Hansard -- Thursday, October 20, 2005 a.m. -- Vol. 3, No. 1 (HTML)

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Second Reading of Bills		985
	Civil Forfeiture Act (Bill 13) (continued)
	N. Simons
	L. Mayencourt
	L. Krog
	R. Cantelon
	M. Sather
	R. Sultan

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		999
	Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (continued)
	Hon. P. Bell
	B. Ralston
	B. Simpson
	C. Evans
	N. Macdonald

Hon. C. Richmond: In the Section A, Douglas Fir Committee Room, we will be continuing the estimates debates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, and in this House we will continue the second reading debate of Bill 13.

N. Simons: I appreciate the opportunity of speaking in turn today on Bill 13 before the House, introduced yesterday by the hon. member the Solicitor General.

I would like to first start off just by saying to the House that, in theory, I like the idea of making sure that criminals do not profit from crime. It is entirely acceptable to have laws that allow government to seize property that's been obtained through crime and criminal activity. But I'd like to point out some concerns I have with this piece of legislation, which I think I will try and put forward in a reasoned way, in an attempt to draw attention to some of the potential weaknesses of the law in the hopes that it might be strengthened and shored up for the future.

First of all, I'd like to point out that this is not a law about meeting the needs of victims of crime, nor is this a law designed to ensure that organized crime doesn't pay. This is a law that I believe is far too broad for the purposes for which this government suggests it's introduced.

Yesterday the hon. Solicitor General spoke initially about meth labs, smuggling drugs, internet scams, bilking seniors, marijuana grow operations, theft, fraud, exploitation, arson, theft of electricity and money laundering. As an introduction to discussion on this bill, I think it would have been more appropriate to talk about the fact that, ultimately, it gives the government authority to punish individuals who have not been found guilty of any crime, potentially to punish individuals who haven't been accused of any crime, potentially to punish individuals who are merely in the vicinity of somebody who may be considering committing a crime.

Now, perhaps we can argue that in the future it may not be enforced that way, that it's unlikely that any reasoned judge will allow for the forfeiture of property based on the balance of probabilities — which, I might add, is a weak burden of proof in these matters. Having worked in the area of child protection, where the balance of proof is even weaker in order to protect the most vulnerable, I understand what it is to meet a burden of proof. I understand the frustrations of police forces that have to meet the strict and rigid guidelines that have been set forth in our country and have been subscribed to by legislators and police officers for many, many years.

The fundamental cornerstone of our society is the presumption of innocence. The burden of proof, which requires "beyond a reasonable doubt," has been tested. If it has failed in the past to meet the needs of police forces because it makes their job harder, perhaps we need to make sure that they have the resources necessary to do their job. But I don't believe in weakening the law to make law enforcement more easy — easier.

I'm concerned about a law or a bill before the House that has been justified by such statements as: "If you've got a man driving a brand-new Dodge Viper, living in a half-million-dollar house with a big boat parked in the backyard and an airplane parked at the airport and he files an income tax return showing he makes $15,000 a year, I would suspect there are going to be some eyebrows raised. That's the sort of stuff that would be required on the balance of probabilities."

I for one do not believe that the raising of eyebrows should be the burden of proof. If this member states publicly in this House that he believes that suspicion — mere suspicion — is enough to allow for the government to seize property…. I'm not even talking about freezing assets. I'm not talking about allowing the potential criminal to walk away with the benefits of years of organized crime. No.

Specific issues, of course, about the problems of this bill will be addressed in third reading. However, for now I just want to make sure that we know that there are places where this legislation could use some shoring up. Some protections of civil liberties have nothing to do with being permissive towards criminals. They have nothing to do with allowing the criminal element to gleefully run with the benefits of ill-gotten gain.

The definitions themselves cause me some concern. The entire focus, however…. If it is in fact to prevent crime, as was mentioned by the hon. Solicitor General yesterday, I'd like to see some evidence to suggest that this is a crime prevention tool. I've studied crime prevention for quite a long time with some of the leading criminologists in the field. Forfeiting crime proceeds may have an impact on future crime, and that's a good thing. Of course, it would require a criminal conviction

in order to be able to seize that property, and in this case it doesn't require a criminal conviction.

What this act addresses is anything called an "unlawful activity." What kind of society do we live in if we say that any unlawful activity could — on a political decision, mind you — allow for the seizure of property? The whim of politics…. Perhaps the judge will be the one ordering — but the choosing of which unlawful activity or which perpetrator of an unlawful activity will have their property seized….

There are plenty of examples of how unlawful activity is demonstrated to be far too broad of….

N. Simons: No, don't worry. The hon. member is very concerned that there will be a vote against his bill.

The point of this process, I understand, is to express our opinions on the bill, and if there's an opportunity for planting the seeds of rationality that may be able to influence the proceeds of this bill, I hope that the member opposite takes full advantage of that.

I am simply standing here to indicate to the House and to the public, as well, through the Speaker that bad law should not be rammed through because of a…. How shall I put this without being disingenuous? Without careful and due consideration for the potential negative impacts. We've seen, unfortunately, some evidence of that already in the last few weeks. But in this particular instance, we have an opportunity to discuss it in more detail. I'm looking forward to that opportunity.

We have seen evidence that in other jurisdictions the Civil Forfeiture Act has resulted in a large windfall of cash for a provincial government. If that's the purpose, I believe that should be stated — that it's actually an attempt to make some money for general revenue. Clearly, the act states that any finances accrued by the government have to be spent with the consent of the Minister of Finance, except for the compensation of victims directly affected by the particular offence in question.

Of course, we're not talking about crime. We're talking about tobacco smuggling. We're talking about other potential unlawful activities that the hon. member opposite spoke of yesterday.

I, for one, believe strongly in the need to balance community interests one against the other, and I don't believe that this adequately protects potentially innocent victims caught up by an overzealous attempt to solicit funds for other programs.

I have not escaped. People close to me have been victims of crime, including home invasion and robbery, and I have no sympathy for people who victimize others. I have no sympathy for people who cause harm, violence or property offences against…. My house has been broken into. This is not a bleeding-heart position. This is about fundamental rights of us as individuals in this society. It's taken a long time for society to accept the fact that there's a balance, and that balance in society sometimes tips one way and sometimes the other.

It worries me that this bill suggests that revenue from the proceeds of this bill will be funding our criminal justice system. Why is it that on one hand, the victims of crime compensation act was changed to make it harder for victims of crime to be compensated for non-pecuniary losses, and now a bill ostensibly aimed at recovering proceeds of crime is going to be spent on victims? I fear that unfortunately, this is an example of a very, very large net being used to capture what really requires more resources — i.e., funding for services to address the problem of organized crime.

I don't mean any of my comments with any personal disrespect. Yesterday I did make some comments in my role as heckler general. I realize that. It was late at night, far past my bedtime. The comments that I made were prompted by a deep feeling of concern over the widening of the net and the potential impact on innocent parties with the enactment of this legislation.

There are other interests and other stakeholders who have expressed concern about this type of legislation, not always in this jurisdiction. But I believe that the similarities between here and Ontario may be appropriate.

I think that it sets a dangerous precedent. I believe that we don't really know who is caught up, who will be subject to potential seizure. If somebody knowingly participates in a criminal offence, we should get a criminal conviction. And the criminal law enforcement agencies should have the resources available to get the conviction. The courts should be funded adequately to ensure that the process through the criminal justice system is adequate. If there are people who are conspiring to commit criminal offences, we have legislation against that.

But in this case I would like assurances, eventually, that residents in the same home out of which phone calls could be made that involve illegal activity will not be subject to the harsh and heavy hammer of this legislation. I'm not assured at this point that this legislation protects people in those circumstances. Examples were raised in other jurisdictions about…. What about the mother of a 17-year-old who's dealing marijuana from his upstairs bedroom? What provision in here, other than the good graces of a particular member of the bench, protect this person and protect the future? What happens when a less benevolent government comes into power with this legislation on the books? The potential infringement on civil liberties, I believe, needs to be weighed against the need to enforce criminal law against criminals.

There are some legal opinions or opinions from legal experts who believe that the definition of unlawful activity is problematic, as is a definition of proceeds. But you can define proceeds a little bit more carefully. As well, instruments of crime, the instruments used in the commission of unlawful activities….

Unlawful activity includes speeding. It's not a municipal bylaw. Municipal bylaws are excluded. I'm glad to see that. I was worried that jaywalking would have resulted in someone taking my only suit — in theory. I know. I'm glad I got one chuckle. One chuckle is better than none.

I believe that repetitive infractions for traffic offences are unlawful activity. If it's not included, let's exclude it. If it's not included in the legislation, let's exclude it. There's prostitution or solicitation for the purposes of prostitution. Clothes, in this case, are an instrument of this offence. I don't believe it's right to be able to seize that property unless you have a conviction. It just opens up the door extremely wide and unnecessarily wide.

I believe we need more work on this, and I'm sure that in a further committee stage we'll be able to do that. I hope that the purpose of this debate now is to point out some of the frailties that exist in this legislation for the purpose of strengthening it, because ultimately, I agree with the government's intention — if its intention is, in fact, to not let crime pay.

But I don't believe we should pretend for a moment that this is an act for crime prevention or that this is an act for victims rights. It is neither. It's an illusion to suggest otherwise. If, in fact, you want crime prevention, go to the people who are experts on crime prevention. Unfortunately, it's not the police, necessarily. I believe that the police have a role of enforcing law. They have crime…. I've worked with police in crime prevention areas, but it's not their primary focus. Their budgets recognize that. You can see that in the distribution of funds to law enforcement officials, the crime prevention part of their budgets is usually quite significantly lower than the others.

Social development, ultimately, we know has a far greater impact on the rates of crime, and I think it's important to know…. I've worked inside prisons once in a while — I was going to say I've been to prison once in a while — and I've seen…. Most of the people that I've met in prison are people who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. It's not an excuse. I'm not making excuses. It just seems to be a statistical trend.

I believe we need to make sure that if we want to do some crime prevention work, then let's focus on making sure that children don't grow up in poverty. Even if their parents don't know how to get a job, it's not the children's fault. We have to look beyond the blame.

I think that to cast this bill as a deterrent bill is a little bit problematic. Organized crime is one thing. I worry that this will be the focus of the government's push for this. Another concern that I have eventually — well, no, I have it now, but it will be discussed, I suppose, eventually in the future — is that there's nothing in the act that discusses what compensation or damages in terms of financial amounts…. There is no guideline.

In most legislation that deals with victims of crime, there's a list of expenses that are reimbursable — counselling expenses, lost time from work — and before this government there was compensation for pain and suffering. This act doesn't talk about pain and suffering at all, but it doesn't define any other categories where compensation could be provided.

I'd like to see victims of crime supported more strongly by the tools that already exist, the tools that have been strengthened over the past number of years, both provincially and federally. We should never stop working in the interests of victims of crime.

I would suggest that the best thing we could do for victims of crime is to sincerely work at crime prevention. As much as we all — or some of us — may get some satisfaction with vengeance and retribution, and some more than others, I believe that ultimately it does nothing to prevent crime. We all know the stories about the 1600s, when you could get punished by death for stealing a loaf of bread. It didn't stop the pickpockets if they were hungry.

Ultimately, I haven't seen any studies — and I've studied criminology for a long time — that make a direct link between severe penalties and crime prevention. In fact, repressive communities have the strongest criminal sanction, but they often have a high crime rate because of the nature of government. I think our society should be geared much more towards ensuring that every individual has an opportunity to succeed, as opposed to scaring people into obeying the law. Fundamentally, I have a concern with that.

I am speaking in favour of the bill. It might be hard to tell, but we'll work on that a little bit. As you know, I'm a rookie, so….

N. Simons: If it would help…. The hon. member opposite suggests that if I sat down and voted against it, we'd all be happier. But I don't believe that's my responsibility as an elected official. I came here not to just figure out how I'm going to best be re-elected next time. I came here to consider and put considerable thought into what laws are being passed in this Legislature. This is a legislature where people make law.

N. Simons: Excuse me, hon. Speaker. Did the member opposite have a comment? I didn't hear it. I think it was ready for a good, quick retort on my part, and I missed the opportunity.

N. Simons: Well, next time I'll have a heckle ready. I'll sit down and heckle later.

But I do think it's an appropriate chamber for the discussion and the provision of opinions contrary to those who are supporting it — even if, within the context of the law, we believe that fundamentally it has the right purpose. I agree — the right purpose. How can you argue with saying you shouldn't be able to drive your Dodge Viper if you made it by victimizing people?

But I would suggest to the member who spoke yesterday that the Dodge Viper might have been a present from grandma. I don't think just raising your eyebrows is enough to suggest that it came from ill-conceived ideas or nefarious criminal activity. I think the raising of the eyebrows is not the test we want. We don't want that test.

We would like perhaps for a court of criminal law to find a person guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as we have championed for many years, at which time the state can benefit from the glorious amounts of money or Dodge Vipers or Porsches — as the other member opposite was talking about yesterday.

The hon. member knows and the hon. Solicitor General knows there are opportunities, during criminal proceedings or after a charge, to freeze the assets pending the outcome of trial. I think this is partly a law that's designed in a way to step into a jurisdiction where previously only the federal government stood. That was criminal law. But the enforcement of criminal law is a provincial responsibility, and the choices made by the provincial government determine the direction of the enforcement of law. So it is ultimately up to the Attorney General to decide which offenders or unlawful-act doers will be subject to this seizure. I don't think that is appropriate in our justice system anywhere. Due process, I believe, is a bit of a victim here without some substantial changes.

I'm glad that the hon. Solicitor General is getting advice from the Attorney General — who is more learned, I might add, and respected in his field….

But I do believe that ultimately, we should be looking at this legislation from as sober a first thought as we have at this point. We don't have the benefit of looking at it again.

I could read some more quotes, but let me just consult one more time with the actual act. I know that the discussion of the bill will be more detailed in committee stage or third reading. At that point I'm sure we'll be looking at section 18, which states: "In proceedings under this Act, an unlawful activity may be found to have occurred even if (a) no person has been charged with an offence that constitutes the unlawful activity." So you don't even have to have committed an unlawful activity, which is ill-defined. You don't have to be charged with anything, not even a crime. You don't have to be charged with a crime. You don't have to be charged with an unlawful activity.

I might add that I have a concern…. I simply have to read paragraph (b): "a person charged with an offence that constitutes the unlawful activity was acquitted of all charges in proceedings before a criminal court or the charges are withdrawn or stayed or otherwise do not proceed." That jumped out, and I don't think I could name…. Despite the comments of the member yesterday who spoke on behalf of all law enforcement officials in the province, which he did without consulting them all, I don't believe all law enforcement officials would believe that eliminating due process or lowering the burden of proof is good for society, even if it might be good in terms of making their job slightly easier.

I strongly believe that we need to support police officers in the performance of their duties so that they're properly funded, but I wouldn't want to justify as for a good cause an act that has not as yet endured some careful second and third thought.

So on that, with respect to the members opposite, I look forward to working with them to ensure that the act meets the concerns of not just this side of the House but members of the community in general.

L. Mayencourt: It's great to be able to speak in favour of Bill 13, which has been advanced here by our Solicitor General. I want to compliment the SG on bringing forward this legislation. It is, in fact, legislation that members of all political stripes have been calling for, for many, many years.

I know from the last session of this Legislature that Joy MacPhail, the former member for Vancouver-Hastings, was a strong advocate for finding legislation to get proceeds of unlawful activity brought back to government, so that that money could be used to protect individuals who have become victims of crime.

The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast said a few things that I want to comment on. One of those was the crime victim assistance program in British Columbia, which by all accounts has been a tremendous success.

This is a piece of legislation and a program that we brought in several months ago. I probably am one of the members of this House that has had a great deal of experience with this, because I have worked with several victims of crime in accessing crime victim assistance program resources. I have found that to be a very valuable part of the system in British Columbia to ensure that victims of crime are supported. This is yet one more tool that adds to the tool kit for individuals that have been affected or in some way harmed by unlawful activity, where another person who has done this unlawful activity has made a little bit of money from it.

There have been great examples of that. We all know about seniors that have been bilked by unethical

contractors that write up deals and take big deposits, then head south or head somewhere else. We want to protect those seniors. We want to make sure that those people are not going to be bilked of their hard-earned money and their savings. We know it's important to make sure that they have protections afforded to them by this Legislature. That is what this Legislature is to do. It is to respond to the needs of communities that we represent.

Now, the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast just a few minutes ago suggested we were ramming through legislation.

L. Mayencourt: Pushing? Pushing — okay. We're pushing this through. I remember "ramming," but all right, we're pushing it through.

Well, we are certainly proceeding with legislation, but as has been the case in every bill that has come before this House, every member can stand up and wax eloquent in favour of or against each and every bill in this House for up to half an hour. In fact, one member from each party can actually go a whole hour if they want to, so saying we're pushing through or ramming through legislation is to me…. You know, I just can't buy it. I think that what we do here is, if we believe in something, stand up and talk about it. If we disagree with it, we get to say that, and there's a whole range of options that are available.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that every time I hear those words "ramming through" or "pushing through" or "aggressively pursuing legislation," or all of those sorts of things, I want to remind all members of this House that there are 79 of us. We can talk for 79 hours if we want. We can talk for even longer if we want to put through amendments, if we want to put through motions on a thing. This is not a case of ramming anything through. This is an ability for us to take a look at this and speak to the parts of the legislation that we like and the parts that we don't.

Members opposite are members of a party that has always sought to protect the underdog. It's certainly one of the key core beliefs that they set forth in campaigns and certainly in this Legislature. I salute them for that. That often puts them in a position where they say: "Well, you know, we think that you should go after those rich guys and maybe get more taxes from them. Quit helping your friends that are in the corporate community. Quit helping the rich and look after the poor."

Yet today the members are standing up and defending people engaged in unlawful activity, gaining money from it and keeping it. So really, my question to the members that put forward this argument is…. If someone is rich, we should hit them hard and take their money from them in taxes — unless it's a result of unlawful activity.

In this bill, there are very clear definitions that tell us what unlawful activity is. It has to be an offence under B.C. law or under Canada's law. We have to have some proof that there has been some unlawful activity, but if I've got a Viper that my dad bought for me….

L. Mayencourt: I've got the Mustang, yes — which no one bought for me, by the way. But if I've got my Mustang, and someone gave it to me — somehow I've got a $30,000 car or a $50,000 car, and someone just gave it to me — I can certainly go and talk to the judge and say: "You know what? Nicholas gave me that car, and I thank him very much for it." However, if I have magically received a Dodge Viper, I have a boat in the driveway, I have a 3,500-square-foot house and last year I made $7,800, not only are my eyebrows up, but I know something fishy is going on.

It is time for us as a society to recognize that individuals that profit — and they profit mightily — from crime need to have those proceeds taken from them. Why? Because they have taken that money away from people in an unlawful manner, and it is important that we protect those people.

I want to give you an example of someone that profits from unlawful activity. Hypothetically, Clifford Olson, a man that several years ago ravaged our community and created great fear in our community, decides he's going to write a book. Boy, everybody wants to read the book because it's about mass murder. It's about sex. It's about a whole bunch of other things. So it sells great. He makes a couple million bucks. Is that right? Is that fair? I think not.

L. Mayencourt: This bill is specifically about individuals profiting as a result of unlawful activity. That is precisely what this bill is about. It is all that this bill is about. It is time for all members to understand that there are scoundrels out there. Those members over there, as members over here do as well, know that these people exist. We've heard it from our grandmas. We've heard it from our neighbours. We've heard it in the news. We've seen it in example after example after example.

I don't think anyone can possibly stand up and say this is a bad piece of legislation. This is a piece of legislation that affords government the opportunity to protect those individuals in society that are vulnerable to unlawful activity. That's all. I support this bill. As I said, I've worked with people that are victims of crime over the last four and a half to five years. I know that we as a society are doing our very, very best to assist those victims of crime.

Think of Nicholas Chow, a young man in Esquimalt who was beaten and left brain-damaged as a result of wearing a red jacket. Perhaps the attackers didn't make any money off of it. But what happens is that we have someone that has been injured as a result of unlawful activity, and guess who has to help the family with that. We do. This government — any government in British Columbia, whether it's an NDP government or a B.C. Liberal government — is required by law to support that individual. Let me tell you, when you're talking about a person like Nicholas Chow or you're talking about a person like Ji-Won Park or you're talking about families that have been affected by this, the cost of helping them fix those problems is enormous. It is really enormous.

This bill provides the Solicitor General and this government with resources. Maybe it's a Dodge Viper. Maybe it's a 3,500-square-foot apartment. Maybe it's a little factory. Maybe it's an illegal gaming shop. Maybe it's an unscrupulous contractor. Maybe it's a telemarketing firm. When they're engaged in an unlawful activity and taking advantage of people and those people suffer a loss, government tries to help them out. This facilitates it in a way that is very valuable, and I think it is well-considered.

This is an item that has been swirling around this chamber for at least the five years that I've been here. You know, we could spend the rest of our lives waiting for the perfect piece of legislation. We're just not going to get the perfect piece, but what we can do is take a first step. When we take that first step, we've said to people that are breaking the law: "You're not going to get away with that here." What it means is: "You're not going to get away with that unlawful activity in British Columbia, and if in some way you profit from it, we're going to take that money away from you. We're going to get it away from you."

The member talked a little bit about maybe someone's daughter is upstairs. She's got a little crystal meth lab or something like that running in her bedroom, and therefore the government could somehow come in and seize the house. Well, that's not what this bill is saying. What this bill is saying is that if that young person, by cooking up crystal meth, selling it and whatever else, gained anything as a result of that — say, a new walkman or a bike or a Dodge Viper — we want it. We want it back. It doesn't mean we're going to go to her mother and say: "Oh, by the way, we like this house. We're going to take that too." No. It is directly tied to whatever the unlawful activity is for.

We have many provinces in Canada that have taken a look at this legislation and have enacted legislation. Have there been abuses of that? No. Has there been constitutional challenge? Yes. Has it been successful? No. The reason it's not successful is that this does not overstep the authority of this chamber. It does not overstep the authority of a government in Canada. That is why we have modelled it on those bills, and that is why this bill will work in British Columbia.

I swear in this House that if there is even one instance — one instance — where this is abused, I will be in this House, as will those members, and we will find a way to ensure that that abuse does not occur again. That's our job. Nothing's perfect. We've got to start somewhere. If tomorrow we find we need to twig it a little, well, I'll be here, you'll be here, and we'll fix it.

With that, I'd like to conclude my comments on Bill 13, and I would also like to say to the Solicitor General and to the members of government who brought this bill forward…. I know it's the responsibility of the Solicitor General, but there's a whole crew of us that sit down and look at these bills before they're actually finished. I want to thank the Solicitor General for his leadership and thank all members of our caucus and a couple of members on that side for their hard work to develop a thoughtful bill that is measured, that provides security and that deals with this issue in a fair manner for all British Columbians. You've done good work today.

It will protect seniors. It will protect vulnerable people. It will make sure that people know in British Columbia that this is not a place where you can come and print money by having grow ops, by having crystal meth labs, by destroying neighbourhoods or by robbing people. It is not a place where you can come and get away with that. We'll get you. We'll get you somehow.

L. Krog: What brought us here? What brought us to the stage that a government that prides itself on representing free enterprise and believes in a small government wants to now, if you will, take away necessarily or certainly derogate from the rights of citizens to sue the people who victimized them?

What I'm following on are the remarks of the member for Vancouver-Burrard when he talked about Clifford Olson and when he talked about other people. There has always existed the right to sue people who do you harm in our society. That right has always existed. What this government has done — and I compliment them for it — is recognize that in our society there are victims of crime who, enjoying the right to sue the person who victimized them, in fact, enjoy an absolutely hollow right. Those who commit crimes, particularly crimes of violence against individuals, are often without funds. We get what we call in the legal trade a dry judgment. Recovering a million-dollar judgment against someone who has nothing is frankly a waste of time, although it's good work for my colleagues at the bar.

What we are recognizing in this is a further step down the road, which was taken by this Legislature many years ago, when it came to providing a victims of crime assistance program. That's really what we're talking about in some respects. This bill is aimed at a number of things, but what we're really saying is that not only do we as a Legislature believe it is appropriate to compensate victims of crime, but also we want to ensure a better revenue fund and at the same time, ar-

guably, kill two birds with one stone, which is to go after those who have profited from their criminal activity and still retain those profits. In other words, go after the right chickens, if you will, that formerly individuals wouldn't have been able to sue.

Let's not get into the problem of drug dealers. If I'm knocked on the head by somebody burglarizing my house, that's one thing. If I'm reduced to drug addiction by drug dealers and there are 50 of my neighbours in the same community who are in the same position, are we all going to sue the drug dealer? Do we fault the drug dealer? Is it the drug dealer's responsibility? There are wonderful philosophical questions arising out of this bill.

Part of the drive behind this legislation, as I see it, stems not just from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It stems from the law of evidence, which has flowed out of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is a sense in our communities — and I think we would be remiss if we didn't address it — that people are getting away with things in our society when they shouldn't — that criminal activity is occurring. It not only goes unpunished, but many reap tangible material rewards from that activity.

For most of us, that's drug dealing. It is about fraud. It is about businesses and stockbrokers and people who make off with great scams. It is about Eron Mortgage Corp. It is about all of those things where there is a fundamental and, I think, absolutely justified anger on the part of the population who are saying: "How can we call this a just and fair society when people like that can take money from innocent victims or profit from illegal activity, retain the proceeds and not be punished somehow?"

There is a sense among the public, I suggest, that drug dealers get off easy — that they can hire high-priced lawyers. That's a lovely old cliché — high-priced lawyers. Having run a law office, I well understand….

L. Krog: The hon. Attorney General points out "like myself." I wish to assure the House that I'm just a modest, simple country lawyer not making great profits off my legal work.

But that aside for a moment, there is that sense that you can buy justice — that with a good legal team, with the power of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms behind you, with the law of evidence and decisions that have come down from the Supreme Court of Canada, somehow you can get through the net of the law. That's really pretty offensive for folks on the street.

I appreciate the comments of my friend the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. I'm probably as much of a civil libertarian as he is. But let me say that in the city of Nanaimo, which enjoys the presence of a Hell's Angels motorcycle clubhouse, which sees dozens and dozens of people on its streets day in and day out, suffering from severe drug addiction…. It kind of tempers some of my attitude that might otherwise have been the case toward this bill. We got here because there is that sense of public outrage.

I'm not convinced that we should be necessarily taking property from people who haven't been convicted. That is the beauty of debate in this House. I will enjoy the benefit of hearing the ideas from members of both sides of this House as to what is the appropriate course to take in a civil society that recognizes the rights of the individual and that recognizes the rights of an individual to retain property.

How best are we going to ensure that in our society, where we teach our children that the right thing to do is to be honest, to tell the truth and to not steal — to convince them that when we say: "You'll be punished for it…"? How is it we do that where people accumulate great wealth in our communities and seemingly retain that wealth?

The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast talks about impinging on federal jurisdiction. We may well be doing that. I'm hopeful that with some time to research and consider this bill, we'll consider whether or not it's necessary. I assume that the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General has had the able staff of the Ministry of Attorney General look into that issue.

What we do know is that there are those in the community who have made tremendous profits. I'm not concerned about trying to retrieve property from some drug addict in the streets of Nanaimo who's stolen my television set. My house has likewise been broken into. I have felt that kind of queasiness you feel for years afterwards when you go home after a day and put the key in the lock and wonder if you've been broken into again. I can only begin to imagine what a fearsome thing it must be for those in society who don't have the sense that they can physically defend themselves.

That is a rampant problem in our community, and that petty property crime revolves around drug addiction. The drug dealers in our community continue to profit. They invest in businesses. Indeed, some of them pass over that veil over time in our society, becoming respectable citizens. Sometimes we forget where they made their money.

I support the concept of this bill, but I think we want to be careful in understanding what it is we're trying to do in terms of satisfying the genuine public outrage and the common sense of the common people, if you will, around this issue. We are providing a vehicle whereby we collectively, as the state, are going to take property and assets from individuals in our community. Now, the members opposite might jokingly say: "That's taxation. We really don't like taxation, because we keep making tax cuts." This essentially is a form of taxation, arguably. It is taking something from citizens, but we're taking it, I suggest, for a very good reason. We are taking it because it has been ill-gotten,

because it has been obtained through activities which our society will never condone.

The devil, however, as they often say, is in the details. Clearly, one of the issues that this House has to address — and has been so ably addressed by some of my colleagues, certainly on this side — is: is it right to take property from people who have not been convicted of a crime and, even more, who have not even been charged with a crime?

The members opposite might well say: "We can rely on our judicial system. Judges will do the right thing. They will hear the evidence, will come to the right decision and decide on the balance of probabilities what is fair and just." I suppose I could somewhat facetiously say: "If judges were perfect, then we wouldn't have the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada." Judges do make mistakes, and I think these are very big questions that we have to ask ourselves as legislators.

Are we prepared to take property away from people in our society who have not been convicted of a crime, not been charged with a crime? That's what this bill provides. That is a pretty significant step in our legal system. It is no answer to say that other jurisdictions have implemented it. We are not other jurisdictions. This is British Columbia, and we have a responsibility as legislators to consider carefully what it is we are, in fact, doing.

If this bill were more narrowly focused in terms of what constituted unlawful activity, perhaps some of the concerns that have been raised in this House would not have been raised. It's a fairly broad thing. I suppose one has to ask: if the definition of unlawful activity is that broad, how far down the line do we go? Are we going to be suing the person who is, I don't know, breaching the new changes that allow you not to sell your beef off your farm gate anymore unless you take it to an abattoir? Are we going to prosecute the person selling vegetables out of their yard? When I say prosecute, I mean confiscate their property.

How far down the line do we go in terms of the illegal activity? What is it that offends us? Are we going to focus it on only the drug dealers and organized crime, which is, frankly, my community's interest in this bill? Are we going to go after the people who are turning our children into addicts, who are filling our hospitals with sick?

If that's the purpose of the bill, then how do we more narrowly focus it? How do we ensure that's what we're going to be doing? I don't think it's any answer to say back that it's just going to a question of government policy.

There are big questions, as I said. The debate so far has been most interesting, and I cannot let pass some remarks made last night by the member for Langley. In debate last night she said: "At the end of the day we know that our Charter in Canada is not there to protect criminals, not there to protect people who are engaged in unlawful activities."

I suggest the member for Langley may come to regret those words some day, and I hope she will take an opportunity in this House to withdraw from them. I'm sure the Attorney General for this province would take a somewhat different view. Mercifully, we live in a society where the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to all individuals.

With the greatest respect, if that is the attitude of the government about rehabilitation in this province, I would be delighted to hear it expressed through a member of the government through cabinet, because when one hears those kinds of remarks around this kind of bill, it makes the members on this side of the House question what the motive is behind this legislation.

If we are going to suggest that rehabilitation is impossible in our criminal justice system in our society, then we will head down that long and ugly road to where the Americans find themselves now, where the prisons budget in the state of California exceeds their education budget; where they have major private corporations making millions of dollars a year warehousing prisoners; where they have, I believe, the highest rate of incarceration of people of any nation in the western world — indeed, in the world generally, because the poorer countries can't afford to incarcerate people. It's those kinds of remarks that give me cause for concern in this kind of debate.

With respect to this bill, let us consider carefully these big questions. Let us consider carefully what steps we are going to take, and let us acknowledge as a Legislature that we are taking over, if you will, that the state is once again…. Frankly, I support the concept of the state stepping in where individuals can't afford to do it themselves. The state is stepping in to ensure that victims of crime receive compensation, that we recognize as a society collectively that we have a responsibility to our sisters and brothers who are victimized through no fault of their own. That's a good thing.

I don't suppose we have any idea at this point what this legislation may produce if it's passed in the form in which it is in terms of revenue for the newly appointed position of director, when that director is appointed. I would like to think that if it does pass, it will not disappear into some great bureaucracy and that the money will actually filter down to people.

I must say to the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, who was concerned about this and

how far the state would go, that given this government's record in my view of underfunding every ministry, I'm sure this directorate will be as underfunded as everything else. I'm sure it will only have time to go after the big fish and not the small fish.

I think all of us on this side would like to receive some assurances, if you will, in terms of the specifics of the legislation as to how many fish we're going after, what kind of fish and what really is the purpose behind this. If you're going after the drug dealers in the city of Nanaimo and you're going to take their property from them, I've got to tell you, this member will support you to the wall. But if you're going to go after some drug addicts in my community who are already victimized, who have nothing or next to nothing, then I don't think we're going to be on the same wavelength.

I look forward, as is often said in this House, to the continuing debate on this bill, which I trust will be respectful and which I trust will consider some of the larger policy implications that arise out of this legislation. The concept of taking ill-gotten gains from criminals is one that I think would receive broad if not 100-percent support in any community.

Let me conclude with what I have said, and I am repeating myself. I have a concern that you are directing this legislation against some people who may have committed no crimes, who have not been found guilty in our courts. I understand what motivates that. I understand, given what I talked about earlier, how some people seem to get away with it and continue to get away with it. There is public outrage around that. I'm just not convinced at this stage on this morning in this Legislature that perhaps we haven't gone too far.

R. Cantelon: I'm happy to speak to this bill today, Bill 13. I think the number is perhaps pernicious, and I hope it will bring bad luck for all those involved in criminal activity and that they'll lose what they'd hoped to gain by their proceeds.

Madam Speaker, it gives me particular pleasure today to follow a colleague, also from Nanaimo, and to speak right after he has spoken. I want to tell you that on a personal note, if he has been characterized as a wealthy lawyer, that is not true. I would like to confirm that indeed his practice is a humble practice, as he so puts forward — although considering his sartorial display today, which is also well known in the community…. I don't know if that adjective has ever been applied broadly to him among those who know him.

Nevertheless, I do respect his words. He's a very learned lawyer, and I think his interpretations and concerns of the act are well put, although I would comment, firstly, with respect to his admonitions against the member for Langley regarding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that certainly one of the freedoms this bill does address is: criminals do not have the freedom and will not have the freedom to profit from unlawful activities.

This is an outstanding bill. It's an issue that the previous speaker has alluded to as being of great concern in our community in Nanaimo. It's actually at the top of mine in the current election. It's the greatest concern despite other things that are happening in the community. We talk loosely, I think, about organized crime, and very often crime is not really as organized as we'd like to believe.

Criminals today are becoming very sophisticated at shifting the blame and sort of putting it on to underlings to carry out their illegal activities without any direct connection or without any trail of evidence that can be followed up to get the people at the top. It becomes more and more difficult for the police and investigators to get to the actual source of the crime.

But no question, very often the evidence — not necessarily the display of wealth, but the evidence — that a crime has occurred is very, very obvious. That really is where the immediate focus will be. I know that the member opposite for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has worried about the most vulnerable people, and I can assure you, to the member, that au contraire, this is to protect the most vulnerable and to restore to them what may have been taken from them through criminal and perhaps fraudulent activity.

I certainly have great faith in the justice system that this will not be "whim" — the word that was used by the member opposite. I do not consider the deliberation of the courts whimsical. I'm sure they will take a very serious approach when they examine the balance of probabilities in coming to their decisions.

It isn't just going to be the display of wealth that triggers it. It will take more than a raised eyebrow before the courts would proceed to seize property. There has to be clear evidence that unlawful activity happened, and I have to say and report, regretfully, that there's ample opportunity for that in our community.

During roughly an 18-month period our city council, of which I was a member previously, seized or shut down something like 79 grow ops. You walk into a situation like that, and there's no question that illegal activity has been going on. However, often our hands are tied. The hands of the police are tied in trying to prosecute against it. As I mentioned earlier, it's a very tangled web of deceit that the perpetrators put on us to make it difficult to make prosecutions. But this is an opportunity, then, to seize the assets. If it can be shown that the owners of the property or the premises were involved in these criminal activities, then the property can be seized.

Certainly, however, I appreciate the concerns of the members opposite, but it's also clear in the act that those who are not involved will be deemed to be free. Their assets won't be seized. Mortgage companies, even co-owners of property that might be seized, will not have their part of the property seized, but if it is clearly an unlawful activity, then we can proceed.

There was a recent incident north of Nanaimo, in my riding, that I'd like to describe to you and that I think is typical of what might happen. In the process of their activities, the police found a home that was being used to create ID fraud. In the investigation, they found

Identity theft, as many members of this House well know, is one of the most dangerous things that threatens all of us. Your identity can be stolen, your credit cards can be created, and you can have your reputation damaged and your assets spent by others.

Well, here's a clear case. These people were about one thing, and that was to try and perpetrate frauds among our citizens. If it can be found, for example, that the owners were the principal residents and so forth and the connection of the crime can be made to the property, we have an opportunity to seize assets. There may have been bank accounts associated with it. While I respect the member opposite's comment that we can't always necessarily achieve convictions, certainly, I'm sure prosecution may follow, and there was clear evidence left behind in this case, and in many others, that it was an unlawful activity.

That's what this bill focuses on: seizing the proceeds of unlawful activity. The member opposite mentioned, too, that it could be beyond that, and I agree. He mentioned that sometimes they forget where they made their money, and so once we establish that the money trail leads to other investments — perhaps in the community, perhaps in the stock market — this bill gives us the opportunity to pursue those assets and seize them. I think that's an outstanding opportunity. We may not be able to prosecute and grab the chickens, but we can pick up the golden eggs that they're trying to store and hide, and retrieve them.

This bill has been very well received in Nanaimo, I have to say. As I mentioned, it's one of our great concerns. In the city of Nanaimo they've taken actions to shut down crack houses, even to destroy homes that have been used extensively for grow ops, so this puts one more tool in the hands of the RCMP and the collective effort that's being made in the community to address the concerns of crime.

I know it will be very, very well received in the community. In fact, the mayor has commented on it already. His Worship Mayor Korpan has certainly enthusiastically supported the bill. If I may read his quote into Hansard: "This constitutes major progress in crime-fighting, and I will be asking council to direct application to this new tool to benefit any Nanaimo citizens harmed by crime."

I also spoke with Councillor Manhas who is involved now with downtown revitalization. He, too, indicated his support for the bill and complimented the Solicitor General on bringing this bill forward. It's very, very timely for our citizens and our communities.

I would like to briefly touch on the fact of where this money goes. I think that the judge has reasonable latitude, but the priorities are clear. Firstly, the compensation of those eligible victims is (a). So here we have an opportunity to act in a restorative way to compensate people who have been victimized by the crime directly. It also is a deterrent.

The member for Langley had mentioned earlier that displays of wealth…. We talk about Vipers and so on and so forth, but very often people go to bars with the rings and the jewellery and the gold. They may well be known, and they may well be able to be associated with unlawful activity and, therefore, may come under the scrutiny of this law. But the average younger person looks at this perhaps not as the spoils of unlawful activity but more as the fruits of success.

We have to act and impress that this is not the way to go — that this is not a role model we wish to hold up to people, that we take from them these trappings of unlawful activity — and remove them. This certainly will be a deterrent.

I mentioned that there's a multilayered level of crime, and that's one of the first areas younger people get involved in. They're given certain bonuses for participating in unlawful activities, and here's an opportunity to take those things back and remove them. All of a sudden a life of crime is not so attractive if you're not able to keep the proceeds of unlawful activity.

This is another important aspect of this bill: to deter our youth from getting involved in crime, to make a clear statement to them that crime doesn't pay, that it isn't worth it to get involved. Even though we may not be able to obtain convictions or even seek convictions, we can remove the incentive to get involved in these activities.

We've heard from our police departments, which are working very diligently in the area of crime prevention, that the judges' hands are tied in many cases, and this certainly will give them more latitude. The bill gives latitude to also remediate the effects of unlawful activities and pay the cost of doing this, which I hope will address some of the member opposite's concern that we may not have enough funding in this. If the judge is effective, certainly there will be enough funding to proceed. Also, other prescribed purposes give the judge some latitude in how he may enact the law.

I think this is an excellent bill. We want to remove the windfalls that may be perceived to be coming to people from unlawful activities. I know the community in Nanaimo, where I live, and the member previous speaking to this bill, will enthusiastically support this bill, because they don't feel that enough is being done.

Now, finally, we're getting it done. I won't take my full time here, but I'd like to echo the previous speakers in my remarks that, indeed, we're not pushing this ahead. This is long overdue. The government is often accused of not acting fast enough, never mind too fast. I think this bill will then go to committee where it will receive the suggestions of the members opposite, and perhaps some from this side too, as to how some of their concerns can be mitigated.

Certainly, we want to move forward with all due but careful speed on this bill. It's going to be a very important bill and a very important tool in deterring and fighting unlawful activities.

M. Sather: I rise to address the Civil Forfeiture Act at second reading. This is a very important act, I be-

lieve. It certainly does warrant some discussion, and I'm glad that we're having that here today.

I am speaking in favour of the bill. I believe that certainly, the intent of this bill is good. Some have said it's long overdue, and perhaps that is the case. I do have some concerns about the bill that I'll outline in a few minutes, but first of all, I wanted to talk about my support for the bill.

I think there's a lot of frustration. I know there's a lot of frustration in members of my constituency and in other constituencies throughout the province about increasing crime. Particularly, we hear — and we know — that property crimes have increased in recent years, and that is a concern for all of us.

There's a lot of frustration expressed with dealing with some of this crime, and we think of the meth labs and grow operations. I know that the police in Maple Ridge…. Years ago, I heard them say that they had a list of 50 grow ops that they needed to investigate and hadn't begun to get there. Now I'm told that one in ten houses in Maple Ridge has a grow op. If that's true, it certainly is of concern.

I have heard stories from my constituents about their concerns about criminal activity in their neighbourhoods. One constituent described the house down the street as a pharmacy where people arrive at all times of the day and night by taxi or walking with knapsacks on their backs. You might drive by there at two o'clock in the morning if you have a late flight or something, and you see people at the door. Certainly, there is concern in these areas about just what is going on in their neighbourhoods.

Now, Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows are part of the greater Vancouver regional district. There was a recent Vancouver Board of Trade report saying that the property crime rate in the GVRD is the worst of any metropolitan area in Canada. We know that we have a real problem, and insofar as this bill will help us deal with that problem, I thoroughly and wholeheartedly support it.

Of these property crimes, 90 percent are believed to be committed by drug addicts, so we know we have a huge problem with drug addiction and related criminal activity. We've talked in other venues about drug addiction, and I'm sure we will more in this House, and about how we might deal with those problems.

As I said, I do have some concerns about this act similar to those expressed by other members from this side of the House this morning. I think the intention…. What most of us think of this act is that it's being directed at severe or significant criminal activity such as grow ops, meth labs, biker gangs or organized crime. I have a lot of concern, as others do, about organized crime in our communities. We have seen escalating and staggering loss of life, actually, that has been related to gang activity in the lower mainland, and that gives us great cause for concern.

But from what I've seen, my reading of the act, is that it's not exactly clear what kinds of criminal activities this law is directed at. I think we have a general assumption, but I have some concerns about how it might, in fact, be used and what, in fact, it might be used against. We would hope it isn't used in a frivolous way, such as has been suggested by the member for Nanaimo-Parksville, but it could be.

This is a very important bill in that we are moving in a different direction with regard to the prosecution of criminal behaviour. Throughout our existence, we've depended upon the criminal code and criminal prosecution. There, as you know, we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed. Although that is frustrating to judges…. It's frustrating, I know, to police officers and to the public. Oftentimes, that level of determination cannot be reached easily, and so we have the frustration with seeing criminals escape without prosecution. The purpose of this bill, as I see it, is to address that.

Nevertheless, we must never, in my view, take lightly the civil liberties that we enjoy in this country and this province. We must always guard them zealously and jealously, because they've been hard fought for, and they are a true part of our freedoms.

The bill talks about unlawful activity as any offence against any provincial or federal statute. There again, that's a very broad definition, and what all might that include? I mean, it could be against someone who was violating a closing-of-business-hours statute, as far as I understand it. I wouldn't think that that would be the intent. The member for Vancouver-Burrard said earlier that he and other members of his party will be first up in the House to defend any misuse of the bill. I hope that's the case, but oftentimes, you find that once legislation is passed, it's not necessarily so easily changed.

Also a concern of mine is that I don't see anything in the bill that specifies the fact that police must be actually involved in this process. Following up on the comments of the member for Langley about the Dodge Viper in the neighbour's yard…. I think the member said that people are quite sure that they're living next to a meth lab.

The process as I understand it is that anyone with due concern can apply to the director to launch an investigation. I'm not sure that the police need be involved, and if not, I would have some concern about that.

In some of the examples I've read about, with Ontario's law they have used it judiciously — at least in the examples that I've heard. There may be a criminal conviction, but the judge doesn't decide to proceed with seizure of property, because the sufficient proof has not been demonstrated. But then they can proceed from there, and have proceeded, with civil proceedings. That is the way that I think most of us would feel comfortable with the law being used. I think everyone would be, but if it's proceeding simply without any criminal investigation, it is an area of concern.

Another example was mentioned earlier that I would like to speak to a little bit. Last night the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine mentioned that if a man is living in a new house, is driving a new car and files

income tax returns for $15,000, there must be a crime being committed — the assumption being that we know how people are obtaining their assets. As the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast mentioned this morning, we can't be certain how people have obtained their assets. To launch an investigation on the basis of our assumptions can be a dangerous endeavour, a dangerous undertaking.

I remember, for example, a few years ago when there was a case that I believe ended up in criminal proceedings regarding a dentist who is black and who was arrested by the police. The assumption was that he was driving a fancy car, perhaps of a certain type, and that he most likely was involved in some criminal activity when, in fact, he wasn't. We have to be very careful about assumptions, because we all want to be comfortable that this law would not be used against any of us who are living presumably law-abiding lives. One doesn't know what someone who is not well-disposed toward us might do in a mischievous fashion, so we must always guard our freedoms, as I've said.

Another concern I have about this law speaks to the frustration that police officers feel about being able to prosecute criminals. I'm sure this law, if enacted — and I expect it will be — is very enticing to them and encouraging, perhaps, to cut to the chase, as it were, to get to the root of the matter and to avoid lengthy and all too often unsuccessful criminal proceedings. I wouldn't want to see our criminal justice system use this legislation to replace criminal investigation and prosecution.

I wanted to comment on some of the comments made by the member for Langley that another member had commented on, saying that the federal Charter is not there to protect criminals. While I think I understand her frustration and perhaps the intent of her remarks, I think that is not the case legally. It's certainly not my belief that the Charter is there to protect certain members of society but not others. I believe that our laws are there to protect everyone, including the Charter.

The member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine mentioned that rehabilitation doesn't exist and that the criminal has to be punished so that he won't want to go back to prison. That was a comment — perhaps an offhand comment — but as a former therapist myself, I certainly would take issue with that. I think we have to believe that in a civil society, we can rehabilitate offenders, and we choose all sorts of means. One of them, of course, is criminal proceedings, but there are many other ways that can be equally or more successful in terms of dealing with offenders.

One of the things I also read in the bill was that proceedings may be launched against an individual who has been found not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder. As a former mental health therapist, that raises a red flag for me. We have to be very careful about not criminalizing a mental illness. Our prisons are full of many folks, unfortunately, that are mentally ill, and we need to be sure that we take into account a person's mental illness. That does have a bearing on their behaviour, and it is a mitigating factor. I just hope that the law to be enacted is not overbearing in aspects such as that.

The distribution of proceeds that this bill envisions to eligible victims…. One of the things I was wondering was whether this might include municipalities. I know that our municipality and other municipalities have bylaws in order to try to recapture some of their costs with regard to criminal behaviour. They do have pecuniary losses at times, and they have to move in and repair some of the damage that is done to properties. I would hope there would be some mechanism for them to be seen as eligible victims. Perhaps, in fact, this law does help to enable some of those bylaws that are there. I don't know the law around that, but I hope it makes it easier for them to act. They're on the ground, and they see what's going on in their own communities.

This is a bill, again, to protect victims of crime and to prosecute, if you will, those that are offending. I also have to mention that the government's record on crime prevention and support of victims in my community, and I think in other communities, has not been as strong as it could have been. In the lower mainland more than five correctional facilities have closed in the last few years. Correctional officers I've spoken to have expressed great concern to me about the results of those closures. We have Fraser Regional Correctional Centre in Maple Ridge, and they're triple-bunking. Conditions are far less than optimal. I spoke a while ago to the person responsible for mental health programs in the prison, and they're completely overwhelmed with trying to get people who should be in the forensic system into that system.

We also suffered the closure of our courthouse in Maple Ridge, and our community law office was closed. These kinds of measures have certainly not aided our ability to access the law and to seek remedies for victims.

The member for Langley mentioned last night that the government maintains a women's crisis line number. I expect that's a good thing, but at the same time, we've seen the loss of victim support services for many of those women. The prosecutors end up acting as the counsellors in many cases, and they certainly have expressed concern over the last number of years about how difficult it is for them to do that.

Also, there has been a lack of support for our women's centre in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. A lot of the women in my community have accessed that centre. They're struggling. They're really struggling to maintain, and hopefully they will be able to, because it's a very important service for women who are often victims of crime when they arrive on the doorstep of the centre. They need that kind of support.

I do, as I say, support this bill. I think the intention is good. We definitely have the frustration of not being able to prosecute a lot of criminal behaviour in our communities. I know the frustration that I've felt and that other members have expressed with our seeming inability to deal with organized crime. Therefore, I do support the bill in that regard.

As I understand it, the bill in Ontario is working well. There was a challenge to it, which was unsuccessful. Perhaps there will be others. In Manitoba, I understand, they've passed legislation of a similar nature but not proclaimed it. So it's in keeping, I would think, with what is being done in other parts of the country.

Having said that and just closing my remarks, I just want to say that we do need to take the concerns of civil libertarians in view. We do need to be sure that we are not jeopardizing our freedoms and that, hopefully, this bill is not used in a heavy-handed way to prosecute people that it wasn't intended to. With that, I'd like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for my opportunity to speak to this bill.

R. Sultan: I rise to support Bill 13. This act will authorize the forfeiture of interests and property that are found by the courts to be proceeds of unlawful activity. It also authorizes forfeiture of property that was used as an instrument of unlawful activity.

I think we all recognize and appreciate that for some lawless people, unlawful activity has become a business — a big business, a very well-organized business, a lucrative business where profits are made at the expense of many individual victims and, ultimately, of society as a whole. These people undertake thefts and fraud, exploit vulnerable people and, for their own financial gain, supply the drugs that ruin people's lives.

Background notes in support of this legislation refer to illegal gaming, tobacco smuggling and illegal dumping of toxic wastes. Of course, the huge enterprise that the illegal drug trade has become in this province has been mentioned frequently this morning and in the backgrounder notes. Civil forfeiture of ill-gotten gains is the civil law remedy against unjust enrichment. It takes back assets derived from illegal conduct. No one should be allowed to get rich while breaking the law. It's as simple as that.

Why has this issue been thrust onto centre stage? Again, the reasons are well known to all of us. My sister, living in East Vancouver, had for many years — it's not clear whether it's continuing — a grow op two houses up the street. The police come and throw up their hands, saying that there are so many of these enterprises that they really can't begin to address the sheer volume of grow ops in business in that neighbourhood.

I represent, in part, West Vancouver. Well, we certainly wouldn't condone that sort of behaviour in our municipality — but wait a minute. I participated in the British Properties Homeowners Association cleanup. Clean Sweep operation — to go down the streets of British Properties picking up cigarette butts. I did that, believe it or not, for a whole day.

As I went down the street, my companion Sandra May pointed out the rather splendid 1950s-era ranch home on a magnificent lot with great gardens and foliage, which had been the centre of a grow-op business with all sorts of comings and goings in the middle of the night. You know, I read about it in the North Shore News, but to see it right there in front of me…. It's a shock. My God, this is serious. It's hitting home.

We have ethnic gangs. We have bikers. We have our own old-school, homegrown scamsters and fraudsters, often of the most impeccable Anglo-Saxon heritage, all trying to make lots of fast bucks — tax-free, unreported — promoting illegal activity and, in the commercial sphere, frequently subverting those who are perhaps naive enough to still try and play aboveground, by the rules. This is a cancer on society. It subverts our civil structure, and I think that to the degree we can, it must be stamped out. It's big business.

We have heard from the members opposite. I must applaud them for the level of discourse that I watched on the monitor, because I think they've raised good points of civil liberty and focus on questioning the causes of crime. I'm particularly struck by the comments of the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

But we're not talking about the "little fish," to use the phrase of the member for Nanaimo. We're talking about perpetrators who understand marketing and distribution, accounting and investments, personnel management. They understand incentives. They certainly understand enforcement, whether it's cash, baseball bats or worse. They even understand commercial intelligence.

Yesterday we had the police union president briefing our caucus about their fear of the intelligence penetration into databases that allow the home addresses of police officers, judges, Crown prosecutors and prison guards to be circulated among the criminal community. This is not, as one of the members alluded to, somebody selling a few joints from a second-floor bedroom. This is a big commercial enterprise and is conducted on that basis.

I know a little bit about it personally. My daughter is a private investigator in Manhattan. Her business is white-collar crime. Wow, that's a huge market, and I suspect it's just as big here — for our population scale, at least — as it is in Manhattan. Legislation of this sort has already proven its merit in Britain, South Africa, Australia, the United States and in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. It's not exactly breaking new ground.

How does it work? As has been emphasized by the members, it is not criminal. We're not talking about criminal law here. It's a civil statute. It's subject to a statute of limitation of ten years. I'm not quite sure why we had to have that in there, but perhaps that makes some common sense. It is not an instrument of municipal bylaws.

It will be, in the main, promulgated or executed by a director. I wish we would understand a little bit more

about who this director is going to be — sort of a J. Edgar Hoover of British Columbia? I'm not sure. It might be some person appointed on an ad hoc basis, case by case perhaps. It remains to be seen.

The standard of proof, of course, in court will be a balance of probabilities, not the criminal law test, which in terms of enforcement makes life much easier for the prosecutor. If assets have been accumulated under suspicion of unlawful means, the court can, in effect…. It's almost like the receiver of an insolvent business — something else, unfortunately, I've had some experience with. Preservation orders can be issued, saying: "Hold everything. We're freezing your bank account." Constituents of the members opposite have had some recent experience with that law as well.

I think these are all useful tools. How could it apply in my riding? Well, let's just cite some cases. Dumptrucks hurtling down the steep hills of the North Shore smashing property, threatening our children, killing — killing — my constituents. Well, it's one thing to haul these truck drivers into court and give them the criminal justice they deserve. But how about the owner of that trucking company who systematically and chronically fails to maintain those vehicles properly? Is that property subject to seizure? Perhaps.

The grow ops we've talked about. The street racing victims. Well, at a minimum, maybe that souped-up Mercedes-Benz that smashed into the West Vancouver library and killed a person in the process…. Perhaps at least the vehicle should be seized, but goodness knows, there should be more sanctions than that.

Victims of driving under the influence. Hmm. That hasn't been mentioned, but ruining people's lives by drinking to excess and getting behind the wheel of a car…. Perhaps civil sanctions should be brought to bear in their full power.

Elderly victims of fraud. I remember getting a call from a money-market friend of mine in Arkansas, and he said: "Ralph, would you help me with one of my clients? Some elderly gentleman with some assets…. Somebody from Vancouver was calling him saying that if he would send him some money, they had a kind of a winning lottery number."

I don't know how this lottery scam worked, but it was so prevalent that the Ontario RCMP set up a special operation called PhoneBusters targeting what I believe are largely Vancouver-based telephone fraud artists. These people were so skilful at this — at getting elderly people on the phone in the United States and convincing them somehow that if they sent them money, they would win a great big lottery prize — that it was becoming an element in Canadian-U.S. police relationships.

How can this stuff go on? These people seem to get off scot-free. The police did their best to shut them down, and perhaps they already have.

We've had some hugely important financial frauds perpetrated in Vancouver. Unfortunately, the Vancouver Stock Exchange was shut down partly because of some rather unflattering comments about our practices up here in American magazines such as Barron's.

So this is not the selling of a couple of joints out of the second-floor bedroom. This is big business. This is, in fact — well, perhaps I shouldn't say it, but I will — my constituency. Members opposite concerned about the small fish, I think, should raise their heads and say: "Who is perpetrating the fraud, the crime, the drugs that are destroying the lives of people who in many ways are their natural constituency?"

This, I think, is the target of this legislation. I don't think — and the point was well made…. I don't think any government, and this government, is going to have money to appoint directors to chase around looking for somebody dealing drugs out of their second-floor bedroom. The economics just aren't there. The proceeds of crime, the proceeds collected from the seizure of assets, have been talked about as if it's going to be a great bonanza. Let's be realistic. If it breaks even, I'm all for it. Even if it doesn't break even, I'm all for it. But the idea that we're going to collect billions here and redistribute it to society, I think, is a bit of wishful thinking given the difficulty, even on the lower standard promulgated in this legislation, of proving the case.

There are lots of safeguards. Uninvolved interest holders have been excluded, I guess after a lot of lobbying. I think that's perhaps an unfortunate weakening of the legislation, but it certainly is a protection, subject still to Charter rights, of course, and to the privacy provisions of the FOI Act.

There's been a lot of talk about Dodge Vipers here. Is a Dodge Viper in the driveway an automatic phone call to the director? If I was running a Mercedes-Chrysler these days, I don't know whether I would enjoy the publicity it's getting in this Legislature this morning or the unfortunate association that is also being made. I guess I've got to confess that it's more likely to be the alternative Porsche in my riding.

R. Sultan: It's suggested maybe the Dodge Viper was a gift from grandmother. Well, I suppose there's a 0.05-percent probability of that. But I must say my suspicions would be aroused, and it's precisely the evidence of lavish living….

The member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine referred to airplanes. My goodness, a helicopter crashed on Othello Road the other day, in the middle of the night. What was it doing up there, I wonder. That's where I used to spend my summers. I'm familiar with that dirt road up there in the wilderness.

I think chasing down people living an exorbitant lifestyle with no visible means of support to see if indeed it is the grandmother that has somehow given them a big bunch of cash is a justifiable activity of society, and one that I support.

Yes, in this post-9/11 era and given the desire of society as represented by this legislation to crack down on those who are abusing our economy by unlawful

activity, it does result in a shift of police and investigative power. Those are legitimate civil libertarian issues that I appreciate the members opposite have raised with considerable eloquence this morning. But I think society as a whole has to defend itself from these things. I'm willing to tolerate the additional risk — and it is an additional risk — of possibly stepping across the line if irresponsible people are put in charge of executing the law.

So to wrap up, I would like to compliment the Solicitors General — and I use that word in the plural — both the current incumbent and the past Solicitor General, who I think has restored the morale of the law enforcement community in this province after a darker decade, who has put new tools — whether it's the PRIME database, which the police unions yesterday confirmed has proven to be a very useful tool in the fight against crime, or this law which goes after the proceeds of unlawful activity, goes after the white-collar big fish, and I'm all for that, and not the little guy — to try to restore the balance in a war which all too often, I think, some of us conclude we're losing. We must win that war against those who destroy the civil basis of our society, and I think this law puts another tool in the hands of those who would help us do so.

Hon. C. Richmond: Mr. Speaker, noting the hour, I move adjournment of the debate.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm joined again today by Deputy Minister Larry Pedersen, Associate Deputy Minister Mike Lambert and Assistant Deputy Minister Warren Mitchell.

B. Ralston: If I could continue from where we left off. We'd asked some questions about the resource information management in the land management bureau. In the service plan there's a listing of $600,000 for capital expenditures in the client service delivery for the present fiscal year, and it declines to $195,000 in 2005-2006, then to $150,000 for subsequent years. Can the minister explain that trend?

Hon. P. Bell: I'll just ask if we can defer that question. We'll get a full and appropriate response prior to noon today for you. I just don't have the information here right now.

I have some similar questions in that area. Perhaps I can just outline them, and that may assist in forming a response later on. The service plan notes, on page 37, an increase in capital expenditure — an initial increase up to $10.503 million, then a decrease to $6.367 million in the subsequent fiscal year. I'm asking for an explanation of those. Perhaps the minister can take that as notice and provide an answer later in the day.

Similarly, capital expenditures for bureau management increase from a mere $40,000 in 2004-2005 and, again on page 37, ascend to an amount of $1.864 million in 2006-2007 — similarly, as notice. I'm really seeking a sense of why the fluctuations.

The estimates blue book lists $11.198 million in capital expenditures for information systems purchased by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, and that appears on page 192. Similarly, if the minister could take that as notice and give an answer…. Is that satisfactory to the minister? Perhaps he can confirm that.

Hon. P. Bell: We'd be happy to have that information prior to noon today. We'll just get some of the details brought into the room and provide them at that time.

B. Ralston: I have a few questions about the operating expenses of the Crown land management section. I'm looking at the operating expenses, and again, this may be as a result of the reorganization and subsequent reintegration of various units, but there is a fluctuation. I'm looking at the service plan on page 11. This special account fluctuates from $210.62 million in '04-05 to $141.82 million in '05-06 and $94.32 million projected in '06-07 — a declining balance. It appears to be sharply

Hon. P. Bell: That is the pool of money used to fund free Crown grants to communities and nominal rent tenures to communities. This is a relatively new program as a result of the generally accepted accounting principles that we now abide by. As a result, there was some initial pressure on that account. It is declining over time as we clean up some of the free Crown grants that were requested by communities. It is actually a net neutral transfer to government, but it's there as a result of the generally accepted accounting principles that this government now follows.

B. Ralston: Just so I'm clear, then, there is no change in the funds allocated to the program, notwithstanding the declining balance?

Hon. P. Bell: Initially, as a result of the shift to GAAP, there was additional pressure on free Crown grants and nominal rent tenures. That's why there was a higher-end budget in the early-on period. It is declining over time as we are seeing less pressure on free Crown grants, nominal rent tenures. We do believe that the currently allocated budget will meet the needs of communities as we move forward for both of those programs.

B. Ralston: Well, perhaps it's just a question of the way in which the minister has expressed it, but by less pressure, does he mean that there are fewer applications or that there's a reduced inclination to spend money in this area?

Hon. P. Bell: Fewer applications. In the initial part of the program there was much more pressure, as people had clearly identified, over the years, properties they were interested in. As we meet those needs, there are fewer properties that have that same level of interest on the part of communities — so simply a reduced pressure in that area.

B. Ralston: There's a special allocation of $893,000 in 2005-2006 for the Kamloops study of the single-point-of-contact service. However, there's no allocation for natural resource opportunity centres in 2005-2006 or beyond. I have heard the minister explain his plan, certainly at the outset of these proceedings, to fund a number of these centres throughout the province. Unless I'm not clear in my analysis of the documents, it doesn't appear that there's any funding allocated for this program.

Hon. P. Bell: The initial Front Counter B.C. natural resource opportunity centre was a pilot project in Kamloops. As such, we allocated the additional $893,000. We are still actually working through the analysis of that particular pilot project to see what was done right and what was done wrong. Our best estimate is that we can manage within our current fiscal plan for future natural resource opportunity centres. The first one, simply being a pilot, required some funding to make sure that it was done right.

B. Ralston: Then, given that there's analysis of the startup, is there a sense from the minister that this project he set out at the outset of these estimates may not proceed? Is the evaluation at the stage where it's a decision made to go or to not go with this service delivery model? Or is it a question of working out the bugs and then proceeding forward?

B. Ralston: Can the minister give an estimated cost for the startup of this program? The $893,000 that was allocated for startup in Kamloops — is that about what it's going to cost for each additional service centre? The minister set out a proposed number of these service centres throughout the province.

Hon. P. Bell: Our best estimate currently is that we can manage within the fiscal plan, although we are continuing to review the initial natural resource opportunity centre in Kamloops. I'd be pleased to sit down with the member after that analysis is done and advise him of the status of it, moving forward if there are any changes necessary.

B. Ralston: Just so that I'm clear, the minister speaks of a fiscal plan. As I understand the documents that have been provided and made public, there is no specific funding allocated for natural resource opportunity centres. Am I correct in that conclusion?

Hon. P. Bell: They're included in the global budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands — well, I should say the integrated land management bureau, actually. We're slightly off track in terms of our discussions here in reflection of the current item that we're debating. However, that said, it is included in the global budgets that we've established within the ministry and the documents that he is reviewing at this point.

B. Ralston: As part of that review and as part of that global budget, is there an estimated annual operating cost for the natural resource opportunities centre program?

Hon. P. Bell: I apologize for the delay. The budget for the natural resource opportunities centre is on page 37 of the budget document under the line "Client Service Delivery."

In the first year, being a partial year, it is $10.603 million; the second year, $26.554 million; and so on going forward. The budget for the natural resource opportunities centre is included in that line. Again, the line title is "Client Service Delivery," and it's on page 37.

The service plan notes, on page 44: "It will also be crucial to the bureau and its sponsoring agencies to be able to obtain additional resources to meet increases in client demand — or to set priorities and ration client access to bureau resources if additional resources are not obtained." Given that this statement would appear to contemplate that additional resources — and by that, one means money, I presume — may not be obtained, has the minister presented this potential funding problem to Treasury Board?

Hon. P. Bell: Part of the normal budget process that we go through each and every year is to review the service delivery qualities of each of the agencies and entities within government. That's just a normal part of the process. It is a three-year budget. This comment is reflective of future budget years and simply states that a review will take place and will ensure that we're meeting the service delivery needs.

Should we be wildly successful, which we are hopeful we will be, we'll be increasing revenues and demonstrating to Treasury Board that there is value to this entity and that it should be expanded. It's simply a comment that states we will continue to review and ensure that we're providing full service delivery. In future budget years, if it's necessary, we would be talking with Treasury Board on that basis.

B. Ralston: Beyond the minister's inclination to hope that this will be a success, are there any objective measures or projections taken of likely client or citizen access and some resulting extrapolations of funding increases that may be required in subsequent years?

Hon. P. Bell: No, we're very comfortable with the budgets. The footnote is simply a comment that would indicate that we do, in fact, review the service plans on an annual basis, and should there need to be change, we're flexible and willing to entertain those changes.

B. Ralston: In the core business area of resource information management, the performance measure is client satisfaction, which includes those clients who have service agreements with the integrated land management bureau regarding resource information. I'm wondering if the minister can provide examples of who those clients are.

Hon. P. Bell: The clients are actually other ministries within government, which would include the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Environment, Transportation and so on. The client base we're referring to here is actually other ministries of government.

B. Ralston: Other than other ministries, are there any external clients at all?

Hon. P. Bell: Under the previous model, there was very little activity outside of ministries, although there were some services provided outside of ministries. The new model contemplates a much more aggressive level of activity in the client base outside of ministries. We do anticipate that industry — possibly municipalities, regional districts and the like — would also acquire those services.

B. Ralston: The performance measures appear to be limited to satisfying what are referred to as clients and to meeting turnaround times. Can the minister confirm that the ILMB, the integrated land management bureau, will protect the interests of B.C. citizens and maximize the public good?

Hon. P. Bell: I just want to be clear here. I think what we were talking about was actually the information systems component of the ILMB at this point. I want to also respond to the general integrated land management bureau. The function of the information processing systems is simply to provide quality information to ministries and to other entities outside government.

To suggest that you would somehow maximize value to the public by providing information…. I'm not quite sure how you would quantify that or measure that. However, the integrated land management bureau, as part of this government, is clearly mandated to maximize the value provided to the public and to protect the public interest and ensure that is done in a way that maximizes value to the public.

It's kind of two answers, two different components. The information section — not sure that there is a significant role in terms of how you would provide maximum value. It is important, however, to have quality information to have effective planning services provided in the province.

B. Simpson: The minister is aware, because I've had these conversations with him, that I would like an update of the status of the restructuring of the ministry and the implications for the city of Quesnel, in particular, as to whether or not that community and that area will be reporting to or getting assistance from Kamloops or from Prince George.

Hon. P. Bell: The member quite rightly points out that he has been very effective in bringing this issue forward, and I want to thank him for that. I appreciate the input he has given me on this file, and I can assure him the Quesnel service centre will continue to report directly to Prince George for the foreseeable future or as long as this mandate continues. I'm pleased to be able to provide him with that information on the record.

B. Simpson: I know lots of people will appreciate that. It will take a lot of angst out of many people who've got programs and projects in the works. Thank you.

My next question is a bit of a shift. As you are aware, in my riding there are lots of lakes that just be-

ing discovered, if you will, and being developed. They're being developed both for residential and recreational purposes. Horsefly Lake is a good case in point, right through the 100 Mile House area, Green Lakes and so on.

I helped to facilitate the startup of a Bowron Lakes enhancement society that has concern about the Bowron Lakes, which is the beginning of the Bowron chain. That is a long-winded way for me to preface…. The concern that is being expressed to me is: how can we get in front of land planning around those lakes so that we don't get into a situation where the southern lakes are overutilized and we've got things like houseboats with insufficient regulations for the treatment of their effluents and so on?

What is the avenue that citizens can undertake? Is the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands now going to be the lead agent in that comprehensive planning around the recreational and residential use of lakes?

Hon. P. Bell: The member quite rightly points out something that I think will become an evolving issue over time, particularly as you see that southern British Columbia has been largely developed and people are looking for recreational opportunities. The country that the member and I live in is certainly a spectacular place and an area where it's tremendous to have the recreational opportunities we currently have.

I'll touch on a few of the points that he made. First of all, house boat regulations and water-type regulations fall under the Ministry of Environment, so those questions would be better directed to the Minister of Environment when his estimates are being debated.

In terms of the general issue, though, around land use and land use planning, the member is quite correct in pointing out that the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands is the lead agency, lead ministry on that, and has responsibility for that. But I think that what the member really points to is: how do we effectively plan out effective strategies so that lakes aren't overly utilized and are maintained in an environmentally stable state? That's done through a combination of the land and resource plans but also the implementation plans. That is something that we are now shifting to and moving into.

The Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan is probably the most advanced land use plan in the province of British Columbia. There was some tremendous work done in that area, and I think we're really using that as a model to build on. The implementation committee is a good starting point for that, but clearly, we take very seriously our responsibility in maintaining a balance in any sort of development projects as we move forward.

We had a good opportunity to debate yesterday what's going on in terms of development at Lac des Roches, and much of this was canvassed at that time in terms of how those decisions are made. But I think it's something we want to approach cautiously. I think we want to bring benefits not just to the existing users of those lakes but potentially new users where that fits in a way that makes sense. We need to be inclusive and ensure that the local community is fully engaged in those discussions.

It is a process I look forward to working on with the member and, in fact, with all members of this House, in terms of the long-term development of those strategies. That will really come as a result of the implementation of the LRMPs and the committees that do that work.

B. Simpson: I think that's a good answer and an interesting answer because the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan is a good role model. But we're struggling just now to shift it to the implementation phase. Quite frankly, a big chunk of that comes because of staff reductions in the various line ministries that are responsible for facilitating that. So they're struggling with that implementation phase.

The second point that the minister raises is that interface, the land and water interface. That's exactly the response that I got, exactly the response that local land users are getting, where they're getting bounced. If you're concerned about the water, you've got to go to Environment. If you're concerned about the land base, you've got to go to Lands. But if there's an OGMA in there, an old growth management zone somewhere in that land-water interface, then you've got to involve other agencies — the biodiversity committee, the Ministry of Forests and Range, and so on.

So we have a couple of things on the go. When you're doing that kind of comprehensive planning, you have a lot of agencies involved. You have direct kind of changeovers of the lead agency. Then we are butting up against staff cuts. We're butting up against resource capacities in all of those agencies to do their line responsibilities, let alone do the integrated, coordinated activities.

I'm wondering if the minister could be a bit more explicit on what it means that Agriculture and Lands is the lead agency. What does it look like? Is there a definitive plan, and what can I say to Duncan Barnett in regional district electoral area "E", I think it is, who's asking me: "How do I get this started?"

Hon. P. Bell: The member quite rightly points out that there are many different agencies that interact on any land use decisions and land use plans. That's always, I think, been a challenge throughout all governments, regardless of political stripe.

We've actually done a couple of things that we think help that. One of the things we've done is create an interagency management committee. That interagency management committee has directors or regional staff from each of the resource sector ministries on it — our ministry; the Ministry of Environment; the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; the Ministry of Forests. I'm probably missing one or two there, but they're from all of the different resource-

based ministries. That actually is chaired by someone from our ministry or the regional manager from our ministry. So we take the lead role in that in terms of bringing all those agencies together.

The other thing that's kind of innovative and different and that we think will help…. It's a new project. The ILMB, the integrated land management bureau, actually has a board of directors. The board of directors is the deputy minister from each of six different ministries: the Ministry of Forests; Ministry of Tourism, Sports and the Arts; the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; Agriculture and Lands; Aboriginal Reconciliation; and Ministry of Environment. There are six deputies who then manage on a board basis the integrated land management bureau, which then reports through to my ministry. So we're trying to create that implementation where we're kind of removing some of the silos and making it work more effectively.

It is a problem that, as the member quite rightly points out, has been a problem for a long, long time. It's very hard to integrate those functions. These are a couple of new strategies that we're implementing right now that we think will be successful.

I'd like to touch on two other points that the member pointed out. The staffing levels for the integrated land management bureau, on an apples-to-apples comparison, have stayed exactly the same. There have been no staff cuts in that area. The member may be referring to something else. I'm not sure. For an individual like Duncan Barnett, we're happy to have our regional manager work directly with Duncan to make sure he has the information necessary and to make sure we manage the potential developments on an effective, environmentally sustainable basis that does offer opportunities for all citizens of British Columbia, and specifically for the local citizens of communities, to utilize those recreational facilities.

B. Simpson: Just so that I'm clear, the interagency management committee is different from the integrated land management bureau. I know you mentioned that there's a district manager level. What's the general level of that interagency management committee?

Hon. P. Bell: There are two levels of committees that operate on an interagency management–committee basis. There are director-level committees: one for the north, one for the central interior and one for the coast. Then at the regional manager level, there is another layer of committees, as well, that perform the same function on a more regional basis. Those would be the regional managers.

That's the same for all the various ministries. That same level of individual would be on that committee, and we do chair all of those committees through this ministry.

B. Simpson: I can make a quip about management by committee, but I won't. I understand the need to try and figure out how to integrate at all the levels.

The interagency management committee. If I can add one more thing in there, one of the things we're hearing from the Peace region, as an example, is the integration of the oil and gas exploration and impacts on the land base with the forestry operations and other normative operations. As the oil and gas exploration spikes, there are lots of implications on the land base. Would this agency be an agency looking at coordinating those activities?

Now, I'm going to, of course, do estimates for Forests and Range, and we've had queries around the seismic lines and so on. I don't want to go into those estimates and be told I need to come back here and have that discussion here. Should I be discussing the implications of seismic lines and oil and gas exploration on the land base in these estimates or in Ministry of Forests estimates?

Hon. P. Bell: The member points out a very pleasant problem we're having, I guess, which is an incredible amount of development in one part of the province. It's a nice problem to have, and we're hoping we'll have similar problems in the central interior once the Nechako basin starts seeing some development over time.

It is a problem that we've contemplated in this ministry. We do have a role to play in terms of pulling together the different industries and working with them to try and coordinate planning functions so that the impact on the land base by multiple users is minimized. The member's question may be more directed towards the annual allowable cut, as an example, which would be a forestry question, or it could be the planning function, which would be our question, or it could be seismic-specific, which would be an Energy and Mines function.

As a general view, we have responsibility for the planning function and for trying to integrate that and making sure the joint impacts on the land base are in a way that is balanced and done in the least impactful method. I hope I have answered the question.

B. Simpson: I think that if the minister inserted the words "pleasant economic problem," I would agree, but as we all know, development creates all kinds of problems if it's not managed well and planned well. The concerns that have been raised with me around the seismic lines are also illustrative of the concerns that have been raised around the lakes and everything else. There is that sense — and the minister's response actually illustrates that — that how I would even approach the issue from the perspective of finding out what's going on…. I'm going to have to attend two, three or four estimates sessions in order to try and paint a picture.

I think what I'm trying to get at is: who is painting that picture? How much of our land base is being alienated as a result of seismic lines? My understand-

ing is that it is about a four-hectare opening for each wellhead. That's a significant alienation of the forest land base with that kind of opening.

If we've also got forest roads going in parallel to seismic-line roads, which I'm being told we have — where foresters are going in and laying roads and then looking down the hill at one point and seeing a road that's running parallel — that quickly moves from a nice economic problem to a big issue for us overall.

What is the intent of the ministry to get a handle on that so that we know what is going on? There is that one window, which is a term the government likes to use, to streamline this process and get an integrated plan so that we don't have people running around trying to figure out what's going on.

Hon. P. Bell: Just for clarity here, the member mentioned he had heard of situations where people were looking from one road down a hill to another road, and I was thinking to myself that I've been in the Peace and don't recall that many hills that high in the Peace, so I'm not sure what he would be referring to in that particular situation.

However, the member quite rightly points out something that is of significant concern, and I recognize that. In fact, we have initiated a cumulative impact study that's being done out of our ministry. The Oil and Gas Commission is fully engaged and involved in that discussion as significant players, as well as are first nations. It is very early on in the process.

In anticipation of his next question — when might we see some results from that? — I have asked that question, and it has been indicated that it's some time out. Probably what would be most appropriate is if the member and I were to sit down, say in January or February, and review the status of that information.

It is a significant issue, and I recognize that. As we see mining activity increase in the province, forest activity increase with the mountain pine beetle, agriculture activity increase through the new and innovative and exciting programs of this ministry, I think we need to be cognizant of those multiple-layered impacts.

We've started the process. There are a number of different agencies involved, and I would be happy to work with the member on that. I'm suggesting that perhaps a January-February time frame would be appropriate to have an initial discussion and an update on the status of that program.

B. Simpson: I guess everything is relative. If are you in the Peace, and there's a knoll, you call it a hill. If you're down in our neck of the woods, you wouldn't call it even a bump. That's interesting. I would look forward to that briefing.

Are there terms of reference? Is there some scoping document around what this cumulative impact study looks like, what region it's covering, what kinds of impacts it's looking at?

Hon. P. Bell: The footprint of the oil and gas area is the dominant area that we're really looking at. It's been underway for some time now. It is a bit of a new challenge and an issue that we're faced with in the province. The member referred to my earlier comments as "pleased to participate in a briefing," and I guess I was actually offering more than that and suggesting that we'd be happy to take input from the member, at an appropriate time, on the member's views of the area, in the spirit of cooperation and warmth that we're all striving to achieve.

B. Simpson: In that spirit, I'll offer you free advice. A couple of things I would suggest to the minister are worth exploring on this. I had dinner with the directors of the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals, and they informed me that when they had their members' meeting up in the Peace region, the only topic of discussion was the seismic lines and the kinds of activities that are going on there. So they would have lots of information for whoever is working on this.

In my previous life I did a lot of work in Alberta for the company that I work for. I'm not sure if the ministry's looking at Alberta, but they have a very slick, integrated way of managing both the oil and gas and the forestry impacts on the land base. It unburdens lots of people and makes sure the footprint is very small. So I offer that as a couple of suggestions and look forward to the January one.

I'm going to switch tacks, and I don't think this question will be any surprise for the minister. It's around invasive plants, or noxious weeds or whatever we call these things that we don't want on our land base. Does the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands have the lead on whatever we're going to do around invasive plants in this province?

Hon. P. Bell: In the spirit of cooperation, I'm pleased to accept that advice. I'd also suggest, actually, that the member attend the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and canvass some of the issues around new seismic technology, because I know things have changed significantly and don't require the seismic lines that have been utilized in the past. There are new technologies, new seismic procedures that have changed the impact on the land base. So I think that would be worthwhile canvassing and getting some information on.

As the member quite rightly points out or asks, this ministry does have the lead role on invasive plants, noxious weeds.

I'm anticipating what the next question might be. In an earlier discussion I'd indicated to the member that I had requested a report from the ministry on the activity on noxious weeds of the previous season ending this fall. What had happened, and had we made any headway? Just in anticipation of what might be his next question, I have not yet received that report. I do believe I'll have it by mid-November, and I'd be pleased to work with him on that file as well.

B. Simpson: I have the Ministry of Forests and Range service plan here, and the statement in that is

that the ministry champions integrated provincial responses or strategies to address serious threats such as invasive plants. Again, to help me as I go into those estimates, who is the champion for invasive plants?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm informed that I'm actually the statutory keeper of the Weed Control Act. I'm not sure whether that's a good thing or not. But we actually are the lead agency on noxious weeds and that issue. There are many occupiers of the land. Clearly, Forests and Range is one of those occupiers of the land. As such, they provide resources to deal with noxious weeds in the area of occupation.

We work and lead the interagency management team that manages all of the resources throughout the province in a way that makes sense and controls noxious weeds as effectively as we can. That's the report I'm waiting for.

Other ministers…. Clearly, the Minister of Transportation also has funds allocated specifically to that and responsibilities as an occupier of the land in that area. So there are different agencies that have that responsibility. We are lead on it, and we do have statutory responsibility for the Weed Control Act.

B. Simpson: The Weed Control Act has ramifications to it, of course, beyond noxious weeds or invasive plants, but we'll leave that one alone.

The minister references the Minister of Transportation, and I'm interested in whether or not the minutia of weed control is covered, and what's in the works. I'll give you two examples of what I mean by minutia. I'm being told by the ranchers and farmers that we can do all the invasive plant treatments that we want, but if we're not mowing the sides of our tertiary roads, we're wasting a lot of time, energy and money. We're going to go nowhere, because that's their highway to move around. So is this group looking at that kind of minutia?

The second example I will give you is that for some of these noxious weeds, their biomass generation capabilities are huge. They grow like weeds — very, very high; very, very tall. In our plantations they overcome the seedlings, particularly if they get any snow on them, and then the crush weight of the weeds kills the seedlings off.

Those are two examples of minutia, but very, very important in terms of an overall strategy. Will this study and will this activity that's being undertaken look at that level of detail in order to get a handle on this very difficult issue?

Speaking of another document — and I have referenced this with the minister before — the MLAs went out and did a tour and investigated this. A report was tabled. I have been told by folks from Fraser Basin Council and on the ground who were involved in that, B.C. Cattlemen's Association and others, that that document is very good and actually captures what needs to be done. I have not been able to get a copy of that document to brief myself. That document doesn't need any more work, as far as I understand. It's extant; it's been tabled. I would like a copy of that document. Can I have that?

B. Simpson: When may I have it and where? Someone else has told me yes in the past, and they never showed up.

B. Simpson: One last question, and then I'll bow out. With the report that's coming forward and the work that's being done, how does that iterate with the Invasive Plant Council, which has also received funding and is doing work? If you can clarify that for me, that's all I need.

Hon. P. Bell: It'll be included as part of the report and the evaluation of the effectiveness of the delivery of the programs last year. We'll be looking at the effectiveness of the delivery. We've been working with them. I understand we're pretty pleased with the interaction that's gone on there. We'll see how the report comes in and do an evaluation. Perhaps they should have an expanded role, a contracted one or stay the same. I can't speculate on that until we see the report.

C. Evans: I always wondered what it would be like to be on this side of the table. I'd like to congratulate the minister on having the most interesting job in government and some of the nicest people working for him. I'm not going to take up very much of your time. I wanted to ask a few questions about meat inspection regulations.

By way of background, the issue of meat inspection regulations has been raised with me in my constituency and around it by three separate groups of people. Of course, they all have perfectly legitimate interests. The first is a group of people that I'm sure the minister is aware of in the Kootenays that wish to develop a co-op abattoir in Cranbrook. Secondly — this would be last April — a group of ranchers in Creston, individually amongst their families and perhaps together as partnerships, are thinking about responding to new regulations by putting up some kind of killing facility on their land. Thirdly and more latterly, individuals both in my constituency and also from around the province — people I met before — already have some kind of killing facility adjunct to a farm on their land.

The questions vary, and so I'm going to sort of try to represent each of these groups of people, simply because I'm kind of ignorant of…. There is a kind of

crossover between Ministries of Health and health regulations and the Ministry of Agriculture, so I need to learn in order to represent these people, because I can't understand very well how the regulatory regime is now going to change what we do.

Firstly, on behalf of the people from East and West Kootenay who desire to build a cooperative abattoir, the simple question to the minister is: where is the proposal? And is he supportive of the idea?

Hon. P. Bell: I would like to thank you for your congratulations. I share your feelings that I am in the best ministry in government and certainly very much appreciate the quality of staff that we have working in this ministry. They are a fine group of folks.

The answers to his questions are yes, I am aware of the proposal, and yes, we are supportive of the proposal.

C. Evans: Good. So I have written a letter of support for that proposition and would be pleased working with other Kootenay MLAs, east and west, to help in any way we can to advance. You can let me know if there are messages to deliver or negotiations I could benefit from or participate in.

Now, moving to the middle group of people: ranchers. Some ranchers have responded to the historical BSE crisis by reconsidering the chain of control of beef and carcasses and are thinking about essentially getting out of the supply chain to major domestic and foreign retail stores and are interested in perhaps expending considerable capital to develop a killing facility on their land that complies with modern regulations.

It is somewhat ironic, given my next set of questions, that what these individuals wish to be assured of is that the Ministry of Health, or the Ministry of Agriculture, is actually serious about changing the way we do business. They will not expend capital only to find that their neighbours are in exactly the same business without having made changes. The situation is analogous to the 1960s and 1970s, where we moved to stainless steel in the dairy industry, and a whole lot of people went out of business and some people stayed in business. For a while there was an overlap, and it was difficult to capitalize change.

I'm asking a philosophical question here. Would the minister like to speak through me to those people about the intentions of the government — the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture — in terms of who's going to be in business when these changes are finished?

Hon. P. Bell: I appreciate the member's concern. He quite rightly points out, I think, a very difficult situation whenever you're looking at a strategic change, as we are at this particular point.

The regulation does fall in the Ministry of Health. My responsibility, clearly, is to engage and develop the agriculture industry and establish priorities, and one of those priorities is very clearly an expanded processing industry, both in beef and in other components of the industry. I think that is something we need to focus on and have a better value chain in the province and continuum of facilities, right from the farm gate on through food processing.

I can assure the member that we are very supportive of the type of projects he refers to. We are also very serious about maintaining food safety around the province. We think it's absolutely critical that we protect human health. That is a fundamental responsibility of government and will be executed on. I do think that we need to work closely through this transitional change to ensure that we meet the needs of the member's constituents and other constituents around the province.

So yes, we are very supportive of expanding our processing industry. We're very excited about seeing that move forward. We need to protect the interests of our industry through that expanded processing capacity. The direct details of the legislative responsibility for food safety lie with the Ministry of Health.

C. Evans: I'm going to tell a story, in order to create an analogy, to ask the question in another way. In the 1970s I used to milk two cows, and I raised kids, and it was cheap that way. You could eat the calf, and everything worked out fine. But you often, of course, produce too much milk, so sometimes you have to get rid of the milk. If you sell it to human beings, it makes you a criminal. So you might put some milk in a fridge on your porch and sell it as dog food.

That practice was so common in the region of the province where I lived that milk sold as dog food was a real competitive factor with milk in the stores. That practice went on, I think, for 20 years. Is it the minister's belief that a similar sort of under-the-horizon trade in quasi-legal meat will exist in rural British Columbia when these regulations are fully enforced?

C. Evans: Okay, thanks. That is going to give some comfort, then, to those people who would like to spend some money to upgrade facilities to comply with the regulations to supply a local market.

Now we'll move to the third level of concern, which is really the small producer who in other western provinces, certainly, is an almost irrelevant factor of the business but here in British Columbia makes up a very large part of not the cow-calf business but actually of the killed-and-sold-locally meat business. Increasingly, there are real markets for naturally fed or organic or locally fed or lived-out-on-the-grass — or whatever you want to call it — product in chicken, beef, lamb, pork. And turkeys probably — I don't know.

I have met employees of the minister who are in the business on the side of feeding that very market, which would imply that there is a business case to be made for attempting to sell into the niche market of local consumers interested in food quality and, also, in local

food. I have been contacted in my constituency by many people who are already in that business and who perceive that their ability to relate to their consumer will put them in a position of being outlaws at the end of this regulatory change.

I have a series of questions related to that, but before I belabour the point, let me ask the minister: have the minister and the ministry considered this issue, and does the minister wish to say how he perceives it to be solved, before I go into all the problems that people are raising?

Hon. P. Bell: The member quite rightly points out the rock and the hard place that exists on this file in terms of dealing with different sizes of operations. Really, I think where a big part of the concern that's been identified to me already is not as much in the large animals as it is in chickens, rabbits. That size of animal, I think, is going to provide a challenge.

Again, the responsibility for this legislation falls to the Ministry of Health. It is a concern from my ministry's perspective in that we want to encourage and expand an agriculture industry in the province, so we're working with the Ministry of Health to find the right balance in it. Food safety is absolutely of utmost importance. We don't want to see anyone come down with a serious disease as a result of an improperly handled carcass.

But there are a couple of things that I think are important for the member to know as well. The Farm Industry Review Board has just completed an industry review of the five supply-managed groups and is looking at ways of getting new entrants into the supply-managed commodities. There are opportunities for entrance at lower levels in terms of lower flock rates, specialty breeds, specialty eggs and the like, the different organics and so on. There are some points of entry now that didn't exist when the member had his second cow and too much milk and had to put the milk out on the porch.

The other possibility that we're looking at and very supportive of is that of mobile abattoirs and how that might look to fill that niche market. I appreciate the member pointing out that some of the employees of the ministry are engaged in farming activities, and I can assure the member that the beef that's in my freezer right now comes from a ranch as well.

C. Evans: I want to belabour this point a little bit. I think two things are relevant to put on the record. First, British Columbia, because our mountains are steep and the valleys are narrow, will never compete with territories where there is a whole bunch of flat land. And volume is the production advantage that allows those people to farm. I think we're the only place where we keep having more farmers, and the reason is because we keep developing ways of producing something you can sell on four acres next to a mountain and in a tough place.

The fact that we have all the various ecosystems we have allows us to grow ginseng in the dry country and blueberries where it rains all the time, and that has created the opportunity for us to fill all these niches for all these small producers. Now, I think, international developments — with the NAFTA and with phytosanitary regulations — are aimed directly at those niche producers that we have indigenous to British Columbia, unlike the rest of Canada — certainly, from here to the Maritimes.

I was in a room where American negotiators for NAFTA stood up and said: "It doesn't really matter about the rules from NAFTA, because we are going to control your product, Mexico and Canada, through phytosanitary regulations after the millennium — not with the rules of the NAFTA but with rules of health science."

That would imply to me that another country wishes to use health regulations as a way to get an advantage over our producers in our little valleys here, which means it's a trade issue. The minister has the responsibility, not the Minister of Health whose responsibility is, of course, to manage health. The minister's job is to expand farming, to defend these people, to make them make money. So it's not this groovy sort of affair — that way of life — but it's a business.

I think there's a possibility with the meat regulations that we're aiming at the heart of a whole bunch of those businesses. I think that we should, through the Minister of Agriculture and not through the Minister of Health, set out in a proactive way to have dialogue with the small producers, to say: "What kind of a law can we create for the food that is sold within a region, raised within a region?"

I imagine — and this is not because it came up out of my head but because people raised it with me…. What if we created some rules for food raised within 20 miles and sold within 20 miles and eaten within 20 miles? It's guaranteed never to cross a border, guaranteed not to leave a health region. Then we could have a set of rules based on training of the processor — pass some kind of exam — and not have to make the capital investment that requires….

For example, if we go with the lovely idea that is the collective abattoir in Cranbrook and a neighbour of mine produces a cow and wants to sell it to me, it's going to have to go to Cranbrook, which is a four-hour trip and four hours back as meat. We've just blown whatever economic advantage we had in the marketplace.

Would the minister consider a consultation process intended to find a set of rules driven by geography rather than trade?

Hon. P. Bell: The member made kind of an interesting comment, I think, which perhaps shows the different view that we would share. I think he said that my job is to make them make money. I actually think my job is to set the right strategic framework and taxation and regulatory regime so that they have the best possi-

ble chance to have a successful business. I don't know that I can actually make them make money. I could try, I suppose.

I want to spend a couple of moments on this, because I think this is important. I've been in the food industry for about 26-odd years, coming up to 27 years now, and things have changed dynamically in the food industry around food safety in that period of time. When I think back to the practices that we used to utilize in the '70s and early '80s versus the practices that are in play today, they are hugely different in terms of how careful we are with the product we handle and deal with. I'm not sure that the diseases and the challenges around food safety haven't changed, as well, through that period of time. I'm not sure that we're as resistant, perhaps, to some of the potential risks that are caused by food products in our society.

I think that was really pointed out a year and a half ago with the avian influenza. That's not something that we faced. It was brought on by a number of implications. One was the consolidation of the feather industry into the Fraser Valley, where they were in close proximity. But new diseases that didn't seem to exist in years gone by….

There has been a refocus in the entire food industry around food safety and ensuring that human health is protected. I'm sure the member would agree that the quality of human health in Nelson, in his community; in Vancouver; or in Prince George, my community, is all equal. Those lives all have to be treated with equal levels of importance, and I wouldn't for a minute think that the member would disagree with that.

I think things have changed in terms of how we have to handle food products. I think there are new and different diseases out there. There are new challenges with regards to animal health and the handling of food products safely. I just think back on my life and how we have handled food products and how much that has changed over time. I've certainly been witness to that.

The member's notion of having a different set of rules apply I could conditionally support from the perspective of the need to protect human health. I think that's a fundamental principle, and I suspect the member would agree with me on that. But that has to be the baseline that this all starts from — that we protect human health before anything else. None of us would want to see one of our constituents have a horrible disease that was as a result of a poor regulation that was in place or a lack of appropriate practices or that we could somehow have played a role in that. I think that is of utmost importance.

I do understand exactly what the member is saying in terms of needing to have the appropriate set of rules in place. I think his suggestion of working with local communities…. In fact, we're already starting to work towards…. As a previous minister in this ministry, I'm sure the member offers real value to that, and I'd be pleased to take input from the member on his thoughts and ideas of how we can make this work, with the baseline of human health being of utmost importance and also considering that the Ministry of Health, of course, is actually the driver of the regulation.

I think that perhaps through a combination of mobile abattoirs and other types of regulations and rules, we could achieve the member's objective, which is maintaining the sustainability of small-lot agriculture in the province. Where the member lives and where I live clearly are communities that benefit from those types of decisions.

C. Evans: I take the minister's wisdom. He's absolutely right. It is not his job to make people make money. It is his job to create the conditions under which they can make money. His expression was way better than anything I said.

I don't have quite so much agreement on what followed in the minister's statement. It sounded to me like the minister was suggesting that we could have a dialogue, he and I, and I think that would be lovely. We could have dinner. But what I'm trying to get to is a provincewide discussion with producers and consumers about how they want to live and how they want to exchange money and what they want to eat and how we could manage health rules and trade rules to accommodate what is, I think, a unique place in terms of who works here and what kind of consumers live here.

Let me respond to the minister's comment about the Fraser Valley. The Fraser Valley is an excellent example of a place where maybe we ought not to raise a bunch of uninspected poultry and turn them loose in the yard, because we are surrounded by a whole bunch of barns where the food is going to be part of that kind of intensive agriculture that goes into the food chain. Maybe rules in the Fraser Valley ought to be different than rules in 100 Mile House around what poultry producers are allowed to do.

But we won't resolve that in estimates, not with six other people waiting to ask questions and four staff being paid to be here and you and I having to finish within 15 minutes. So I'm going to go back to what I think should really happen, which is…. Would the minister consider not talking to me but talking to his cabinet colleagues, especially the Minister of Health, and consider the idea of asking the Standing Committee on Agriculture to engage producers in a discussion in the regions about how to make new health regulations work to enhance local business and agriculture rather than to put it at risk?

Hon. P. Bell: I think, actually, we're very close to being in the same place on this. I would actually far rather talk about agriculture for the next four or five hours, or whatever has been allocated by the opposition to this ministry, than about some of the other files. I find that a very engaging and exciting part of the Ministry of Agriculture.

The member suggests the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. In fact, as the member may know, we plan to engage in an agricultural planning process. That was part of my opening remarks yesterday in the

review of the estimates of this ministry. We will, in fact, be engaging everyone throughout British Columbia in that planning process. It will be led by the member for Delta South, who is the parliamentary secretary for agricultural planning in the province. It will create a very real opportunity to deal with this and many of the other issues that are associated with agriculture.

I want to underline a key theme, though, just to be absolutely clear for the member. The baseline for me on this issue is food safety, and I think that's absolutely critical.

C. Evans: Okay. I'm not altogether happy with that answer. I think a conversation about agricultural planning is a good idea. I think we have a serious, serious problem and one which the Liberal government ought to be the champions of. It is the Liberal government that has said many times that you guys are the best at taking apart regulations that get in people's way. I am an opposition member standing up and saying: "Help me. You guys are building some regulations. They're going to make a problem. Would you please help engage in making it work for producers and consumers?" And you're saying: "Well, we'll have a planning process," and "They might consider it," and "You can talk to me," and "We could…." It isn't good enough, minister.

Since your answer to my last question was a beautiful and elegant way of saying no, let me ask it differently. Would the minister, then, talk to the Minister of Health and simply say: "Could we go together" — one representative of each ministry — "to each of the regions, not with a big process of a select standing committee but with targeted conversations about how to make the meat regulations work for consumers and producers in each of the regions of the province"?

C. Evans: That concludes my first opportunity to ask questions of the minister.

N. Macdonald: Just a question. The question I have is local. It's something that's ongoing. I had the opportunity to speak to staff so that you have the information you need. We're talking about lot 4616 in Invermere. The background I will give you is this. This is an incredibly appealing part of British Columbia. It's very close to Calgary. The community of Invermere is growing quickly. The district of Invermere has challenges and is meeting those challenges around planning for the growth and the pressure on the community.

One of the things that it wants is an area of park within the community. There is Crown land, lot 4616, which sits within the district of Invermere's boundaries. What people within the community — not only council but a wide range of citizens — feel is that that area would be perfect for parkland. It exists right now as a semi-wilderness area that has been improved through federal government grants, so they've put in the work. It is being used as park now. The community wants it to remain as park, but there is pressure from developers to have that property.

The provincial government was approached and asked if it would give the land to the community on the condition that it would remain in perpetuity as park. Somehow, within this system, that is not possible, even though I think all parties would agree that that is a reasonable thing to happen. So the question for you is this: could you just very quickly explain why that cannot happen? More importantly, what can you do to make happen what everyone would agree is a reasonable outcome and an outcome that is in the public good? What changes can you make?

Hon. P. Bell: Thanks for the question and also the notice of the question so that we're able to provide you with a fuller answer on it.

We did actually have the opportunity to meet at UBCM with the mayor and council. I understand your question to be: why can't we make it park, and if we can't, is there something we can change so that it could be made park? I think that's how I understood the question, but the context of the discussion that actually took place between mayor, council, myself and staff at UBCM was more along the lines of how we can do a joint-use project over this property that would allow for a combination of parkland and development property.

So I actually can't answer your first question, because I'm not prepared to answer that at this point. I don't have the technical component of why that, in fact, is in place. But what I can tell the member is that we had a very good discussion at UBCM. The mayor represented the community thoroughly and effectively and discussed the options around a joint-use proposal.

We have staff meeting with mayor and council next Wednesday to review that project and how we could take it forward in a way that meets the community needs and also offers a more limited development opportunity in the region. I think, or I'm told…. From the context of the meeting that I had, I believe that council supports that direction for this property at this point in time.

N. Macdonald: It's true. What has happened is that this has been going on for a period of time. The council quite correctly realized that having hit this wall, then you need to move. So they're moving, and they will come up with something that I think will be of benefit to the community, of course. But having said that, they still hit a wall that many in the community feel shouldn't be there. I know the intention would be, if they had the opportunity, to make that into park. That is what they consistently said they wanted.

Like I say, realizing that there are barriers, the plan switches, but one of the barriers is that the outcome…. I think in listening to me, you would realize that's not necessarily the outcome you want. It's Crown land, so it's publicly owned. If it switches over to the district

and the district is not going to use it for something that makes money — if they're going to actually keep it as park — then it makes sense that you would simply transfer it, not force local property owners to raise the money to buy the property at market value and have that go into provincial coffers. To me that makes sense, and I think, to you that probably makes sense.

What I would leave you with is…. I know that you're working with council. I know that between you and council, if the will is there, you can find something that will work for the community. Nevertheless, this is something that didn't work well, and it's not the outcome that the community…. If they had their choice, very clearly the choice they would have is the original thing that they were pushing for. That would be my point, and maybe you have comment on that.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm not advised of any technical barriers, actually, to making this property a park. Being a new minister on the file, I'm not aware of the history of the file and if there were some discussions around a barrier at some point in time. To the best of my knowledge, there's no barrier in terms of that transition. What the member refers to is the free Crown grant program that would have allowed for this property to be transferred to the regional district or the community at no cost to the community, and then, therefore, they would have been able to transfer it or make it into a park at that point in time.

The issue and challenge around that is the value of the property. It is a very large property and a high-value property and would require a sponsor from another ministry. Each ministry has a pool or budgetary dollar amount to assign that property.

I'm not advised of any technical constraints on that. The tenure of the discussion…. Again, granted I've come in late on the scene here, but at UBCM, certainly, it appeared to me that people were pleased with the direction of where we were trying to take the file, and I think we'll get to the right destination for everyone.

N. Macdonald: While there isn't a technical barrier, there is a real barrier in that the amount of money available for sponsorship is such that ministries would be reluctant to put so much money…. It is a fairly large parcel of land. It is highly sought after. The influence of Calgary on the real estate market in Invermere is almost at Vancouver proportions. It is a valuable piece of property. Yet really, all that it's going to be is a park. So while there might not be technical reasons why it couldn't happen, in practical terms it was impossible. Yet the outcome was one that I'm sure that you as a minister would want to have, and certainly, the community initially really clearly wanted a particular outcome.

Perhaps I could suggest to the minister, without taking any more time, that in two weeks' time I could sit down with a member of staff. Perhaps the member of staff could have an opportunity to really get all the information together. Then we can have that discussion and perhaps a commitment from the minister, in just a very vague way, that if there is a reasonable way to proceed, he would have time to look at it and make changes — if that's something that's going to be useful. Then also to just encourage him in his discussions with the district to work to a conclusion that will work….

It's a beautiful area. If you are familiar with the community, it's an area that does need parkland. There is tremendous pressure on the community. So I would encourage you to work on getting a conclusion that the district will be happy with.

Hon. P. Bell: Certainly, our objective is to get to a destination that people are comfortable with. I concur with the member's observations that it's a spectacular part of the world, and in fact the last time I was through there I think there were more Alberta licence plates than B.C. licence plates. We love to see them bring those dollars into British Columbia and spend them here. It's great for his community and certainly for that part of the province.

Mr. Chair, noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.