should have some ability, in a compassionate society, to continue to live life to the fullest and to live the life they expected to live prior to the incident which has caused them loss. That would be one thing.
We're quite curious about the commencement date that's in Bill 38. We see that it goes back to January 1, 1991. That's an interesting point that may have been raised when I wasn't in the House. If not, I look forward to finding out why there is that backdating and, since there is a four-and-a-half-year backdating, why that date and not a different date. Will people have an opportunity to apply and say that this is a grievous loss, and will they be eligible?
There's one last point that I'd like to make that does fall within the Attorney General's jurisdiction. We're in second reading, so I have some liberty here. That is, on the same grounds that I see.... We talk about immediate families and the alimony or maintenance payments that someone would be eligible for under the current statutes. The Attorney General, I'm sure, is aware that although people in common-law relationships are protected for provisions of alimony or maintenance, they're not protected if the person dies without a will.
I mention that, because we're in the process of amending statutes in the Attorney General's ministry, and I'd certainly like to see something come in. I do have one constituent right now who.... I'm sure the Attorney General knows the case of Gilberta Lamothe; it's been around for a long time. These things can strike people unexpectedly, and when they do, it would be nice if there were some protection in law, so the property she was counting on to live her life on doesn't end up in the hands of the state, she doesn't end up on welfare and we don't end up paying for it in one form or another.
That was the last point on this. If we can, I would like to refer to that integration process and the cross-referencing in committee stage to find out if there have been any discussions about those other models in looking to set up a model for victims' compensation in these bills.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Once again, I thank members of the House for their support for this legislation. I'm delighted to see that it's apparently unanimous. Most of the comments that were made that dealt with the specifics of the bill can best be dealt with in committee stage, so I would leave my comments until then.
I would simply deal with one issue, and that is the heroic efforts of many people in the community who have been touched in such dramatic fashion by criminal acts. Some of the members in this debate talked about individuals, almost all of whom I have met and had conversations with over the last while. I've been struck by how these individuals have dealt with the tragedies in their lives and have rallied to put pressure on all of us to do the right thing. I'm delighted that we've been able to take these small steps toward making their lives a little better.
I particularly want to make reference to the comments of the member for North Vancouver-Seymour and David Flather's comments to the Premier and myself, recognizing that he still feels so traumatized by the murder of his father that he is unable to write to us. That demonstrates the degree of trauma that can be inflicted on a family. To think that prior to this amendment an individual such as he would not be eligible for the criminal injuries compensation program is bizarre, to say the least. So I'm delighted that we can right that wrong.
Then, of course, there is the point the member for Okanagan East makes that the retroactivity is there to enable families like the Flathers and a number of others to be eligible. The reason that date is picked, as compared to any other date, is that 1991 was about the time the adjudication panel more closely read the legislation and made a determination that the old legislation did not cover these people, which was technically correct. But prior to that date, there had been a less stringent, less legalistic interpretation of the legislation, and people in those situations were in fact considered to be eligible when technically they should not have been. So we're taking it back to the date when the law was more rigorously interpreted by the panel that worked out of the WCB.
[ Page 15769 ]
With that, I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 38, Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 1995, 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. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading debate on Bill 26.
CRIMINAL RECORDS REVIEW ACT
(second reading)
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Before I begin, let me say that some members may not have been alerted to the fact that we might get to this this morning. If that's the case, I'm not going to push my luck here, but I will make the second reading introductory comments, then see what time it is and see how we go.
The Criminal Records Review Act is one of several initiatives being taken by the government to help protect children from physical and sexual abuse. The new Child, Family and Community Service Act and the appointment of an advocate will greatly improve the way we protect children.
Last year, a handbook called Help Stop Child Abuse was developed to assist employers and volunteer coordinators who work with children. Twenty thousand copies have been distributed, and a second edition is to be released shortly. In addition, a pamphlet is currently being developed to help parents reduce the risk of abuse to their children when choosing day care, after-school care, camps and other activities where the parent is not the supervisor. The government also implemented a notification policy last November which provides guidelines on how and when to disclose information to the public if a known abuser comes into a community.
The Criminal Records Review Act will be another measure to help keep children safe from abuse. I want to emphasize that this legislation should not create a false sense of security. It is simply one more means of reducing the risk to children. The proposed Criminal Records Review Act will help to prevent child abuse by identifying persons with a relevant criminal record and determining whether they present a risk of physical or sexual abuse to children. If it is determined that there is a risk, steps will be taken to ensure that the individual does not work with children.
Under the legislation, criminal-record checks will be mandatory for anyone who works directly with children or who might have unsupervised access to children in the ordinary course of their employment and who are employed or licensed by or receive operating funds from government. The legislation will apply to teachers, child care workers, hospital employees, doctors, dentists, nurses and others who work with children or who may have unsupervised access to children. Both current employees and applicants for these positions will be required to undergo criminal-record checks. While conducting checks on current employees will be a difficult task, it is necessary, so that the public can be assured that any employee working in a position covered by the legislation and not only those applying for new positions will have had a criminal-record check.
Employers covered by this legislation will be required to ensure that all employees and applicants for employment undergo a criminal-record check. Similarly, governing bodies identified in schedule 2 of the act will be responsible for ensuring that all of their members and any applicants for membership undergo a criminal-record check. The public can then be assured that any person such as a teacher or registered health professional has had a criminal-record check.
Employees will be required to provide a signed authorization for a criminal-record check. Failure to provide authorization will be grounds for refusing employment, funding or a licence. A small unit within the Ministry of Attorney General will coordinate the receipt of these authorizations and forward the information electronically to the RCMP. The results will be sent back to the ministry, who will review any records to determine whether they contain a relevant offence. Relevant offences, which are those related to physical or sexual abuse, are listed in schedule 1 of the act.
These offences are only indicators that a person may present a risk to children. It will be necessary to look beyond the offence itself to assess risk. The nature, age and circumstances of the offence must be considered. An assault, for example, may have occurred in a bar when the individual was 21 years old. In another instance, the victim of an assault may have been a child. In these two cases, the outcome of risk assessment could be very different. If an individual has no criminal record, or a record with no charge or conviction for a relevant offence, the ministry will advise the individual and the individual's employer or licensing body that the individual does not have a relevant criminal record.
[11:45]
If an individual has a relevant criminal record, it will be forwarded to a neutral third party, called an adjudicator, who will make a determination as to whether the individual presents a risk of physical or sexual abuse to children. This determination will be based on the criminal record, as well as on a number of other considerations such as the person's employment history, the time since the offence, efforts at rehabilitation and the circumstances of the offence. If the adjudicator determines that an individual presents a risk, they will promptly notify the individual and the individual's employer or governing body.
The employer must then ensure that the applicant or employee does not work directly with children or potentially has unsupervised access to children. Where the individual found to be a risk is a registered professional, the individual's governing body must take the appropriate action under their governing statute. At the same time, the governing body must take reasonable steps to advise the individual's employer of the situation, and the employer must then ensure that the individual does not work with children.
An individual who is found to be a risk may appeal the determination to a three-person panel appointed by the Attorney General. Depending on their particular work situation or profession, an individual might also have recourse to other appeal procedures through a labour agreement or the governing statute for their profession. Every effort has been made, in developing this legislation and the required support systems, to minimize the intrusive nature of the criminal-record check and to protect the confidentiality of personal information.
There have been some comments that this legislation represents an excessive intrusion into an individual's privacy.
[ Page 15770 ]
This criticism ignores the fact that hundreds of thousands of criminal-record checks are already being conducted throughout British Columbia on employees and volunteers in positions of trust. Many of these checks are more invasive and do not have the safeguards for confidentiality provided by this legislation. Criminal-record checks are inherently no more intrusive than reference checks routinely used by employers or licensing bodies.
When weighed against the protection of children, criminal-record checks are not an unwarranted invasion of privacy. A neutral third party, the adjudicator, will review the criminal records and other personal information. An individual's employer or licensing body will not see this information. The collection and handling of data will take place in a fully secured facility. There is also explicit provision in the act that, other than for law enforcement, information collected for this act shall not be used for any other purpose. The drafting of this legislation has succeeded in achieving that important balance between the competing interests of personal privacy and the protection of children.
This legislation and other government initiatives aimed at preventing child abuse are the result of the efforts of a great many people who have helped raise public awareness of the issue. Monica Rainey and members of Citizens Against Child Exploitation have been strong and vocal advocates for change, and we all owe them a debt of gratitude for their energy and persistence in working to help protect children. The legislation was developed with assistance and support from many individuals and organizations. Extensive consultations were conducted to ensure that those most affected by the legislation were given the opportunity to review and comment on the proposal. The resulting legislation reflects these concerns and is a better product as the result of comments and suggestions made during this consultative process.
This legislation is an important step in helping to protect children from physical and sexual abuse. However, it is just one measure. It is important that all of us, whether in the home, the workplace or elsewhere, be more vigilant in protecting children from potential abuse.
With that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading.
J. Dalton: I thank the Attorney General for his comments. I may be speaking at some length on this topic, hon. Speaker. With that in mind, I suggest -- in fact, I will so move -- that we adjourn the debate on Bill 26.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:50 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 10:12 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)
On vote 35: minister's office, $432,868 (continued).
W. Hurd: In canvassing the Hansard from previous days of debate, there are a couple of issues I want to revisit. One of them involves the mandate of the forest jobs commissioner. I wonder if the minister could advise the committee exactly what role the forest jobs commissioner is playing with respect to the definition of loss of employment. I'm aware that there have been incidents where there has been a layoff or loss of employment, and the forest jobs commissioner has apparently not had it within his mandate to consider them as jobs lost. I wonder if the minister could clarify what the definition would be of a job that disappears and is subject to the involvement of the forest jobs commissioner. Are we dealing with someone who loses a job permanently or experiences long-term layoff with little or no opportunity for recall? What is the mandate of the forest jobs commissioner with respect to jobs that disappear over the short or medium term but don't necessarily represent a permanent disappearance?
Hon. A. Petter: I take it that the member is referring to the jobs commissioner on Vancouver Island, Don Cochrane. Initially, that position was created out of concerns around land use planning and the concern that land use planning might have impacts on jobs. It was part of this government's commitment to ensure that land use plans did not have adverse impacts on employment. Mr. Cochrane was placed in the position of jobs commissioner, and his first priority was to ensure that any employees who might otherwise have been terminated due to a land use decision would be found alternative employment through Forest Renewal and other initiatives.
[10:15]
His mandate extends well beyond that, as he looks at situations in which there may be reductions in employment. I know he has been working with various communities, for example, to find forest renewal funding to fill in gaps in employment for employees who might otherwise be laid off for periods of time. More generally, he is working with communities that are experiencing difficulty in terms of employment in the forest sector generally, even if not related to land use decisions in any way. While his original purpose and mandate were focused very much on the land use decisions, he has not confined himself to that issue alone. He is working hard to ensure that jobs are maintained and, indeed, expanded within the forest sector on Vancouver Island. He has, I think, had considerable success. There's been, at least in the last report I received from Mr. Cochrane, very little evidence of job loss due to land use decisions. With respect to other job loss on the Island, he is doing what he can to assist forest workers and communities.
W. Hurd: Maybe I can just ask the minister a specific question about the layoffs at the Tahsis sawmill, which is
[ Page 15771 ]
where the issue first came to my attention. The jobs commissioner had apparently advised those in the community that those layoffs might not necessarily qualify. I wonder whether there's been any update on whether the layoffs that have occurred at that operation over the last couple of years, particular in the last eight months, have now been reviewed by the forest jobs commissioner and have been found to be employment losses and subject to the intervention or the support of the forest jobs commissioner's office.
Hon. A. Petter: The situation at the Tahsis sawmill did not relate to a land use decision; it related to a company decision in respect of the closure of one of the sawmills in Tahsis. But here is evidence of what I was saying, because in that situation, Mr. Cochrane, along with representatives of Forest Renewal B.C., went into the Tahsis community. A forest renewal project was brought together with the cooperation of the company, Pacific Forest Products. It's my understanding, however, that before the forest renewal project was undertaken, the company recalled most, if not all, of the workers who were concerned. At least that's the information I have.
Beyond that, I have been working closely through staff and directly with the company to ensure that that company, which holds considerable cutting rights in the area, does not proceed with the closure of that mill unless there are some alternative employment opportunities provided within that community.
So the jobs commissioner, the government -- through my staff and my own representations -- and Forest Renewal B.C. have been working cooperatively in respect of the Tahsis situation to provide a measure of support to that community, which previously would not have been possible without the programs that this government has put in place and without the jobs commissioner.
W. Hurd: With respect to creating additional value out of the resource and the range of product options that exist, clearly there has been a call in the province for a more defined strategy around the use of hardwoods. I wonder if the minister could advise the committee of what work the ministry is doing and what role the Forest Sector Strategy Advisory Committee may be playing in developing a more comprehensive strategy for hardwoods in the province, particularly the opportunities that might surround plantation forestry or the use of alder in more advantageous ways.
As the minister will know, one of the big problems with the current situation in hardwoods in the province is that it continues to be part of the overall quota on licences. Although it requires different methods of harvesting, storage and transport, it continues to come off a quota. Therefore there's not much incentive on the part of licensees to access hardwoods. I just wonder if there were any policy changes in the works that would develop this industry to a much greater extent in the province.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm very pleased the member has asked that question. There are a number of things the ministry is doing, a number of which do flow from deliberations of the Forest Sector Strategy Advisory Committee, to encourage a broader spectrum of utilization of the forest resource, in particular the greater use of hardwoods. I can give some examples to the member.
There has been increasing attention paid, through the timber supply review, to the presence of hardwood volumes and how to utilize those volumes. In the case of Fort Nelson, for example, that attention led to the chief forester establishing a partition cut for aspen in that timber supply area. That has given rise to the opportunity for an OSB plant in the Fort Nelson area, a plant which happily will not only use the additional volume of wood identified through the partition cut, but will also draw on some of the waste volume that was previously created due to the chopsticks plant. It created something like 70 percent waste through its processing.
The identification of hardwoods is part of the timber supply review. The creation of partition cuts to allow that harvesting to take place independently of the volume that's assigned for softwood is one initiative in that regard. Similarly, on the coast, the ministry recently put up for bid and awarded a volume of alder hardwood to Coast Mountain Hardwoods, I believe. It provides that company with an opportunity to harvest up to a certain volume, provided they can meet certain environmental conditions in doing so. Again, that has been provided on the understanding that that wood is not taken out of the softwood allocation.
Similarly, hardwoods and the possibility of harvesting hardwoods and perhaps converting them to softwoods are being looked at as a strategy in some areas, as a way of expanding the forest land base for softwoods. In the Fraser TSA I know one of the strategies that's being looked to is the possibility of encouraging some hardwood-harvesting in areas that might be converted to softwood, along with harvesting of problem forest types to be converted into healthier stands.
Absolutely, hardwood is being looked at in terms of its potential to expand the timber-harvesting base to provide new opportunities for both oriented strand board and other non-solid wood-processing, as well as for solid wood, as is the case on the coast.
W. Hurd: Just a further question on the hardwood policy. Can the minister tell us how many of these partition cuts are going to be developed in the coming fiscal year? What might the trend be in terms of numbers? I wonder if he could also advise us whether on the silvicultural side any effort is being made by the ministry to identify areas that might be more suitably replanted in hardwoods, as opposed to the standard practice now in the province, which seems to be to convert these areas to conifer forests. There seem to be areas where the soil types would invite a plantation-style initiative that would increase the growth and yields of hardwoods over a much shorter rotation period.
I just wonder whether efforts were being made to identify sites in the province where hardwood plantations might be pursued more vigorously and would provide some sort of experimentation over a 20- or 30-year period as to whether this type of forestry would represent an advantage over converting the areas to softwood harvest.
Hon. A. Petter: The member asks a number of different aspects, and I'll try to touch on them very quickly. Certainly in areas where, for example, hardwood is being harvested, such as in the Dawson Creek-Fort Nelson area, the practice will be to replant hardwood for hardwood within those areas to maintain a sustainable hardwood harvest. The member will be aware, for example, that Scott Paper has pursued hardwood plantations within its TFL. Repap, I understand, is doing the same. Through the combination of forest renewal
[ Page 15772 ]
funding, the research that will take place under forest renewal and the opportunity that is now presented through land use zoning and the creation of intensive-use zones, we are now well positioned to consider moving into hardwood plantations -- cottonwood plantations, for example -- that could produce higher yields for pulp and paper through the combination of those initiatives.
In respect of the question around partitioning, one of the strategies the Forest Sector Strategy Advisory Committee looked at to encourage better utilization of the forest was partition cuts, not just for hardwoods but in circumstances where the ministry may wonder whether an area would in fact be harvested or well utilized if it were simply included within the general cut. It therefore might be inclined to leave it out of the general cut. The committee thought that an alternative for the ministry would be to create a partition cut and put industry, in a sense, to the test. It wanted to see if they wished to use that profile of the wood supply as part of a partition cut. It thought this would be a good alternative strategy.
I took that suggestion and incorporated it in the social and economic advice I provided to the chief forester. I suggested that he, in trying to minimize cut reductions and maximize the use of the forest, consider the use of partition cuts. The chief forester now does that, I think, in virtually every timber supply analysis that is undertaken. The possibility of partition cuts to expand and improve utilization is now a factor that the chief forester takes into account in reaching his AAC determinations.
I can't predict the number that the chief forester will actually decide upon in the form of partition cuts. Partition cuts are considered in situations where problem forest types have been identified as being economic to harvest or where hardwood stands are now considered part of the timber supply. It is also considered in the case of an area that is viewed as inoperable by the Forests ministry, but which industry says it is prepared to take a chance on in terms of starting an operation. Where it is deemed to be a good way of expanding opportunities, partitioning will be employed by the chief forester. That is already being reflected in the decisions the chief forester has made.
W. Hurd: Can the minister assure the committee that the same level of effort is being put into lands that the ministry manages under the small business program, the same type of profile of the land base, in terms of identifying opportunities for hardwoods? I just wonder whether the minister felt there was any potential under the small business program to pursue a hardwood strategy that would allow operators with an interest in developing a value-added manufacturing plant based on access to alder or to any other type of species the opportunity to do so. Is there any thought under that program with respect to expansion of a hardwood strategy in identifying sites that might be put out for smaller licences? Is the requirement here that because the volumes have to be considerable, it might not invite the involvement or the umbrella approach of the small business enterprise program?
Hon. A. Petter: I hope the member will review Hansard, because I have dealt with the relationship of the small business program and timber supply analysis a couple of times during the course of these estimates.
The timber supply analysis covers the entire Crown land base, an entire timber supply area. Within that area there will be different forms of volume-based licences that are held, including the small business licences. To the extent that a timber supply analysis identifies hardwood opportunities and to the extent that there are partition cuts, that timber supply analysis covers all licence holders, including the small business program licences within that area. There is no differentiation made. The same effort is applied to the entire timber supply area, regardless of who operates in what charts in that area.
I guess the subsidiary question becomes: to what extent does the small business program take up the opportunities that may exist within an area for hardwood? The answer is that in general, the small business program would share the volumes that are available on a prorated basis -- however, only with regard to the needs of the clients of the small business program. So within the small business program, there would be an attempt to have the same kind of profile of wood -- hardwood versus non-hardwood and one species versus another -- as exists in other licences within that timber supply area with regard to the needs of the clients.
[10:30]
As an example, there are birch and aspen licences that have been provided through the small business program. I'm informed that in the Dawson Creek area, for example, because of the demand there right now for additional hardwoods, there have been about 200,000 cubic metres in aspen made available through the small business program for small business operators, recognizing that that wood is required for the Louisiana-Pacific operation within that area.
W. Hurd: Continuing the discussion about the fibre situation in the industry, the minister has talked at some length during this set of estimates about the restrictions on log exports in the province. As the minister well knows, the Ministry of Forests also has responsibility for improving the export of other types of fibre, such as sawdust, hog fuel, I guess, and chips to some extent. I wonder if the minister can advise the committee if there's a reason why, during, I think, the previous fiscal year, the orders-in-council indicate such a large volume of sawdust and hog fuel leaving the province and for extended periods of time.
Just looking at the highlights, I'm seeing export permits for anywhere from two- to five-year periods. The minister has talked long and hard and with some vigour during this set of estimates about the need to have the government somehow involved in requiring jobs for fibre in the province, and I just wonder what rationale the ministry can offer for the fact that these export contracts for surplus hog fuel and surplus sawdust.... First of all, why is there such a volume, and why would the ministry approve a five-year permit, which seems to imply a loss of control in some way?
Hon. A. Petter: The reason quite simply is that in the case of hog fuel and sawdust, there is not as strong a domestic market at present for those products or those commodities as is the case for others. Therefore we again have an advisory process, and that advisory process, as in the case of hog fuel and sawdust, recommended that export permits be permitted in a number of cases, because there is not currently a domestic market.
Certainly we are trying to encourage the establishment of a domestic market, and the establishment of MDF plants, for
[ Page 15773 ]
example, will start to make it possible for more of that fibre to be used to create jobs here in British Columbia. The licences are always granted with a mind to that possibility, in terms of the term that they are granted. Also, I believe cancellation clauses in most licences allow a year's notice, or whatever, for there to be cancellation. They can easily be brought back and converted and directed in a way that facilitates local employment, but it does take time, obviously, to get a major plant of that kind up and running. In the meantime, rather than burning that fuel and doing damage to the environment, companies are better to sell it where there's a market, and if that market doesn't exist in B.C., better to do so at least to a market that's prepared to acquire the product for some useful purpose. That doesn't diminish at all our determination to try to find, as we are, markets within the province for these fibre supplies. MDF is obviously a major new opportunity in that regard.
I might also say, on the chip side of things, that the issue is somewhat complicated by the fact that there is fibre coming into the province from other jurisdictions, as well as fibre going out. So there's a need to ensure that the policy is one that recognizes that there's a flow of chips both ways across the border.
W. Hurd: I can understand the rationale that the minister has offered. The only concern I would raise is that the industry has been suggesting for some time that there are opportunities for cogeneration projects, which would generate power for B.C. Hydro and would convert some of what's now deemed to be waste material into a source of energy for manufacturing plants. I'm sure that would increase their competitive ability and reduce their overhead and their costs. I'm just curious: again, why the length of time? I'm just looking and see that Pope and Talbot is exporting residual sawdust for a four-year period, Skeena Cellulose for two years, International Forest Products for three years, and there's one here, Kalesnikoff Lumber Co., that even talks about a five-year period. Obviously these are long-term contracts that the companies have.
Is the minister satisfied that if there was a market developed in British Columbia, these contracts could be broken? Is there any concern that this represents a commitment of three, four or five years that this product has to go to the export source? Should we be considering scrutinizing at least the length of time over which this material is leaving the province, given the potential in medium-density fibreboard, the opportunities for cogeneration and other uses for sawdust and hog fuel?
Hon. A. Petter: Certainly, in awarding the contracts and setting a term for them, there is an attempt made to try to balance the need for some stability for those trying to sell these products on the one hand and the potential alternative uses for them and how soon those uses might be established on the other. In respect to specific contracts, I'd be happy to check on any the member may be interested in. My recollection is that in most, if not all, cases, there are cancellation provisions put into the contracts that require notice and do leave options open.
So that provides an additional measure of security to the public that if that was required, it could be brought back within, say, a year or so -- although obviously one would look initially to those contracts that have lapsed as a result of their expiry after one, two, three, four or, maybe in some cases, five years. If the member is interested in the specific provisions of particular contracts, I'd be happy to give him further information on those.
W. Hurd: Canvassing other issues that I wanted to deal with, I was interested in the state of the private silvicultural industry in British Columbia -- in particular, that sector of the industry that deals directly with the Ministry of Forests. The minister will be aware of concerns that during this interim period when the forest renewal corporation is not awarding a large number of contracts, there appears to be a trough in which the ministry is acquiring far fewer seedlings and awarding far fewer contracts to the private silvicultural sector, even to the point where there's a great deal of concern as to whether some portions of that sector can survive. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether the ministry is purchasing fewer seedlings from private seed orchards, and whether it has been reducing its silvicultural expenditures during the course of this budget year. Are we seeing a commitment with respect to the private silvicultural industry that...? Concern has been expressed that the work volume with the ministry is going down, and there's no time frame as to when it might be rebuilt.
Hon. A. Petter: I think there are a number of explanations for what the member may be discussing. The member should recall that Forest Renewal B.C. does not deal with basic silviculture; it deals with incremental and more intensive forms of silviculture. The basic silviculture program remains with the ministry. One of the reasons why there may be some diminishing requirements for seedlings is that we're starting to happily catch up on some of the backlog of silviculture that existed in this province for many decades. We still have a ways to go, but we're close to having replanted those areas that previously were left unplanted. That means the demand over the next number of years for that kind of basic silviculture will go down, because it will be a demand that reflects the ongoing needs of replanting, not the need to catch up.
What that suggests is that the silvicultural industry and contractors will have to refocus. Happily for them, there is going to be plenty of work for them to refocus on because of Forest Renewal B.C. This was set back to some extent by the backing down of the federal government on FRDA commitments and the failure of the federal government to continue commitments to FRDA. This puts pressure on us. Fortunately, because of Forest Renewal B.C., we have the resources for there to be an expansion of intensive silviculture, and that, of course, is what Forest Renewal B.C. is very much preoccupied with, as we discussed yesterday.
I spoke recently to the Western Silvicultural Contractors Association. After some initial anxieties, they are quite satisfied that we are dealing with their group fairly and that there will be opportunities for them under Forest Renewal B.C., as there are for other forest workers.
W. Hurd: That invites a couple of questions. The minister mentioned earlier in the estimates that some of the projects that are coming before Forest Renewal B.C. had been on the books of the ministry for some time. That invites the question as to whether any of that work might have been awarded under contract to the private silvicultural industry and is now being forwarded to Forest Renewal B.C. This is a concern that I think has been expressed.
[ Page 15774 ]
I also want to ask a question with respect to the forest work that does eventually get awarded under Forest Renewal B.C. If we experience job losses in the primary manufacturing and harvesting areas, the concern being expressed by the private silvicultural industry is that work may be awarded to displaced people as a priority of Forest Renewal B.C., rather than awarded on a competitive bid system that exists with the private silvicultural industry. I wonder if the minister can assure us that in fact Forest Renewal B.C. won't be functioning as a wage-subsidy mechanism for displaced people and that the private silvicultural industry will have access to those contracts on a competitive proposal basis, much as they are now, I would assume, with both the ministry and private licensees in the province.
Hon. A. Petter: Yesterday this member was decrying the fact that people in higher-paying jobs who work for existing licensees might have to shift to lower-paying jobs. Now he's decrying the fact that the government has put in place a program that might prevent that from having to occur and suggesting that we shouldn't pursue strategies that help existing employees of major companies retain their current job situations. I find it very difficult to follow this member's line of reasoning. Maybe it's because he and his party do not have a clear forest policy other than to hark back to the bad old days of the past in forest management in this province.
Having said that, the work that private silvicultural contractors now do for the ministry, and the incremental work that they have traditionally done -- say, as part of FRDA -- is still available to them, whether it is delivered through the ministry, in the case of the incremental work, or through Forest Renewal, if it is incremental to the ministry's responsibilities.
Private silvicultural contractors do have an opportunity under Forest Renewal to compete for projects that fall within areas of their normal expertise. As I was saying, having met with the private Silvicultural Contractors' Association, I believe they are finding that there are real opportunities for them under Forest Renewal, and those opportunities will grow.
At the same time, Forest Renewal is working with existing licence holders to try to expand the kind of work that is done by existing forest companies as part of their regular work, including silvicultural work like commercial thinning, pruning, spacing and fertilization, in order to give the existing workforce a broader spectrum of activities, skills and work for which they will be well remunerated, which will enable them to have greater stability throughout their work lives and within the workforce.
Forest Renewal is certainly encouraging that work be provided by existing licensees with forest renewal assistance to expand the profile of work that existing licensees engage in. That is to ensure that those employees, who might otherwise find their work become more seasonal or be threatened with loss of employment in some circumstances because of the serious situation we face in some regions with declining timber volumes, etc., due to historical overcutting, have some alternatives that do not require them to leave their current employment or their current employer, as the member would apparently have them do.
W. Hurd: As the minister well knows, silvicultural work is probably some of the toughest work in the entire forest industry. It's definitely a young person's occupation: the rigours of tree-planting, juvenile-spacing and thinning. I can't imagine a tougher way to earn a living than to be involved in silvicultural work in the province.
As the minister well knows, the other fact of life is that it's a sector of the industry that is based on a piecemeal approach to payment -- the higher the productivity on the land base, the more money is paid. That drives the competitive aspect of the silvicultural industry. I guess the concern being expressed is that that competitiveness might in some way be lost by the fact that the ministry may, as a strategy, be introducing an older workforce into that type of activity.
[10:45]
The minister is shaking his head, and I'm just reporting to him the concerns that I'm sure he's heard from the private silvicultural contractors. I'm asking the question because I think there are some legitimate questions being raised. I wonder if he can assure the committee that with respect to the entire spectrum of activities, not just necessarily with the ministry but also with Forest Renewal B.C., the same standards of competitiveness within the silvicultural sector and the same approach to productivity, which is based obviously on the number of trees planted, the number of hectares thinned and the whole range of activities that are driven by performance, will in no way be compromised as a result of a strategy by government.
Hon. A. Petter: Once again the member's comments reflect old thinking -- out-of-date thinking. We look backward for guidance for the future, and the member would carry us happily into the past.
The kind of silvicultural work that is being undertaken by Forest Renewal is not the kind of silvicultural work that has traditionally taken place in this province. We're talking about a whole new set of activities that may well be the norm in countries like Sweden, or even in parts of Washington State in certain kinds of operations -- Weyerhaeuser being an example -- but in this province we're talking not just about tree-planting.
It may well be true that with respect to tree-planting and basic forms of associated silviculture, that is a form of activity that has traditionally been performed by younger workers on contract. That would not be the case, for example, with commercial thinning.
I was up at Woss Camp a few months ago -- again, hon. member, out in the field -- meeting with forest workers and forest companies and having them demonstrate to me some of their commercial thinning operations using high-lead logging. I was out with Pacific Forest Products -- again, out in the field -- meeting with the company and the workers, seeing them do some of their commercial thinning. In their case, it was a far more mechanized form of commercial thinning, using heavy equipment that required experienced operators.
The member's comments are simply not relevant to a number of silvicultural activities. The same would be true of watershed restoration, which requires workers and skills sets that are, if anything, closer to the traditional skills sets of employees hired by major licensees than they are of traditional silvicultural workers. He is locked in some old vision of silviculture, the vision of the past that got us into this mess. I just hope and pray that he can see the light and change his ways before everyone in the province overtakes him.
[ Page 15775 ]
The member makes a point, however, that I do think has some merit and needs to be responded to. Certainly within existing workforces we have to be sensitive to the fact that there are elements of those workforces -- older workers and those that have been trained for specific tasks -- who may not be ready to broaden their skills set. It may be unreasonable to expect them to take on different tasks, etc., given their training and background. We have to be sensitive to that and work with licensees to ensure that the broader range of opportunities that will exist as a result of Forest Renewal and these other initiatives are also sensitive to the needs of the workforce. For example, I would expect new entrants into the workforce and younger workers to be the individuals at whom some of these broader ranges of activities will be targeted. This would enable some of the more experienced and older workers to continue the activities in which they have experience. It is a matter of working with licensees to that end.
I would also remind the member that it's not just the ministry or indeed Forest Renewal B.C. that makes use of contractors for silvicultural purposes; it's also licensees. I expect licensees will continue to use contract employees with respect to certain silvicultural activities. I also hope and expect that they will look to Forest Renewal B.C. to fund them to provide work for their regular workers in some of the areas in which the regular workforce can expand its skills and activities. That way, Forest Renewal B.C. can provide new and expanded work opportunities for their full-time employees.
W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister can advise the committee of the juvenile-spacing activities in the province. I think the greatest increases in growth and yields can be attained on the land base when thinning takes place for trees that are between ten to 15 years old and are past the free-to-grow state. Clearly there's a tremendous opportunity there, particularly when dealing with unmanaged forest stands. With all due respect to the minister's discussions about commercial thinning, clearly in that type of terrain it invites the kind of intensive labour component that I think is going to be a fact of life in that sector.
I just wonder, in terms of the juvenile-spacing activities, whether there is a recognition that the possibility exists for an adjustment of the licence requirements in order to induce more of that kind of activity. It's my understanding that the current licences call for the licensee to meet an obligation in which the trees reach what's known as a free-to-grow state. Beyond that, in the ten- to 18-year increment, there are bountiful opportunities to engage in juvenile-spacing and thinning operations. Is the minister anticipating that that type of work will be taken on by Forest Renewal B.C. to a greater extent, or is it one that would more appropriately reside within the ministry?
Hon. A. Petter: The requirements are that licensees achieve a free-to-grow state. There will be certain density requirements, etc., that the member referred to. My expectation is that juvenile-spacing activity beyond that, which has been historically required, would be funded through Forest Renewal B.C. That's one of the activities that Forest Renewal B.C. can fund. That work would be done by the appropriate workforce which, in many cases, might well be contract employees, for example. Hence my earlier comment that there are going to be opportunities under forest renewal for the independent silvicultural contractors. I would hope that the initiation and planning for many of those activities, however, would take place by the licensees themselves, who understand the needs of the land and the potential for the land. With the incentive that is now provided to them through Forest Renewal to apply for funds and be remunerated for this activity, they can undertake this activity with no additional cost to them and can benefit from the activity. To the extent that it expands the timber supply, they will share in the benefits that result.
The idea of forest renewal is to provide the incentive to licensees to undertake this activity, and I would expect that licensees will increasingly come forward. We are certainly encouraging that, and there is some evidence, in response to a recent request for proposals, that licensees are now increasingly coming forward with their own proposals for activities that could be as basic but incremental as juvenile-spacing or as intensive as commercial thinning, pruning or other activities. The only exception is that if, as a result of the basic density standards of a preharvest silviculture prescription, juvenile-spacing took place, that obviously would not be funded by Forest Renewal, because that is not an incremental activity, that is an activity that is required as a condition of the preharvest silviculture prescription.
W. Hurd: Given the rather spectacular projections that I've seen as a result of juvenile-spacing, particularly in some of the coastal sites, I just wonder whether, as a strategy of increasing the long-term fibre supply in the province, the ministry has given any consideration to rewarding or recognizing that work on the preharvest silvicultural prescription might build in the incremental advantages of juvenile-spacing. Is there any thought to expanding the window beyond the free-to-grow state to the next level, in order to encourage or to offer incentives for spacing, which, as I've indicated, can achieve rather dramatic results from year 12 through to year 18 or so, as the planted trees come in along with natural regeneration?
There are some opportunities there that the minister will acknowledge are being missed, with respect to the fact that he's acknowledged that the juvenile-spacing is not necessarily built into every preharvest silviculture prescription. I wonder, since we haven't got too far with the notion of tenure reform, whether there can be any incentives built into the licensing and planning process to really encourage licensees and others to go beyond the free-to-grow state, if only by five or ten years, to undertake this important forestry work on every harvested site in the province.
Hon. A. Petter: I sometimes think that if the member only understood what he was doing, he would actually be forced to agree, but maybe I'm just naive in my optimism. The very thing the member is talking about -- providing incentives for companies to engage in thinning beyond what is required to meet density requirements which are a common feature of preharvest silviculture prescription -- is what Forest Renewal is all about. It was because the licensees and others came together at the Forest Sector Strategy Advisory Committee and said, "we need incentives to engage in this incremental activity," that we set up the forest renewal plan.
What greater incentive is there than to say to companies: "Yes, if you undertake this activity, it will be funded out of this pool of stumpage funds that are accumulated from licensees throughout the province, and then you will receive the additional benefit of gaining back some of that volume, whether it's done on a TFL or as a shared volume gain in other areas"?
[ Page 15776 ]
Do we need more to encourage and push and draw those incentives to the companies' attention? I would say yes.
I have lamented the fact -- again, in the 2020 speech -- that we didn't much earlier have what I've called a second-growth strategy. We should have had a second-growth strategy about maximizing second growth in this province 20 or 30 years ago. When I said that we should set timber targets, part of that was to set a second-growth strategy in which we work cooperatively with industry and identify very specifically the kinds of elements that should go into that strategy, including these kinds of incremental investments.
But the incentives are all there. That is what the forest renewal plan is; it is an incentive to provide the forest industry with the funding to undertake this activity, which will increase the volume of fibre within the province and, in turn, benefit the forest industry. Perhaps if the member only understood that, he would get past his mental block and come around to supporting the forest renewal plan.
W. Hurd: Let me get this straight. The superstumpage applies to licensees in the province; if they want to engage in juvenile-spacing, they get some of their own money back, and that represents an incentive, according to the minister. They may not be around to harvest that incremental timber that they generate out of their juvenile-spacing activities, but hey, that's a real incentive.
What I'm asking is to back it up with respect to the preharvest silviculture prescription and offer some other types of incentives for them to engage in this activity. The forest renewal plan, while it may offer them the opportunity to fund the work.... If they are not guaranteed the right to harvest the incremental growth through tenure reform and if there's no recognition that they should build it into a preharvest silvicultural plan because it's not required under the act, what.... The minister talks about these wonderful incentives, but I don't see exactly what the incentives would be for any other party but the ministry, which might, some day in the future, put that incremental harvest out to bid. I would ask the minister again to back it up all the way to the start of the process, when the preharvest silvicultural prescription is filed with the ministry. Is there any interest in the form of increased allocation of cut, for example, or some other pledge the ministry could make that would provide some incentive for the licensee to build the potential for juvenile-spacing into the original prescription, which would then require under law that it be carried out?
Hon. A. Petter: I now see the problem in the member's analysis. He thinks that the amount that is collected from the industry in the form of stumpage for the forest renewal plan is not a return to the public on a public resource. He believes those funds belong to the industry; therefore he doesn't understand that those funds could be an incentive.
[11:00]
Let me assure him, once again, that we see a clear divide between the view of the government and the view of his party. If his party takes the view that the value of the natural resources of this province belongs to private licensees, then he is on a very different track than this government. This government's view is that public resources belong to the public and that the rent collected from those resources through stumpage is a public resource. Part of that resource is now going into a forest renewal plan, which provides incentives to the industry. This utilizes a portion of those public funds for incremental investments, which will be of benefit.
The member's other comments take us back to earlier discussions we've had on incentives. I don't disagree with the member that we have to look at tenure reform and other ways of providing incentives. In some areas already -- in TFLs, for example -- there can be benefits for individual licensees. Sometimes these are long-term benefits; sometimes these are short-term. We talked the other day about TFL 35, in which incremental investments over the long term produce short-term benefits because of the distribution of wood within that TFL. In TFLs where that is not the case, the licence holder may well look to benefits down the road; these may not be immediate. In volume-based tenures, there is a difficulty called a free-rider problem, where one licensee may fear that an investment may be scooped up in benefits to other licensees. That concern is to a large extent minimized, if not eliminated, by the forest renewal plan, because the resources that are being used are not the resources of an individual licensee; they are the collective resources of the public and collected through stumpage. So that is why the forest renewal plan can help overcome that problem. I agree, however, that we need to move forward with tenure reform.
Beyond that, I think I did refer the other day to the fact that the ministry is prepared to experiment within volume-based tenures on what is sometimes referred to as supply block management. It is finding ways in which it might give credit to individual licensees, where they can demonstrate that their incremental investments produce a real benefit to the overall forest resource. If there is some way to track that and benefit that licensee, we are prepared to consider that on a pilot basis.
I notice the time, and by mutual agreement I would move that the committee now rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
W. Hurd: Before we adjourn, I had a series of questions I wanted to submit to the minister with respect to ministry operations. I would just like to do that now.
The Chair: The motion has been put.
Hon. A. Petter: I will withdraw the motion to allow the member to....
W. Hurd: I just want to table these questions, hon. Chair.
The Chair: All right.
Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, by mutual agreement among the parties, at this time we move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:03 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]