Hansard -- Thursday, October 20, 2005 p.m. -- Vol. 3, No. 2 (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


Introductions by Members		1011

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		1011
	Surrey business awards
	D. Hayer
	Watershed conservation in Coquitlam area
	D. Thorne
	Trade relations with China
	R. Lee
	Youth programs in Newton
	H. Bains
	Seniors services in North Shore
	K. Whittred
	Port of Prince Rupert
	G. Coons

Oral Questions		1013
	Alcan power production in Kitimat
	R. Austin
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	C. Evans
	B.C. Hydro power sales to U.S.
	C. Evans
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	Hiring of Gary Cowan for fast-track program
	H. Lali
	Hon. M. de Jong
	B. Ralston
	Ownership of shipping terminal on Ridley Island
	G. Coons
	Hon. K. Falcon
	Government support for forest industry
	B. Simpson
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Future of Port Alice pulp mill
	C. Trevena
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Closing of private rail crossings
	D. Chudnovsky
	Hon. K. Falcon

Second Reading of Bills		1018
	Civil Forfeiture Act (Bill 13) (continued)
	R. Fleming
	D. Hayer
	R. Hawes
	H. Lali
	Hon. R. Coleman
	R. Austin
	I. Black
	M. Farnworth

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		1040
	Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (continued)
	G. Gentner
	Hon. P. Bell
	R. Chouhan
	S. Simpson
	G. Robertson
	B. Ralston

C. Trevena: The North Island is a truly wonderful place, and I'd like to introduce a guest from the North Island: Kelly Carson. She is a councillor in the town of Port McNeill. I hope the House would make her welcome.

R. Hawes: In the gallery today is the mayor of Maple Ridge, Kathy Morse, here to talk about a number of issues with various ministers. Could the House please make her welcome.

K. Conroy: I think it is my week to introduce guests, and it probably won't happen again for a long time.

I'd like to introduce my sister and my niece from Whistler, Sana and Amanda Marsh; my granddaughter, Dera, who I hope maintains for an hour up in the gallery; and a friend of my son who is here from Calgary, Wayne Anderson. I would also like to point out that our son, Ben Conroy, is in the gallery again today and has been in the gallery every day at two o'clock for the past week and has thoroughly enjoyed the process.

R. Austin: It gives me pleasure to introduce six people who are visiting from my constituency. Specifically, they are coming here from Kitimat.

I'd like to introduce Ray Brady and his wife Ruth. Ray Brady is formerly the mayor of Kitimat. We also have Gaetan Pazsgay, a community activist who has lived in Kitimat for 48 years. As well, there is Steve Saunders, a CAW member who works at Alcan; and finally, two business people: Lloyd Hubbard, a retired business person from Kitimat, and Tony Deni, who currently runs a business there. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

Hon. B. Penner: It's my honour to recognize and welcome to the Legislature a conservation officer who has been awarded a conservation officer of the year award. I had the pleasure of having lunch with both Jeff Ginter and his wife Brenda Ginter here from Dawson Creek, British Columbia. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Hayer: Teamwork creates strong business, and last night I saw how successful that is. I attended the annual Business Excellence Awards held by Surrey Chamber of Commerce in Surrey-Tynehead. Many businesses were nominated, and to achieve that status means they were all winners. Without teamwork, without everyone working together, none of those businesses would have made the honour roll list. In addition to being successful, these businesses and awards also celebrate the diversity of Surrey. In the '90s I served on the board of directors of the Surrey Chamber of Commerce for many years, and as president. I know how important that diversity is to their success.

With that, I would like to name the 2005 award winners for the small business segment: Sigma Logic Inc. and Vicki Singh. Runners-up were Ranger Wheelchairs/Access Mobility and That's My Ball. For medium-sized business: Canada Washworld and Anand Kishore. Runners-up were Black Bond Books and Fruiticana.

For large business: Morgan Creek Golf Course and Ron Good. Runners-up were Home Depot North Surrey and Pivotal Partners. Student entrepreneur of the year: SRS Packaging and Sendip Gill. Runners-up were Abbey's Accessories and popYOUlarity.com. Not-for-profit business of the year: Surrey Food Bank and Robin Campbell. Runners-up were Surrey Firefighters Charity Society and Surrey Crime Prevention Society. New business of the year: Les Grand Dames Consignment Boutique and Ramona McNeil. Runners-up were In the Company of Friends and KickStart Communications Inc. Business person of the year: Tony Singh of Fruiticana. Runners-up were Larry Hamblin of PCS Wireless Communications and Rue Bains of Indo-Canadian Times International Inc.

I would ask everyone in the House to join me in congratulating these business success stories.

D. Thorne: Today I'd like to tell the House about the Como Watershed Group, which is an environmental protection group in my riding committed to the conservation of the Como Creek watershed. This is a very congested watershed including central Coquitlam, the south slopes of Maillardville, the Fraser Mills area and portions of the highly developed Lougheed Highway and Freeway 401.

Originally founded to work with the city of Coquitlam to provide stewardship to Como Lake, which is a renowned urban fishing and recreational area in the lower mainland, this group has quickly expanded to over 80 active volunteers involved in many collaborative activities, which include watershed restoration, environmental education, water quality monitoring and last but not least — what I'd really like to talk about today — providing valuable input into the land use planning processes in the Coquitlam area.

Because the CWG members have a diverse array of skills and expertise, they're currently providing a credible resource to the city of Coquitlam and to our community. Recently, they've been working with the Beattie group. I'm sure we're all familiar with them. They have a new development proposal. The old Fraser mill site in Maillardville. It's a large and exciting

development proposal on an area of 83 acres with one kilometre of waterfront on the Fraser River — a proposal that will be a mix of residential, commercial, light industrial and community use.

CWG and Beattie are proving that the consultative process can work if it is genuine — if it starts soon enough and if it is actually more than just notification to the community after the fact. Because of their ongoing working relationship, this environmental society is supporting Beattie's proposal and calling it a smart growth development. Many hurdles have been eliminated for all concerned. Hopefully, this is an excellent example which they have created and which will be followed in many communities.

R. Lee: I would like to pay tribute today to a great and growing partnership between our province and the people of China. Over the next five days B.C. will host a delegation from Guangdong province. Led by Governor Huang Huahua, nearly 600 major leaders of government and representatives of enterprises will visit Vancouver and Victoria. While in B.C. the delegation will meet with representatives from our new Asia-Pacific trade council, a key component of the Asia-Pacific gateway strategy announced in February's Speech from the Throne.

Their visit will culminate on Monday in Vancouver with a Hong Kong–Guangdong business forum hosted by Governor Huang and Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang. More than 1,000 political and corporate leaders will participate in this forum to strengthen economic and trade cooperation between our two regions. Last year two-way trade between Canada and the Hong Kong–Guangdong region amounted to $9 billion.

B.C.'s links to Hong Kong and Guangdong are deep. Many British Columbians were born there, and have brought their skills and vibrant culture with them to our province. In fact, this year marks the tenth anniversary of B.C. and Guangdong being officially twinned as sister provinces. Since 1985 Vancouver has served as the sister city to Guangzhou, Guangdong's capital city.

It is vital that we continue to foster strong ties and friendship with all our Asia-Pacific partners. As our province continues to grow, we need to build on our relationships with the world's emerging economies, including Guangdong, to promote British Columbia's goods and services and keep our economy moving forward.

Please join me in welcoming our friends from Guangdong and Hong Kong to Canada's gateway to the Asia-Pacific and offering our best wishes as our harmony continues to blossom.

H. Bains: Last Saturday I had the opportunity — along with the Attorney General, the member from Tynehead and many other community leaders — to attend the first invitational tournament and community launch, a program targeted to help youth.

The community in and around the Tamanawis high school area of Newton became aware that there were a high number of complaints of youth loitering, underage drinking, youth violence, vandalism, etc., in their community during the weekend hours. On most given weekends, community citizens would see youth engaging in high-risk behaviour and knew that something had to be done.

Three community agencies — Surrey school board Safe Schools program, Surrey RCMP and South-Asian Frontline Education program — came together to create a response to these community issues. This partnership resulted in the creation of the Newton Youth Hoops program. This recreation-based program runs from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. each Saturday evening at Tamanawis high school and is open to youth from all Surrey areas.

The purpose of this preventative program is to provide meaningful interaction between youth and community leaders, including Surrey RCMP youth-target team members, so as to foster positive relationships among community members. The program has over 25 volunteers, each certified in non-violent crisis intervention and first aid, who support the program. The community volunteers range from doctors to teachers to students and to date have volunteered over 1,100 hours to the program. The program was launched April 8, 2005, and has seen close to 1,300 youth participate in six short months.

This was an event put on to introduce this program into the community. Anyone could have come and seen what Newtonites are all about and had a fun night out in the community watching the youth participate in the program, which included a basketball tournament and skills competition followed by awards and dinner. Please join me in thanking those volunteers for coming up with such a creative program.

K. Whittred: Today I rise to pay tribute to the Lionsview Seniors Planning Society, which is a strong voice for the seniors community of the North Shore. They work hard to promote ongoing planning of health, social and other activities that affect the quality of life of our seniors. They believe that individuals have the desire to live independently and to be responsible for their own health.

I met recently with representatives of Lionsview about their most recent project, a study on North Shore seniors housing needs. Together with municipalities and the health region, they surveyed 421 seniors on the North Shore.

The survey found that seniors want to remain in their homes for as long as possible and really only want to move for either health or financial reasons. However, it did find that if they have to leave the longtime family home for any reason, seniors want housing that allows them to live independently. They also want

housing that's adaptable to changing health needs as we age. Access to public transportation was extremely important, as was proximity to stores and services. They want to stay in their same general community, and most of all, they want to be able to keep their pets.

Concerns were raised about affordability. With increasing rental costs on the North Shore, more and more seniors are facing financial hardship. I was pleased to be able to report to the group the recent expansion of the SAFER program. Of the 7,200 more seniors who will become eligible for the grant, many will be from North Vancouver. I want to thank the Lionsview Seniors Planning Society for the many hours of volunteer work they contribute to the community and for the important work they do.

G. Coons: At this time I would like to bring to the assembly's attention a great vision that is unfolding in my home community of Prince Rupert and throughout the region. The northwest coast has nurtured the human spirit for thousands of years. The vastness of the land and the immensity of the sea have generously supported the Tsimshian Nation for over 10,000 years. Their traditional territory stretches south to the Kitasoo, north to the mouth of the Nass and up the Skeena just east of Terrace.

Prince Rupert's strategic location has always made it a vital, traditional trade link. Today the significance of this route cannot be overestimated, as the port of Prince Rupert — the new world port and a world-class container gateway — unfolds before our very eyes. The city of Prince Rupert and the whole northwest trade corridor will accrue the benefits that will stimulate a diverse economy.

Ensuring that the north becomes a major opportunity gateway for transpacific trade, investment in tourism was an effort that has crossed all political lines. I would like to express my gratitude on behalf of all the constituents in the North Coast for the hard work and dedication of all the federal and provincial government staff, all the MLAs and MPs who struggled diligently to make this happen.

However, our region is not yet out of the woods as far as economic prosperity. There are still many months or years before we reap the benefits, but we are very optimistic about the future. I must give special kudos to port president and CEO Don Krusel and all the port staff who toiled endlessly to make this dream a reality.

Mr. Speaker: I might commend the members from both sides for sticking to the way two-minute statements are supposed to be.

R. Austin: For over four years people from Kitimat have attempted to meet with this government to express their fears over the use of electricity generated from the Kemano power plant. I'd like to ask the Deputy Premier: what has this government done to ensure that the people of Kitimat benefit from the water resources that should be powering the Alcan smelter?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, there have been a lot of discussions in regards to Alcan's generation of electricity. It is this government's opinion, by recommendations from the Attorney General's ministry, that Alcan is living up to its agreements from the 1950s and the mid-1990s in how they handle the power that's generated at that site.

R. Austin: Three weeks ago here the minister said that this was before the courts. I'd like to point out that the district of Kitimat is not suing the provincial government, which is why I asked what this government was doing to help the people in my riding.

My question, again to the Deputy Premier, is: what is her government doing to ensure that the people of Kitimat benefit from the local water resource?

Hon. R. Neufeld: This government continues to work with every community, regardless of where it's at in the province of British Columbia, to make sure that communities benefit from the resources that happen in their area.

We work with Alcan on as constant a basis as the government can to encourage them to actually upgrade, to build new plants in Kitimat that will employ people in Kitimat, to keep Kitimat going. We have worked with a project that was just announced for Kitimat, which will see a lot of jobs created, and that's the Enbridge proposal, if in fact it goes through.

There's also an LNG plant proposed for Kitimat, which this government works on, that the Ministry of Economic Development and my ministry work on.

Yes, we have done a marvellous job of working with every community in this province. It actually shows up in unemployment stats, which have never been lower — never been lower — in the province of British Columbia than they are today.

Mr. Speaker: Member, there are only a few people who get further supplementals. Do you want to move on to the next question? Have you got another question?

There is a serious disagreement between the people of Kitimat and their principal employer in the community. It involves the use of a public water resource. The government is sitting on the sidelines as though it is an observer. Will this government commit to standing up for the local community and all British Columbians by ensuring that Alcan uses the incredible water resource to generate jobs rather than making windfall profits?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We continue to work with the community of Kitimat, as we always have, to make

sure that Kitimat remains a resourceful, bubbling community that provides all kinds of jobs for the people that live there. We will continue to do that.

Looking forward to the future, to the things that are happening in Kitimat, whether it's Alcan talking about actually rebuilding a plant, whether it's a pipeline that would terminate there, whether it's a condensate line that would start there and go east, an LNG port….

There are all kinds of positive things happening in the area called Kitimat in British Columbia, as there are in a whole bunch of other parts of the province. But I would draw that member to think back just a short time ago to a member of a party that for ten years didn't do anything, and in fact rewrote agreements that actually put some more difficult things in place for the community of Kitimat. He should read history.

Okay, let's get past all the sort of "aren't we groovy, trying to help people out." This is a real simple one to the Minister of Energy. Is Alcan Aluminium Ltd. an aluminum producer that has a water licence to produce power at Kemano, which is appurtenant to their smelter at Kitimat? Or, as some suspect, is Alcan now registered as an independent power producer in British Columbia with a water licence to produce electricity appurtenant to nowhere?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Leave it up to the member for Nelson-Creston to try and take something that was signed in the 1950s, which had numerous interventions by the previous government during the 1990s — remarkable interventions by the NDP, some commitments that they never kept up to — and he wants me to speak to something that's before the courts in this House.

I can tell you that what we're doing for Kitimat and what we do for every community, unlike the last administration, is actually work with those communities to create employment.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Anywhere across the province you can have a look. The stats are there — the lowest unemployment rate ever, since the 1980s, in British Columbia; the highest investment rates of any time in this province's history.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The highest rate of small business, regardless of what stat you want to use.

C. Evans: That minister is absolutely right. The deal was signed in 1949. It was signed by Liberals and Conservatives. It was then defended by Social Crediters. It was then defended by New Democrats. This government is the first ever to sit on that side of the House that said this multinational aluminum company can abandon the people of Kitimat and sell the power in the United States — the first one.

C. Evans: It's a really simple question. Is B.C. Hydro or Powerex selling now or negotiating to sell power generated at Kemano for the production of aluminum at Kitimat to the United States aluminum producers to ship back into the world market to compete with the workers at Kitimat?

British Columbia is a net importer of electricity today and has been about six out of the last ten years, simply because that government never built one plant in British Columbia. In fact, you know where they went to build the plants? It was in Pakistan — in Pakistan.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Listen. Listen. If you want question period to continue, we're going to have some order.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Do we trade electricity with the U.S.? You're darn right we do. We have always done that, and that makes an average of about $150 million a year for the Crown corporation called B.C. Hydro to actually keep rates low in the province.

It was that government…. He was part of that government that actually sold electricity to plants south of the border — aluminum plants, by the way — at an industrial rate of about two cents while he charged companies in British Columbia twice as much. In fact, it absolutely amazes me that that member would ask that kind of a question.

H. Lali: Will the Deputy Premier please stand up and enlighten this House and tell us if the Premier's fast-track guru for economic development projects, Mr. Gary Cowan, was fired?

Hon. M. de Jong: I know the matter was canvassed in estimates just within the last 24 or 48 hours. I'll take the question on notice.

Mr. Speaker: Member, you don't get a supplemental. Is this a new question? Member, is it a new question?

H. Lali: I'd like to again ask the Deputy Premier if she maybe can give an answer to this one. For the price of $180,000 per year plus benefits, will the Deputy Premier please inform this House how many projects were successfully fast-tracked by Liberal insider Mr. Gary Cowan, and what did Mr. Cowan produce for this kind of sweetheart deal?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I know the member canvassed the issue extensively. I'll take the question on notice.

B. Ralston: Let me just briefly review this matter. The government hired Mr. Cowan on a contract. He was fired — we just learned that momentarily — after seven months. He was paid $180,000 for those seven months of service, plus benefits for two years. Plus, he received $75,000 in severance. He completed zero projects — money for nothing, and more money for nothing in $75,000 worth of severance.

Can the Deputy Premier please advise the House when her government started providing severance for failed contract work?

Hon. M. de Jong: I know that the hon. member asks the question because he wants specific, reliable and detailed information. I've tried to communicate to him and other members, through the earlier round of questions, that we're happy to provide that and will take the question on notice.

B. Ralston: Yes. Well, subject to your ruling, I believe it's a new question.

On his first day in office the Premier hired the president of the B.C. Liberal Party, Andrew Wilkinson, as a deputy minister. In 2003 the Premier moved the same Andrew Wilkinson to the Economic Development Ministry, and he was the deputy who signed Mr. Cowan's contract.

Will the Deputy Premier simply admit that this contract was a sweetheart deal for a B.C. Liberal friend and insider?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member needs to turn the page and go to what's called plan B when something isn't actually working out the way he wants it to.

Hon. M. de Jong: That's difficult to do if the page is blank, but nonetheless, Mr. Speaker….

Look, I don't think the member accomplishes anything by denigrating the reputations and names of people who come to the public service and decide that they want to work for the people of British Columbia. Now, he may think it serves some useful purpose to speak of those people in a way that besmirches their reputations, reputations earned over a long period of time — people who decide to come here and put their talents to work for the British Columbia people — but I think it's shameful.

I've said to the member that if there's information he wants, we're happy to provide it. But he should think twice before he comes into this chamber and starts besmirching the reputations of talented British Columbians that want to work for the province of B.C.

G. Coons: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. There is a major controversy brewing in my riding, in Prince Rupert. I've had numerous constituent inquiries regarding Ridley terminal, the $250 million state-of-the-art bulk-handling facility.

The Premier, at a joint British Columbia–Alberta cabinet meeting, indicated that he wanted to ensure Ridley is available for everyone. Can the Minister of Transportation please explain why this government has backed away from a plan that would have kept Ridley terminal in public hands?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, the member should know that while it was in public hands with the federal government, it consistently lost tens of millions of dollars. One of the things I would think that member would

like to see, as we certainly would on this side of the House, is to actually have an operator with private sector investment ensuring there's fair and open access for all the folks and the businesses that would utilize Ridley terminal. That's exactly what we have been representing to the federal government, and that's exactly the outcome we would like to see.

G. Coons: Thank you for the answer. It's interesting. In April — just before the last provincial election, may I add — this province approached the federal government about taking over Ridley terminal. Since then you've backed away from open access, leaving it exposed for one company — an out-of-province company — to control access to this facility. This will have a significant impact on the global competitiveness on B.C. companies.

Can the minister please tell us if this was just another broken election promise or if there is some other reason you didn't keep this commitment?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, the member has his facts wrong again, which shouldn't be altogether surprising. The fact of the matter is that the federal government was in the process of engaging in a bidding process. We're well down the road with a potential purchaser, which the member indicated. Our government was concerned. We wanted to make sure there's fair and open access to all users of Ridley terminal. We let the federal government know that we wanted to put a freeze in place on the process that they were engaging upon so that we could have an opportunity to examine what options are available to protect the interests of shippers in British Columbia. We did exactly that.

We have a commitment out of the federal government that whoever ends up operating Ridley terminals, it will be on the basis of fair and equal and open access for all users in British Columbia. That's exactly the right thing to do.

B. Simpson: The Minister of Forests and Range has made it perfectly clear that he doesn't like us to use the word "crisis" with respect to the forest industry. Well, there are many voices that are calling the situation in our forest industry just that.

The Truck Loggers Association is calling it a crisis. The Coast Forest Products Association is calling it a crisis. Even the CIBC called it a crisis in the briefing that the minister was given just last week. This week senior leaders in the forest industry have referred to the situation as "the perfect storm." When will the Minister of Forests and Range admit that we have a crisis on our hands?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's not what CIBC told me. CIBC said that the next one to three years are going to be some of the most difficult years in the North American forest industry unless jurisdictions adjust and industries adjust to build long-term sustainability in their business. That includes governments.

I have launched a review, frankly, with the Coast Forest Products Association. All the people that the member has spoken to I have asked for submissions on what they think the fix is on the coast and what they think some of the fixes are in the interior. I've undertaken to move quickly on those fixes to see if they can be done sustainably for the people of British Columbia and for the companies involved. At the same time as we're doing that, we're working on a long-term strategic plan for forestry — period.

I think it's important. I'm not going to say that the forest industry doesn't have its challenges today. The member knows very well, as well as I do, that it does. I also believe that if we think outside the box, take the time to listen to our producers and the organizations affected by forestry and sit down with our officials and work out a long-term sustainable plan, we can get ahead of this thing.

That's one thing CIBC World Markets told me. B.C. was better positioned to react to this situation in North America than any other jurisdiction in Canada, because it was already ahead of a curve on the changes it had made.

B. Simpson: I would like to correct the minister on what the CIBC actually said. It did say it was a crisis. It did say that if there was reasonable intervention, things could be turned around. But it also said that the intervention had to be timely and immediate. It also said that there is one portion of the B.C. industry that did show some positives, and that was only the interior. The coast industry was not in that comment by CIBC.

This government, for example, has chosen to address the mountain pine beetle epidemic by lifting the allowable cut throughout the interior. That's what is driving the interior industry. However, that has created a chip oversupply, which has now reached crisis proportions, and independent sawmillers in the interior are now struggling with that. We will see mill closures and job losses.

Will the Minister of Forests and Range tell us what he is going to do now — not a plan, now — to intervene with that chip oversupply crisis?

Hon. R. Coleman: As the member knows, the chip issue is to deal with the pulp side of the industry and not just the sawmilling side. It is basically the waste material that comes out of the sawmills and has been going into pulp mills across British Columbia over the last number of years.

The member will also know, and I'm sure he does, that there is a pulp problem worldwide right now. There is a depression in the marketplace. Therefore, we have a situation where pulp mills that are cutting fibre

are only saying, "We want to take our own sawdust and chips," because frankly, they're at capacity.

What we have seen is a reduction in capacity, and the reason is because pulp right now is at a significant situation. We have a Competition Council looking at that. Former Premier of British Columbia Dan Miller is one of the people working on that. I spoke to Dan at the UBCM convention. I have asked him to accelerate their recommendations on pulp to me. I haven't received them yet. As soon as I do, I will be sitting down with that group to work on solutions.

C. Trevena: Yesterday the Minister for Economic Development said of the Port Alice Specialty Cellulose mill: "We recognize the value of an operating mill to the people of Port Alice and all British Columbians." The minister also said that he is now willing to consider the environmental remediation suggested by the proposed buyer once his business plan is approved.

Given the government's recognition, albeit late, of the value of the Port Alice mill to the B.C. economy, I'd like to ask the Deputy Premier whether she will assure this House and the people of Port Alice that the review of the business plan is the final stage in this year-long saga.

Hon. M. de Jong: There was a very poignant moment at the UBCM about three weeks ago, when an individual stood up in the midst of a larger forum where people were exchanging ideas — civic leaders, provincial ministers and MLAs. That individual said to the crowd that he wanted to thank, personally, the work of the Minister of Economic Development and the government of British Columbia. From anyone else, that might have been nice but somewhat less significant. It was from the mayor of Port Alice.

So I do want to assure the member and, through her, her constituents, particularly the people of Port Alice, that the minister and the government are doing everything humanly possible to ensure that there is a satisfactory resolution. She is right. The government takes very seriously our broader duty to ensure that the plan being presented by the proponent is a sound one.

The mayor did recognize the minister, but the work started extraordinarily late. It started this summer. The people of Port Alice have waited a year. They are now desperate. There is no government subsidy involved in this deal. So what I would like is for the Deputy Premier to tell the people of Port Alice and to tell this House whether the government will commit to the reopening of the Port Alice Specialty Cellulose mill.

Hon. M. de Jong: It's a curious question. With due respect, what do you think we're doing? We have been working as a government, and this pre-dates even the time period that the member is speaking of. I hope she hasn't forgotten that there was another proponent involved that came into town and then ran away from town, leaving a lot of people in the lurch. We actually do take seriously the obligation of government to ensure that we do everything possible.

The member has been reluctant — and I think I know why — to explain that she apparently has a different set of standards about when environmental liabilities should be forgiven and when they shouldn't. I'm always interested to hear her views on that. But rest assured that the government and the minister are doing everything humanly possible to ensure that this proponent has every opportunity to work with the community, to work with government and to see that mill operate again.

D. Chudnovsky: On September 13 the Minister of Transportation was asked in this House to explain why hundreds of British Columbians received threatening letters from CN demanding that they pay for the maintenance, operating and administrative expenses for private level crossings. The minister claimed: "Nothing has changed." That came as a complete surprise to people like 77-year-old widow Jean Davis. She told the Quesnel Observer: "We have never paid for the crossing before."

Can the minister explain why the government failed to consult with landowners like Jean Davis about the financial impact the B.C. Rail privatization would have on them, and why he claimed nothing has changed?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, something has changed. What has changed is that under the previous government in the operation of B.C. Rail, what would happen — and what has always been the practice of B.C. Rail and other railways — is that when they improved railroad crossings, those costs have always been historically passed along to the landowners, whether it's local government or individuals such as the lady that the member mentioned.

The difference is that because of political interference, those bills are often either not sent, not collected or not paid. As a result, not surprisingly, taxpayers had to write off over a billion dollars as a result of the kind of mismanagement they imposed on B.C. Rail.

Hon. K. Falcon: Today we have a situation where we have a private sector company leasing the railway from us, the operation of the railway, investing hundreds of millions of private sector dollars at no risk to the taxpayer for lower rates and better service.

D. Chudnovsky: Let's talk about that private sector company for a minute, shall we? The contract that CN is pressuring B.C. residents to sign includes the following provision. "The applicant — that's the person on whose land the level crossing lies — agrees to be responsible for and to indemnify and save harmless CN from and against all loss and expense of whatsoever nature which may occur by reason of pollution or contamination."

It goes on to say: "In the event of evidence of pollution or contamination, the burden shall be with the applicant — the person on whose land the crossing lies — to prove that the pollution or contamination was not a result of this agreement or anything done in relation thereto."

Was the minister aware that CN would demand that citizens give up their right to be presumed innocent in the case of an accident on their land and bear the burden of proof for contamination and pollution?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, I do know that CN was requiring that the owners had sufficient insurance in place, liability insurance in particular, to ensure that they are protected as well as CN is protected from eventualities such as the kind the member mentions. But one thing I will say that possibly the member and I are in agreement with is that I felt that the tone of the letter was totally unacceptable. I felt that the way in which the letter was written was totally unacceptable, and my understanding is that CN is now working with all of the folks that it sent those letters to, and is making some changes to reflect the fact that they can actually operate in a more cooperative manner with British Columbians. My understanding is that they are and they will.

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 13 and in Committee A, continued estimates debate, for the information of members, on the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

R. Fleming: It's a pleasure for me to be able to speak to Bill 13 today and express my cursory thoughts on that legislation and maybe outline some reasons why I support the bill that the Solicitor General is bringing forward but also to express some reservations which I think this opportunity for debate is about.

In looking at other jurisdictions that have adopted similar-style legislation, as the intent of this bill is, it's an evolving process. There are amendments, subsequently, that undoubtedly are going to be required. What we try and do best here is make sure we get as much of it right the first time and that the legislation can be saved from any potential flaws that there may be in the drafting.

Let me speak to some of the elements and the principles within the bill that the opposition supports, which I support. First of all, the intent, very clearly…. To say this bill is timely might be understating the matter. I think it is something that is perhaps best described as overdue.

When one looks at the influence and growth of organized crime not just in British Columbia but across this continent, looks at the range of criminal activities that organized crime and gangs are now involved in…. They have expanded out of many of the core activities that they were notoriously involved in to take on many other types of narcotics, many other types of money-laundering activities, racketeering, extortion, etc. — violent crimes, highly profitable crimes, crimes that are costing the taxpayer and society in terms of the repercussions that are felt by ordinary people and by taxpayers and business people, communities and police forces in our municipalities.

It is high time, in other words, that our government, our province, had legislation that went to the heart of the matter of organized crime and tried to disrupt their activities because many prosecutions have been unsuccessful to date not just in this province but elsewhere. So we need new tools to combat the threat of organized crime in our province. I believe this bill will give us some measure of assisting in that disruption of organized criminal activity.

I think another element that is undoubtedly supportable by both sides of the House is that Bill 13 lays out remedies. It lays out a system where victims can be compensated for their losses, for the negative effects of unlawful activities in their community and on them personally. That is the second important goal outlined in Bill 13, which this side of the House unhesitatingly sympathizes with and supports in terms of the intent of this legislation.

But in reading this bill, there still are obviously some areas of concern, and those are areas we believe should be addressed by the government. Some questions I have, in terms of not having the background available to us — although the minister may have, because he's much closer to it than other members of this House — are on the actual track record of this legislation in other jurisdictions.

I recognize that Bill 13 is basically copycat legislation from Manitoba, Ontario and other places. But what I would like to know is whether there has been a full and comprehensive review by this government, a study of similar laws in other jurisdictions. I'm sure there has. It would not be very responsible to proceed without one. In that discussion, I'm sure that what is of most interest to members of this House would be a summary of what the effects of those laws have been. They're new bills, by and large. But it would be of great value to all members if we perhaps had some informa-

tion available to us on how this type of legislation has impacted the public and the justice system. Has it delivered on the improvements that form the premise and motivation behind the bill in the first place?

As I said, bills such as this are new. They're almost untested. In Canada the oldest is about two and a half or three years old. So it's going to take time to get legislation like this right. But I certainly do agree with the government that we must get started. On that there is no argument.

Secondarily, our concerns about this bill are with the substance of it, some of the implications of its provisions. Other members have talked about civil liberty arguments and have looked at some hypothetical situations that would be very difficult, where the bill might not work and might have unintended consequences that make victims out of suspects. I won't repeat those arguments. I think those are points well-made, and I've heard acknowledgments from members on the other side of the House that those concerns are valid. The member from West Vancouver was acknowledging that before we recessed earlier today.

The main criticism I'd like to advance is that the bill lacks specificity in the types of unlawful activity that it is targeting. I guess the question really is: should it not be first and foremost a priority to target the most serious criminal offences, including organized crime?

I noticed even the name of the bill is somewhat indirect. I don't know if that's intentional or not, but it contrasts with Ontario's act, which has a different name than the civil bill that we're talking about here. I think they call theirs the Remedies for Organized Crime and Other Unlawful Activities Act.

Most importantly, I think — the members have talked of it before — our concerns are really around what this bill maybe doesn't do. Some of that is outside the purview of the legislation itself, but it forms the context for the debate we're having today. Those concerns about what this bill does not do primarily focus around things like crime prevention in the first place, protecting and compensating the victims of crime and, part and parcel of that, addressing the needs and concerns of some of the most vulnerable people in our communities.

I agree. I share the philosophy. As a former city councillor, I can tell you this. The government should be tough on crime. To tolerate it invites other problems, but I believe that governments — and I wish we could see it from this government — must be equally tough on the causes of crime.

To be tough on the causes of crime means that a government has to have a commitment to the well-being of society, that it must dedicate equal resources to make work pay, for example. I look at the record of this government in its previous mandate where they introduced a two-tier minimum wage a whole $2 an hour lower than the minimum wage. I'm sorry, but that doesn't do it. That is not making work pay.

Instead of providing more opportunity in our society, today we have less, undoubtedly, if one looks at the tuition fees or looks at the cuts to student financial assistance and those kinds of avenues or indeed — and this is topical — the education system. You know, teachers play such an important role in developing good citizens in our society. The record of this government, unfortunately, is one that has weakened our school system, rather than strengthened it, with things like cuts even to English-as-a-second-language programs and immigrant settlement services. To have a society that leaves new immigrants behind in poverty, who are unable to contribute their full potential to society, is not the action of a government that can claim that they are being tough on the causes of crime.

There are many social causes of crime, and to be tough on crime — the actual crime that is taking place in society — one must be a very good steward of society and be equally tough on the causes of crime. Mr. Speaker, when you close the doors to a better life in society for a whole section of the population, you open doors to a worse life for those people — sometimes an unlawful life, unfortunately, and that is the reality.

Continuing on this path, what the bill does not change, unfortunately — and the budget was a better opportunity to do this than this legislation obviously — is the fact that this government has eliminated services for victims of crime. It's leaving innocent victims of crime to fend for themselves, in effect, and to heal themselves alone after they have survived criminal activity that has borne consequences on their lives. The government record also indicates an insensitivity — I think that's the best word for it — towards victims of crime.

This government's actions are best highlighted by things like the dramatic cuts that we've seen to victims services, to families who have lost children or parents to a drunk driver, a violent offender or a sexual offender. They can no longer turn to a counsellor working alongside our provincial prosecutors to get help.

That's a sad fact. I think it speaks to the bill that we're talking about today. I think it speaks to the credibility of the government introducing it that they don't have a balanced approach when it comes to addressing both crime and the tools we need to successfully prosecute it but also to address the causes of crime in our society.

You know, grief-stricken relatives of people who have been murdered, wounded, are now…. It's up to them to find information on their own, to access the help of a professional, to bring calm to their families, to lean on anyone for support and comfort. That's up to the individual now. Government no longer provides that type of victim services, and that is a shame.

There are so many other important issues and problems that this bill doesn't even come close to addressing, which have been created by this government. British Columbians are currently struggling with dramatic funding and service cuts that have been made by the

government, including cuts to the counselling funding that I spoke to — cuts to counselling funding for those even convicted of domestic violence, if you can believe that, cuts to funding for sexual assault centres. These are crimes taking place in our community. These are services that help victims of those crimes, and they have been cut relentlessly and deeply by this government.

Rape crisis counselling has been cut. Of course, who can forget that $40 million was removed from legal aid funding for ordinary British Columbians to access the justice system in this province?

So there's a list of problems now occurring in our justice system, many of which have been created by the government, that this bill doesn't even begin to address. It forms an important context that is the background to this bill.

I've had the chance to speak to some people in the law enforcement community who have studied this bill, some who were consulted by the government on this bill prior to its drafting. Of course, it had a previous iteration that never came to pass in the previous session of the Legislature.

I think it's important to be clear because there's been some expression of what people think the promise of this bill is, particularly from the other side of the House. It's important that we look at how this bill will function in practice. What a number of police officers told me is that people should be aware that Bill 13 — and any proceeding under it — is probably not going to happen unless a certain threshold of recovery can be met. It could be quite a high threshold. The cost of proceeding would probably be at a minimum $25,000 perhaps. So there's a whole range of criminals and criminal activity there, parties that are identified as having property that could be sold and used to compensate victims, where that threshold would never possibly be high enough.

Let us not think, for example, that this bill will threaten petty criminals, though they may be organized in our community, because it won't. It will simply be uneconomical to pursue justice under the terms of this bill, to seek compensation. You will not, for example, probably ever see a landlord go after somebody who has rented their premises for a grow op to recover damages, given that the people who can be identified as tenants or parties to the lease are not likely going to be the big fish.

That is for government to find another way to tackle, but it won't come through this bill. I think some members have been mistaken in thinking that perhaps it will.

Indeed, to get compensation through the processes of this bill, you're probably going to have to identify criminals with significant assets that can be disposed of. You're probably talking about real estate in the realm of highly organized criminal activity. Generally, these criminals are clever enough to structure their assets in such a way that will avoid action that is possible under this bill. I mean, that's just a fact.

That's not my opinion. That's the opinion of senior persons in the law enforcement community. It may hold some promise to get, if you will, less-organized criminal activity brought to bear. You may have some mid-level operators who can have their property disposed of so that a civil action would be successful under this bill and the compensation would flow to the victims. For that alone, the legislation is worth it.

But when you look at what is on British Columbians' minds when they think of crime in the province, it's generally the things that most immediately affect them in their communities, in their neighbourhoods, on their block — things like property crime; persistent nuisance crime; rising levels of violence, unfortunately, from the proliferation of drugs and addict activity in the communities.

That is the thing that unfortunately, makes some people live in fear, afraid to walk their own streets in the evenings. I know this is a concern in many communities across British Columbia, not just the lower mainland. It's important that we tackle that type of crime because it's the type that is most immediate and most frustrating for British Columbians in their daily lives.

I think we're going to have to focus very hard, and this side of the House is certainly willing to work with the government to find solutions to those types of crime. We will do that. We would be happy to work with the Solicitor General on finding solutions to that. I think we're, again, talking about those types of crime of most concern, those that have the closest ties to social problems that need to be addressed, the causes of crime.

Taking the profitability out of crime for organized criminals is a laudable goal, and it's something that this government should have acted on before now, quite frankly — back when Manitoba and Saskatchewan were enacting bills of this type, perhaps. There is no objection to that, because there certainly are a number of social implications that affect all of our quality of life that have to do with organized criminal activity in B.C.

We on this side of the House support the government on measures that will help address that, help attack the financial reward of crime that organized criminals thrive on and that gives them incentive for the heightened activities we're experiencing now in British Columbia.

I outlined some of the elements and principles within this bill that we support. Obviously, the targeting of organized crime is the main one. Depriving organized criminal participants of the gains of their unlawful activity is something we wholeheartedly support.

We believe that victims should be compensated where possible, but again, most victims of crime will never be able to access the measures set out in this bill because they aren't victims of this type of organized criminal. They're victims of smaller players. The costs of accessing justice will be too high to ever make this bill useful to them in their lives.

But as I've said, the fact that this will give a tool to our law enforcement community in British Columbia to go after some of the largest criminal players out there, possibly successfully…. Where they cannot make criminal charges stick in the courts, they can at least inflict some damage and disruption through this civil process. That alone is the reason why I certainly and, I believe, all members of the House will probably be supporting Bill 13. It speaks to the need of why we need to get started on having this type of legislative tool here and today.

D. Hayer: On behalf of my constituents, who have faced and are facing the threat of neighbourhood grow ops and meth labs, I wholeheartedly support Bill 13, the Civil Forfeiture Act. This bill, which allows the seizure of the profits from illegal activities, will be a significant tool in the war against illegal acts. This act will penalize those who commit such acts where it counts most: in the pocketbooks.

There seems to be little incentive for certain people to abide by the law. The penalties levied by the courts don't appear to be a great deterrent. Many of my constituents and people from Surrey agree with that statement. This act, however, will not be part of the justice process. It will be applied through the civil courts, and any penalties applied under Bill 13 will be in addition to any fines or sentences handed down. That double whammy of penalties will help take away the incentive of illegal acts, particularly in the area of grow ops and meth labs.

In many of the neighbourhoods of my riding of Surrey-Tynehead, grow ops are permanent. They have invaded all parts of my community at every level, and they are, as a matter of fact, in every city in Canada. We hear about them in the news almost daily.

This act will allow the seizure of expensive homes that are being used to grow and harvest marijuana. This act will cause people who do things beyond the law to think twice before setting up an operation. They will know that their investment in their homes, in their cars, their vehicles and other products of their illegal activities will be seized and will be forfeited.

I don't think we will ever stop some people from pursuing illegal activities, regardless of what we do, but if we can cramp their style and cut out some or all of the profits of their activities, it will be a major step in solving the growth of those operations.

The biggest concerns in neighbourhoods are the threat of fire from grow ops and meth labs and the safety concerns about the grow rips targeting the wrong home. We have heard many times about those issues in the daily news — home invasions and simply the threat of being next door to people who care nothing about the law or for the respect of others, other family members or the neighbours.

In addition, these illegal operations threaten the safety of our front-line safety personnel — our police officers, our firefighters and paramedics — when they respond to what, at first, may have appeared to be an innocent emergency call. We want to make sure we protect those there to serve us. When we are leaving, out of the dangers, they are going to those places to protect the innocent. They should not have to face the dangerous chemicals, electrical hazards or even firearms when they're responding to an emergency.

Because of that, I believe it is very necessary to enact this bill to ensure the safety of our first responders and to ensure the safety of our law-abiding families in their own neighbourhoods and all British Columbians.

This bill is not a first. Four other provinces of Canada have similar laws in place. Many countries across the world are using it in the battle against illegal activities, and they have been successful. If there is one way to slow these lawless people, it is to take away the profit of the activities, and that is what this act is designed to do.

Therefore, I fully endorse and support the civil forfeiture of the proceeds of illegal activities. This act is going to help all British Columbians, all Canadians, and I urge every member of this House who respects the law, who respects our constituents, to stand up with me in supporting Bill 13.

I have held many forums in my constituency. We had one a few years back, when my good friend Chuck Cadman, a past Member of Parliament from Surrey North was alive. We had RCMP members there, and Surrey firefighters, school trustees, school counsellors, B.C. Hydro people and more than 500 of my constituents from Fraser Heights community. They were all talking about something like this. They said government had to move on it and look for the solutions.

There are many different ways to achieve this, and I think this is one of the tools the government has that can help ordinary British Columbians, law-abiding British Columbians, and at the same time take away the incentive that some of the people who don't obey the laws have to make illegal profits.

R. Hawes: It is, for me, quite a pleasure to stand up and speak to this bill. It's a bill that to me, has been a long time coming. We began talking about this quite some period of time ago under a former Solicitor General. When he first mentioned that he was looking at bringing in legislation like this, I can tell you I felt extremely excited about it.

I thought about the prospects. I thought about what has been going on in my community and in, I know, communities all over this province. I thought about the frustrations that people are having on a daily basis with what they see as a lack of justice in their cities and just an absolute lack of any kind of tool to stop what has been going on in their streets and neighbourhoods, affecting their families and their kids.

I thought about that legislation, and I thought, you know, if only we could get that through. It went out for some exposure. I spoke to dozens and dozens of people about this over the past number of months, and I've yet to meet someone who didn't think it was a wonderful idea. But I don't associate with those who are in illegal activities, really. I don't know people who are in the

They probably don't like it, but certainly, the moms and pops I talked to absolutely loved this piece of legislation or the prospect that it might come. I want to congratulate both Solicitors General for the work they've done to bring this forward.

I've listened to some of the discourse from previous speakers. At least for the folks that I represent, I want to make absolutely clear the difference between criminal law and civil law and the burdens of proof in both. In criminal law, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, and in civil law, it's a balance of probability.

I just want to cite an example that for me, clarifies the differences. O.J. Simpson was found innocent of murder in a criminal court. When that verdict was handed down, there was outrage from at least the people that I associate with and, I presume, all across North America. There was some outrage because people had followed that trial. There was, I think, in most people's minds, even beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt, but the jury said he was not guilty, so O.J. Simpson was not guilty.

The recourse that was left for the relatives of O.J. Simpson was to take up a civil litigation, and they did that. As far as I know, O.J. Simpson was found guilty in a civil court and fairly hefty fines were applied against him. That's sort of what the difference is. There's a different burden of proof. Certainly, the balance of probability in O.J. Simpson's case was that he was guilty. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Well, a jury said no.

That's sort of the same thing here. Now, all of us have seen in court cases all over the place people who have been let go. From the ordinary citizens' viewpoint — certainly, from any reasonable person's viewpoint — they know there was an illegal activity going on, but the courts for one reason or another said the person was innocent or allowed them to go.

I'm thinking of a recent case in Mission where the RCMP spent some considerable time tracking a grow operation. They took their battering ram to the door. They knocked on the door, announced that it was the police at the door and then smashed the door open. Inside they did find a grow op, but when it went to court, the judge said the time between the police knocking on the door and announcing that it was the police and battering the door down was not a reasonable time.

Regardless of the evidence found inside, the case was totally dismissed, and the people walked free — the perpetrators, who were clearly engaged in an illegal activity. In this case, if they had assets, I would suggest that if this went to a civil court, any reasonable person would say the balance of probability would be that those folks were involved in an illegal activity.

The frustrations that moms and pops feel across this province, and certainly that I feel, the outrage sometimes, is when we see that kind of result falling out of our court system. I get that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to protect us and all, but often, for many of us who are not engaged in any nefarious activity of any kind, it would sometimes seem that the Charter provides greater protections for those who would do illegal acts and impinge on the rights of those who are innocent.

I'm extremely pleased that this bill is coming forward the way it is coming forward, and I really do understand the balance of probability. I do think that's going to go a long way to alleviate the concerns of a whole lot of people who sometimes don't like what falls out of our court system.

There are times that other tools have been used to prosecute those who are involved in illegal activity. I think of things like Al Capone. He went to jail in 1947, or maybe earlier — I think maybe he died in '47 — and he went to jail for evading income tax. They couldn't get him for all the illegal activity — well, other than evading income tax — but they used a different tool. This is a different tool.

I want to touch a little bit on what is happening in my community and probably, I think, in other communities. The grow ops. I was the mayor in my city for almost a decade, and through that time, grow ops were increasingly a problem, as they are all across this province. Our police chief did a bit of a study. He went back into 30 cases that the police had investigated, went through all the things they had to go through to get search warrants and actually busted the grow ops and charged the people that were involved — 30 cases.

The average cost of each of those cases to the municipality for the investigation work was about $10,000, and he found that the maximum fine imposed was $1,500. That's the maximum. There was one case where there was a prison sentence of 90 days handed down. That, I'm sure, was to a repeat offender. In a grow op situation, $1,500 is less than the cost of a business licence. That's nothing.

The penalty for operating a grow op really is tantamount to nothing. The problems associated — for the neighbours, for the neighbourhood, for the community — are huge all around these grow ops, and I consider the people who live beside them to be victims. They go without compensation. They live in fear of what might happen at any given time if their house is mistaken by those who are involved in that kind of activity and in the ripoffs and all that we hear about.

But even worse, I think about crystal meth labs and the dangers that they pose in communities. When they get caught, the same kind of thing seems to be happening. Whole neighbourhoods are being evacuated. People in hazmat suits are going in to take these crystal meth labs apart, and the lawbreakers that are running them seem to get away with very, very little more than a slap on the wrist. That's very offensive to most of the moms and pops out there, number one. Number two, there is no deterrence. The profits that these people are reaping are staggering.

This does give an opportunity to go at that problem and at least take away the big profitability from a lot of these people. That's one.

Mr. Wal-Mart, they called him. Mr. Wal-Mart is the guy who was arrested a couple of weeks ago in Maple Ridge driving a Hummer. He had two safes in the vehicle, both stuffed with drugs. He had — I can't remember the dollar amount — $15,000 or $20,000 or $30,000 in cash. He has been charged before and is well known to the police. Well, he got out with $2,000 bail. There's every likelihood that he's out conducting his business now and recouping the $2,000. He'd do that in a night.

Where's the penalty for this fellow? He's going to continue pushing those drugs out there. I'm boggled when I think about the kinds of things that are happening within the justice system with those kinds of people. This guy will leave. He'll drive away from the courthouse in his Hummer. Does anyone think he got that Hummer by working in a construction job or in an office? Where do you think he might have got that money? Gosh, I think the balance of probability…. Probably he got that Hummer by selling some of those drugs that they found in the two safes in the vehicle he was driving.

Now, he's not convicted. He hasn't been convicted of this one yet. He hasn't been to court for it yet. But even if he were found innocent in a criminal court, the chances are that he got the assets that he has from an illegal activity. This bill would at least allow us to have some sense of justice, finally, in our community for what we see as obvious for all of us — what the rest of us think of as an injustice.

In my community…. I think there are a lot of communities like that. I've heard other members of this House talk about the Viper. In my city, there are Hummers, Ferraris and Corvettes, and there are big houses and lots of gold and jewels and wads of money. These people are ostentatiously showing off their wealth with no other visible source for that money than what seems obvious to the rest of us. The kids out there also see that.

I've got kids that I have talked to who know people who are engaged in that kind of activity, and they tell me that what's frequently talked about among these kids is: "If I'm not going to university, why should I get a job in the mill when I can get a job working for him? Everybody that's working for him is driving a new Mustang and has a big wad of dough and has a boat, and he's bigger than the police now. The police can't touch him. We know he's bigger than the police." That's what our youth are saying in my community, but I don't think that's isolated. I think that's going on all over the place.

I sit there burning, watching these guys drive around in those cars, knowing what they're doing and wondering why can't we touch them somehow. I have talked to the police, and the police say they're very clever. They do have an army of kids out there selling for them, and that army of kids is divorced just enough that we can't hammer these guys in a criminal court.

But you know what? If you were to examine them as to where they got those assets — "Where did you get the money for that Ferrari, sir?" — I guarantee you that the answer, though they may make it up, could easily be tracked back. There would be absolutely no way they could show where they got that money other than, by the balance of probability, through some illegal activity.

I've heard quite a bit of talk here in this House from other members about how this could be used. "There could be innocent people entrapped, etc." So I just think about myself. Nobody could ever come to me and say: "Where did you get those assets?" — if I had any. Nobody could ever say, "Where did you get those assets?" without my being able to show where I got them. I file income tax returns.

All the money that I make runs through and is reported to the government. If I buy something, I can show where I got the money, how the money left my bank account and how I paid for it. That's how I think everybody operates. If you operate with just the cash in your pocket, you still have a record of how you got that cash. Everyone has that. If Uncle John gave you the asset, Uncle John has a record of where he got it and how he gave it to you, so all of that can be tracked back.

What this does is that this act — and this is where it's so different from the proceeds of crime legislation that has been in effect for so long in this province — takes the burden of proof off the state and puts it on the person who is in the illegal activity.

Under this proceeds of crime, the state has to prove conclusively that the money came from that illegal activity. They've got to track the money through bank accounts, and it's an impossible procedure, almost, for the Crown. That's why, under proceeds of crime legislation, we don't see a lot of stuff taken. This, though, says to the person in the illegal activity, "You prove where you got the money," rather than the state proving it. It's a shift in the burden of proof, and I think it's high time we went that way.

I just want to speak for a moment about some of the stuff I've heard in this House. The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast said earlier: "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 easier." He's saying that the police don't like the burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" because it makes their job harder. I just think that's absolutely rubbish.

This has got nothing to do with making the police job easier. The police aren't looking for a way to make their job easier, but they don't want to have a huge sack of rocks on their backs like they do now, where they work hard to bring a conviction, only to see a slap on the wrist, a $1,500 fine and all of their resources expended. For what? So the fellow can drive away in a Hummer?

This has nothing to do with making the police's work easier. The same member said that if the purpose of this is just to raise money for general revenue — if

that's all it is — then we should say that. Well, this has also got absolutely nothing to do with raising money for general revenue. Again, that's just absolute rubbish. What this has to do with is bringing a sense of justice that this province has been crying out for. Moms and pops have been crying out for a way to deal with what's been poisoning their neighbourhoods for a long time, and this bill does it.

Same member: "I would like assurances, eventually, that residents in the same home out of which phone calls could be made that involve an illegal activity will not be subject to the harsh and heavy hammer of this legislation." Then: "What about the mother of a 17-year-old who's dealing marijuana from his upstairs bedroom?" Would that mother lose her home? No, this is not aimed at that mother. This is not aimed at somebody who's living upstairs where there's somebody doing something in the basement suite. This is aimed at those who are engaged in an illegal activity and the assets they acquired from that illegal activity.

The member for Nanaimo said yesterday: "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 going to sue the drug dealer? Do we fault the drug dealer? Is it the drug dealer's responsibility?" Well, whose responsibility is it?

You know, drug dealers are sick — some of them, the ones who are addicted. I think that's maybe what he's talking about. But the ones who are dealing drugs strictly for profit, and particularly the ones who are manufacturing drugs like crystal meth, generally aren't drug addicts. They're profiteers. They are actually, in my book, murderers. There were 33 deaths last year from crystal meth, and the guys who make that stuff are murderers — nothing less.

So to say, "Are the drug dealers responsible…?" You bet they're responsible, if it's the guys who are not addicted. We need treatment, as some members have said, for those who are addicted. But those who are profiting from crime, we need to punish. If we can't get them in the court system, then we at least need to have some justice so that they're not going to profit from illegal activity in this province anymore.

Are we prepared to take property away from people in our society who have not been convicted of a crime? Well, I've just spent a considerable amount of time talking about the burden of proof — and yes. Yes, we are. We are prepared to take away the property from people who aren't convicted in a criminal court of a crime. The Mr. Wal-Marts of the world, who have absolutely no other means of support other than an illegal activity, are going to lose their assets.

I, for one, certainly applaud the Solicitor General for this brave step and for saying, "Yeah, we're going to take property away from people who are very clearly involved in illegal activities," particularly the ones who are destroying our neighbourhoods, preying on our seniors with the phoney lotto scams and all the rest of that. These people are getting bilked out of money. If we can track their assets and they're in this province, we should be taking those assets and compensating…. Another wonderful part of this bill allows us to compensate victims. The money will be taken from the person with the illegal activity, and the victims of his activity can be compensated with the very illegal profits they made. Great stuff.

The member for Maple Ridge–Mission: "Nevertheless, we must never, in my view, take lightly the civil liberties we enjoy in this country and this province. We must always guard them zealously and jealously, because they have been hard-fought-for and they are a true part of our freedom." I support that totally.

I support the right to quiet enjoyment for every person that lives in a house in this province. When the drug dealers move in next door and when they endanger your children and when they cause a huge disruption in your life and you're just sitting in your home, I would say that that's an impingement on your rights. We need to be able to correct that. This bill, I think, does protect rights — the rights of innocent of people and the rights of victims.

I think it's a wonderful way to do that. And the message it sends — wow. The message is just perfect: if you profit from an illegal activity in this province, we're coming for you, and we're coming for your assets, because you can't keep them. You know what? There are other places in the world that don't have this legislation. Maybe the message is: if you're going to be involved in an illegal activity, pick one of those areas. Don't come here, because we're taking your profit. These guys are in their illegal activity for one reason: money, profit, assets. That's the place we're hitting them here, and I think it's great.

"Our prisons are full of many folks," said the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, "unfortunately, that are mentally ill, and we need to make 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, and I…hope…the law to be enacted is not overbearing in respects such as that." I wonder, then, if that member is saying that if someone has a mental illness and, because of it, commits an illegal act but acquires a lot of assets, should those assets then be exempt simply by virtue of a mental illness? I don't think so. Why would being mentally ill say that you have a right to have assets purchased with illegally obtained funds, when someone else will have them taken away?

I think that if you're mentally ill, you should be treated. This government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on mental illness — incidentally, money that was promised by the previous government and never delivered and that is being delivered by this government. I think that people who are mentally ill should certainly be given treatment. There are lots of mitigating factors, and criminal courts do take that into account. But in terms of asset acquisition, I see no reason why, by virtue of mental illness, you should be allowed to keep assets that were acquired illegally — particularly when there are victims involved.

The victim certainly isn't going to sit back in his or her home and say: "I've lost my wealth to that person because of an illegal activity, but it's okay because they were mentally ill." I don't think that's fair, and I don't think most British Columbians would think that's fair.

The bill is a bold step. It's a bold step towards providing justice. It's a bold step towards sending a strong message — a message to the young kids that are very easily influenced across our province: "You know what? Crime doesn't pay. Illegal activity isn't going to make you wealthy. There are people out there who are looking to make sure that you don't profit from illegal activity. Better that you stay in school. Better that you get involved in an honest endeavour." I think that's a pretty good message to send, and I think this bill helps send that message.

It also sends a message to municipalities across this province crying out for help. I know how tough it is at the municipal level to sit in a city hall and try to get things under control in your city, to try to have your citizens feel they're safe in the streets and to have your citizens feel that their neighbourhoods aren't being infested with drug operations.

I've sat at a city hall level and received desperate phone calls from people who say: "The cars come every day, all hours of the night and day. They're in; they're out. They're carrying packages. We know what's going on. My kids see them. They're walking up and down. They're taking drugs openly in the front yard and in the back yard of the neighbour's house, and I can't do anything. I phone the police and they aren't able to do anything."

So when we try to intervene and talk to the police, the police tell us: "Look, we know about it. It's under surveillance, but we're very restricted in what we can do. We have to get a search warrant, and we have to do all of the things under the Charter of Rights that make it fairly difficult." "We will get there at some stage," they say, "but it may be some time. We have to prepare a case." But in the meantime the neighbours are calling city halls all over this province, crying for help.

I understand that. I understand their fear, and if there are assets being obtained, this at least allows us to do something that's based not on beyond a reasonable doubt but based on the balance of probability. When people are gathered in homes like that and are acquiring assets and you see the big cars and you know they're not working, the balance of probability is that it's funds from illegal activity.

I have to say again that I am not only proud of the Solicitor General for the way this has been developed and brought forward, but I'm proud that the government that I'm part of saw fit to bring this bold step forward now and to be openly pushing the fact that we are never going to allow the illegal activity to be profitable in this province any further.

With that, I really do appreciate the time to speak to this bill. Anytime that you can speak to a bill that has this much positive influence, everyone should think it's a great pleasure. I think the members of the opposition, too, all know this is what the communities have been crying out for.

H. Lali: I rise to speak on Bill 13, which is meant to target and seize any assets criminals may acquire. You'll have to forgive me, Madam Speaker. I just broke my reading glasses, so they're sort of hanging on the tip of my nose here.

To seize any assets criminals may acquire through illegal activity, the bill will use existing civil court rules and processes to go after property, vehicles and other assets. I'm rising to support this bill, but at the same time, I will be outlining some of the concerns that we on this side of the House have with this bill. I'll get into that in a few minutes as well.

The intent is to actually go after the property, vehicles and other assets of those individuals who are involved in criminal activity where they make financial and property gains — for instance, if somebody is showing on their income tax papers they're making only about $10,000 or $15,000 a year and yet they're able to afford these big SUVs like Navigators, and even Hummers and the like. They may have a big boat or a big house they're living in, yet they can't provide any kind of information as to how these were gained through any kind of an employment or through some investment that may have taken place.

Other countries — like the United Kingdom, Australia, etc. — and also Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario already have similar legislation. In the United Kingdom and Australia it is primarily used against the proceeds of organized crime.

Now, this bill says that the individuals and groups involved in organized crime and serious criminal activity should not be able to enjoy the proceeds of their unlawful activity. Also, it says it ensures that the victims are compensated. Preventing unlawful activities and remedying the negative effects of unlawful activities are also important goals as a result of this.

In one of the sections the bill allows the director to commence forfeiture proceedings in the Supreme Court, and the director must prove on a balance of probabilities that an unlawful activity has occurred and that the property at issue in the proceedings was either the proceeds of unlawful activity or an instrument of the unlawful activity.

We're not against…. We actually support the idea that the bill allows the director, with the approval of the Minister of Finance, to make payments out of this civil forfeiture account for several purposes, including compensation for the victims of an unlawful activity. The bill also allows victims of unlawful activity to apply for compensation from the civil forfeiture account. Essentially, the bill allows the director to decide how much a victim is paid and the manner of payment that is to proceed.

Our reading of the bill, as I mentioned earlier, has left us with several concerns that we believe must be addressed by government, and I'm hoping that in the committee stage we will be able to get to that and point

out some of these to the minister in charge and also be able to see if we can't make some improvements to this.

First of all, we are concerned with the track record of similar legislation in some of the other jurisdictions. We want to impress upon the government that they should do a full and comprehensive study — maybe they have, but I'd like to know if they have — of similar laws in some of the other jurisdictions to see what the effects of those laws have been and how they have actually ended up impacting the public and our justice system. We want the minister to actually point that out specifically. Perhaps we'll do that at committee stage.

We also feel on this side of the House that the bill is not specific enough in the types of unlawful activity it's actually targeting, and perhaps that needs to be spelled out. Should it not also be a priority to target the most serious criminal offences, including organized crime, in this province?

More importantly, I think, is that we are concerned with what this bill does not actually do in terms of crime prevention: protecting and compensating the victims of crime and also addressing the needs and concerns of the most vulnerable people in our communities. For instance, the bill does not change the fact that this government has eliminated services for victims of crime, leaving many innocent victims to actually go out and fend for themselves.

Also, the government's past record over the last four years indicates a degree of insensitivity towards victims of crime. I'll get into that in a minute. Because of the government's dramatic cuts to victim services, for instance…. There are a lot of families who have lost young children — some even older children or even parents — to a drunk driver, for instance, a violent offender or a sexual offender. The thing is that these victims are worried that perhaps they're no longer able to turn to a counsellor who would work alongside some of the provincial prosecutors to make sure those offenders are not only brought to justice but are also going to be taking some remedial kind of counselling, some treatment to make sure that they don't go out and repeat-offend.

A lot of grief-stricken relatives of people who have been murdered or have been wounded are being left scrambling for information, unable to access the expertise of a professional or unable to lean on anyone for comfort and support because of the funding cuts that this government has made over the last four years.

There are so many other important issues and problems related to this bill as well. A number of my colleagues who have spoken before me from this side of the House…. I tend to agree with the points that have been raised. I won't go into detail or even repeat a lot of those. They're on the record. Members opposite are aware of that. The minister is here. He's listening to this debate intently, and I know both he and his staff will go through that record of the statements that have been made by various members on both sides of the House in the debate that is taking place.

In terms of the many important issues and problems that have been raised, this bill does not even come close to actually addressing some of those. Actually, these problems have been created by this government through its lack of action or through cuts in funding. British Columbians are currently struggling with dramatic funding and service cuts that have been made by this government, including cuts to counselling funding for those convicted of domestic violence — I've briefly spoken about that already — but also the cuts to funding for sexual assault centres.

You know, legal aid, for instance, has been dramatically cut by this government. It compromises women's options in terms of leaving an abusive relationship — which is being able to keep their children. If they do leave, then we hear that the Crown may not prosecute cases of violence against women and, instead, offers offenders an alternative to prosecution. Then we also learned that many of B.C.'s sexual assault centres are being cut by over $100,000 each. Obviously, these changes and cuts to services will seriously compromise the safety and the security of women and their children.

I'm just going to go back to legal aid, for instance. Who are the people who use legal aid? Well, the people who use legal aid are the ones who can't afford to go out and get a lawyer of their own, because they don't have the funds available through their employment to be able to hire…. It's the $100-, $200- or $300-an-hour fee or whatever fee lawyers these days charge. So they turn to legal aid. Who are these people? These are people who are amongst the disadvantaged groups in our society. Often we call these groups equity groups — aboriginal people, for instance. Most aboriginal people in this province live under the poverty line and live on social assistance. These are people of colour, visible minorities.

You know, there are a lot of visible minorities across this great province of ours who have been here for a long time, who have been able to make economic and financial advances, employment advances through their hard work and through their education over the last ten, 20 or 30 years.

But these aren't the people I'm talking about. What I'm talking about are the people in the visible minority groups who are lower-income or newly arrived immigrants, who basically come to this country looking for a better life and better economic opportunities. They come here with just the shirt on their back, just the clothes that they're wearing and maybe just a small suitcase full of clothing.

We're also talking here about women. A lot of women — especially single mothers or those women who have been involved in situations with an abusive

Also, persons with disabilities. As you know, most people who are disabled, mentally or physically, are not able to compete in the workforce on the level that most of us, if not all of us, in this House are able to enjoy. You know, we're healthy. We've had good records of employment in the past with the skills that we have learned. We are able to go out and find gainful employment commensurate with our education and skills and make a decent wage. MLAs — we don't make a wage that's going to make us rich or anything, but we make a decent wage in this province that is able to sustain us while we do our duties.

The people that I'm talking about are the ones who belong to this family of equity groups and also their disadvantaged slot in society. They are the ones who are most likely to use legal aid if they are in some sort of trouble or if they are the victims of crime. So when the government made massive cuts to legal aid, these are the people they were hurting.

What does this bill address to help these folks? I talked earlier, briefly, about the cuts to sexual assault services by this Liberal government. For instance, I'm going to read from the B.C. Institute Against Family Violence. Penny Bain, the executive director, says: "The Solicitor General's cuts to sexual assault programs will create significant barriers to women obtaining the health and justice system services required to address the complex issues arising from these assaults. The ministry should address the need for more sexual assault services in the province by increasing support for victims rather than by cutting well-established and oversubscribed services."

There have also been cuts to rape crisis counselling as well. We're really concerned about that. In 2002 the government cut funding to community-based victim assistance programs and sexual assault centres by more than $1 million.

I've already talked about legal aid. Hon. Speaker, legal aid itself was slashed by 40 percent, and I just gave you an example of the kind of cuts that are hurting the victims of crime already. This bill doesn't do anything to address that.

We're also worried that by forfeiting a person's assets and property as a result of this bill…. Without rehabilitation, how does this bill actually help that individual who is a criminal, who is involved in criminal activity? How does this bill actually try and help to rehabilitate that person through social services or the criminal justice system? Or are we just putting that person in a position where they are more likely to become a repeat offender? That is a worry on this side of the House. The Solicitor General, the ministry, has to take that into account and make sure that these improvements to this bill are going to be made at the committee stage.

We're also worried that rather than pursuing organized criminals through the criminal justice system, in which the standard of proof is high, the government will ignore the criminal liability of those people. Will the government only hold them civilly liable for their crimes? It's a worry. It's a worry for a lot of people out there, as well, who are worried that some of these criminals may, on the one side, lose their property because of this bill but then be free on the other liability side of things.

I'm also worried that the government's pursuit of civil forfeiture will be at the expense of criminal prosecutions by the Crown. Will resources put towards the former, which I mentioned, take away resources that are directed to the latter part? We're worried about that.

I guess there's always a worry that…. There are folks out there who are able to gain goods, you can say — whether they're cars or boats or big houses — through their own hard work and through their investments that they may have made. They are good, honest, hard-working citizens, or they may have had the fortune of having an older relative — perhaps a grandfather, a grandmother or an older uncle or somebody passing away — leave them a small fortune, with which they are able to go out and acquire these goods and products.

We are worried on this side of the House that this bill may go too far in not be able to actually see the difference — whether they're going after actual organized criminal activity or somebody who is an honest individual, who's been able, through hard work or through good fortune, to buy themselves a big house and properties and other things. These are the kinds of things that we on this side of the House are worried about.

You know, I understand where the government is coming from. They want to lower criminal activity in this province and be able to help victims who can be compensated through the forfeiture of these products that criminals may have been able to accumulate. I understand that, because there is quite a bit of criminal activity that takes place, I know, in all parts of the province, especially in the lower mainland, where you see a lot of folks….

It doesn't matter what ethnic group they're from. Crime cuts across all ethnic lines, and history has proven that. Criminal activity exists not only with longtime residents or Canadian citizens who've lived in this province for a long time but also amongst the new immigrant communities that have come here — whether they've come from Europe, other parts of North or South America or from East Asia or South Asia. We see that happening, actually, sometimes on a larger scale with gangs being formed.

Being a member of an Indo-Canadian community, I see that element. There are a few bad apples in our community who, also, are involved in this gang-related activity. I know the government means well by going after some of those bad apples who are involved in gangs, in large-scale, underground importing or production of drugs and then the distribution and sale of the drugs, the proceeds from which they actually end up buying, in many instances, large homes or driving

around these large SUVs. I know the intent of this bill is to go after individuals like that.

I am worried that this law may be used or misused. I don't think anybody's going to be going out of their way to use it — but inadvertently be misused. There are so many people, not just in the Indo-Canadian community but also in a lot of other communities, ethnic communities — it doesn't matter what part of the world that they come from — who've worked hard for a living. They've been able to save. They've been able to make investments. Many folks have had parents who were fairly well off leave behind a sizeable inheritance. A lot of these folks have land that they own in India. They may have sold that land and brought the proceeds over. I'm worried that this bill does not inadvertently target those people.

Like I said, I just want to be clear. I'm not saying that the law is going to purposely do this, but I'm saying sometimes it could happen inadvertently. I'm just worried that does not happen in all these instances.

Like I said, I'm going to wrap up here. I believe that the intent of this bill is good, and I know what the government is attempting to do by going after the property of criminal activity. Then victims are able to go after it. But I also want the government to be mindful that they should not solely depend on this to try to compensate victims or to help victims get the services they need.

The government has to take a look at itself in the mirror and point some fingers at itself in that the funding the government has cut over the last four years has put victims of criminal activity and even domestic criminal activity in a bad situation. They are unable to fend for themselves or defend themselves because of cuts to sexual assault centres, cuts to rape crisis counselling and also cuts to legal aid funding that have taken place under this government.

I want the government to be mindful of that, and I'm looking forward to committee stage where we can put forward some of our positive points and alternatives to the Solicitor General in that debate.

Hon. R. Coleman: I rise to speak about this legislation as a member of this House who probably knows more about its history than any other member of the Legislature. I hark back to many years ago — and I mean many years ago — when I was in the RCMP back in the early 1970s. Back in the 1970s a piece of legislation like this might not even be necessary, not because of the fact we didn't have tools out there for law enforcement, but because some of those tools were actually used, and they were available. They were dealt with on aspects of criminal investigations that led to the issues in and around whether somebody had actually accumulated their funds by illegal means, had bought assets or whatever by illegal means, by a certain process.

That process was this. My father was in charge of the special I section for Revenue Canada back in the 1970s. The special I section used to work very closely with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other law enforcement agencies. When there was a file identified on a large organized crime scale or a large drug scale, information was passed over to Canada Customs and Revenue — as we knew it then, Revenue Canada. They would launch an investigation and conduct an audit. They had more powers under their legislation than this bill will ever give to anyone. Anyone that's ever had the experience and the joy of seeing that expressionless person come to your business and want to do an audit, who comes from Revenue Canada, will know exactly what I'm speaking about today.

What happened three, four years ago was this. Justice ministers in this country met, and they said to the federal government: "We would like you to start using those powers again to help us fight organized crime." The gauntlet was thrown down to the federal government as an opportunity. It wasn't picked up. So we, as justice ministers of the time, talked about bringing in civil forfeiture legislation in our particular jurisdictions so that we could move forward and try and either put pressure on or find a piece of legislation that would give us success when it comes to civil forfeiture of crime.

I heard someone here a minute ago talk about somebody getting an inheritance. If you know anything about forensic audits, you'll know that it's easy to track where the asset came from and where the money came from to find out whether it was by legal or illegal means. You will know that there are aspects of it…. We have people that specialize in that in our own Organized Crime Agency that can track this information in our own criminal element in British Columbia today.

I heard somebody yesterday say, "Gee, it's taken two and a half years to get this legislation to the floor of this House," and I can tell you why that was — simply because in British Columbia, when we draft legislation, we interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms somewhat differently than some of the other Canadian jurisdictions do. So the time spent on checking the language and drafting the legislation is somewhat more extensive in this province than it is in other jurisdictions.

But the reality of it is this. We started out in 2001 to try and build a relationship in the province of British Columbia that geared us to public safety and started to build a plan with our law enforcement community and provide them with the tools to deal with all aspects of crime in our province. That was no small feat to start with, simply because a previous administration chose not to meet with the law enforcement community, chose not to build a five-year plan for policing, chose not to have discussions about innovation and the future of how we can protect our communities, and therefore we've seen a couple of things happen.

The first thing we saw happen was no attention to budget or performance on the provincial police force. When we came into office in 2001 there was such a level of vacancies in the provincial police force of British Columbia that there were communities in British Columbia that had no policing and should have had.

The reason was because they would never deal with their budget or provide them the resources that were necessary. The RCMP was having to manage its budget for the provincial police force with vacancies. They were managing by vacancy.

The first thing we had to accomplish was to try and bring this thing together to get some stability and have them fill their vacancies in British Columbia. While we did that, we sat down with the law enforcement community at the municipal and the provincial level and said: "What are the tools you need in order for you to do your job? What are the directions you'd like to see law enforcement go in the future so you can get more efficiencies?"

They talked about a number of things. They talked about things like integration, specialized teams, operations that they could use to actually build on things and different opportunities that exist as tools for the law enforcement community to do their job. On that list was the ability to (a) either change the Criminal Code so that there would be an easier way for the large amount of paperwork that was required to go after the assets of criminals under the forfeiture of criminal proceeds, or (b) find another way to do it.

Well, I can tell you, when you have the discussion with the federal government about legislation…. Anybody that's been in the law profession in this province will know that changing the Criminal Code is like watching a snail go across a piece of sidewalk in your front yard. It is a lengthy, time-consuming process that seldom gets to the end goal where we can protect communities.

So we started out to build the tools, and as we started to build those tools, we had discussions with justice ministers across the country. We were the first people to sit at a table at a national level and say, "Crystal meth is coming your way," three years ago. We were the first people, and so much so, to deal with the whole aspect of grow ops. I'll never forget my first justice ministers' meeting as a Solicitor General in those days, sitting across the table from justice ministers and talking about grow ops and getting a blank stare only four years ago. It wasn't on their radar screen.

I remember my last justice ministers' meeting where Ontario, Quebec and the prairies all said that one of the most significant problems we have in our jurisdiction today is grow ops, because they're being funnelled by organized crime. They are like a cash flow for organized crime. We said that in 2001 and 2002. We identified organized crime as a huge issue in British Columbia in 2001-2002. I can remember members of this House in opposition and people that ran for government — for opposition this time and didn't form government — deriding me publicly about the fact that I was talking about organized crime, that it was a problem in British Columbia. Somewhere between then and now, they've had an epiphany that it actually exists in B.C., and it does. It really, really does.

Grow ops fuel the gun trade and the crystal meth trade. The other drugs in our society are paid for by the cash crop that we have there. It is structured where we have the Hell's Angels and other organized crime groups involved in it every single day. These people go out there and destroy your and my communities, because they don't care.

Somebody says: "Well, okay, so how's that?" I'm going to give you one example: 252 samples of drugs were taken out of the Vancouver club trade — everything from Ecstasy to marijuana to heroin and cocaine. In that one survey over 52 percent of those drugs that are sold on the streets of Vancouver were laced with crystal meth. Somebody says that maybe we should be soft on a tool that might go after organized crime in our society — people that are ruining the lives of our children? As far as I'm concerned, if I had my way, this bill would be tougher, not weaker, than it is today.

I noticed how, in debates last night, some people glommed on to the fact that some of the money that we get from this might, heaven forbid, go to victims. They talked about the cuts to victims programs, and they talked of what they did about victims programs.

Let me set the record straight. There was never a cut in the Solicitor General's Ministry to victims programs, but I can tell you what happened, just so you know. In 2001, as the minister of the day, we took a look at the programs that serve victims in B.C. We went around to communities all across the province and talked to law enforcement, and we talked to people that were delivering programs in communities.

In one community that is now the home riding of a member of the opposition, the RCMP and the community group told us this: "Do you know you're spending $50,000 a year on a victims program here for special needs, for special victims programs in a community of under 5,000 people?" Yet we had the worst piece of highway in the entire country, where we have more fatalities, and we had no police-based victims program. Why were we spending money that way?

We did a review, and we looked at what we faced. In those days, do you realize that we had 22 — count them; 22 — different telephone lines in different communities all over the province of British Columbia — where sometimes a person that had a rape crisis would phone in and get a recording. They could leave a voice message, and maybe somebody would get back to them in an hour, two hours or ten hours. We had situations where you'd phone in and get a pager number, and you might get a call back. We had very few that were actually manned by people 24 hours a day. Almost exclusively, they were unilingual, in one language — almost exclusively.

So we said: "Look, this doesn't work. Let's take all the languages of British Columbia, let's have one telephone line called VictimLINK, let's put specialized people on that phone so they can refer people to the right places, and let's get it up and running." We helped tens of thousands more people with better services in the last three years since VictimLINK went into place than any other time in the history of the province.

Then we took the next step. We said: "Let's see how our money's targeted. Let's see where the values of the

programs are and how the outcomes are." So we did that. We did that again with community groups.

As we came through that process, this is what we found out. If we retargeted, and we actually structured the victims programs differently in British Columbia, we could do two absolutely incredible things. First of all, we could make sure that the victims programs that existed were stable. Second, though, we could do something that had never been done in any jurisdiction in Canada: find funding within the envelope to create victims programs in any community in the province that had four police officers or more in it. We funded 18 new police-based victims programs in British Columbia as a result of that review.

In addition to that, we knew that in communities of 100,000 people or more, we had an issue with regard to how we could help victims of other crimes, people that were sexually assaulted, where they needed to have other specialized victim support.

As we did that review, we created seven new specialized victims programs in the province. If somebody wants to stand up and say that restructuring and helping 18 additional communities, by creating seven new specialized victims programs and giving tens of thousands of people the opportunity to get help through a victim line in B.C. in any language they speak, was a mistake, go ahead and criticize us. We did the right thing on that program.

As we came through, as we've done with civil forfeiture, the review of tools that are required for law enforcement in communities on crime prevention and services, we looked at something else. We used to have a thing in British Columbia called a Criminal Injury Compensation Act. Now, in the Criminal Injury Compensation Act, there was over $22 million spent, supposedly, on support for victims in British Columbia.

We took a look at the Criminal Injury Compensation Act, which had its beginnings back in the days when the Workers Compensation Board wasn't providing victims assistance. So given the history — I'm not going to belabour whether it was one government or another, because it obviously transferred over a number of years…. What we found was this. Out of the $22 million being spent on victims programs, $8.5 million went out in pain-and-suffering claims to victims of crime. The average claim, we found, on the settlement was between $2,500 and $3,000 a victim.

A victim of crime, in order to get compensation, had to go through a tribunal process. They were actually revictimized by having to go through a process with the Workers Compensation Board tribunals to get to where somebody would recognize the damage they received in injury from a crime. What we did is spend time, as folks in our collective governments, revictimizing victims in order that they could get some help.

The other thing we found was absolutely remarkable, and that was that we were paying almost $5 million a year, out of $22 million in administration fees, to the Workers Compensation Board. We had over $12 million of a total $22 million fund going to things that either revictimized victims or gave administration to someone else.

We said that was wrong, so we created the Crime Victim Assistance Act and we changed things. What we did is we said that we want to get services to victims of crimes immediately when they've been victimized, and we want to add children of people who have lost a loved one through a homicide and other crimes. We want to add families. We want to add counselling and a bunch of other services.

This is what we did. We passed the Crime Victim Assistance Act. We retargeted the dollars, and today this is what the benefits of the program include: medical and dental care; vocational rehabilitation for victims and members of victims' families; income support for victims or victims' families relating to lost or reduced income or an inability to provide services provided to self or to their family; counselling for the victim and the victim's family; protective measures to ensure the victim's safety; physical rehabilitation; travelling expenses for the victim or victims' families; repair or maintenance of prescribed personal property; compensation to victims' families for loss of love, guidance or affection; counselling for witnesses of serious crimes; and funeral expenses for families of victims. None of that was available under the Criminal Injury Compensation Act.

So what would you like to criticize us for here — that we actually retargeted dollars and gave more services to victims on the ground within a short period of time or revictimized them through a tribunal process for two years? I pick the second solution — the one that says we'll give more services to victims for the same money immediately when they need it, rather than revictimizing them through the Criminal Injury Compensation Board.

As you build these tools, what you do is say: "Now that we've gone past the process of looking at how we improve our victims programs and their delivery, we start to look at other tools we can give them, whether it be things on impaired driving, issues around speeding, issues around traffic safety, issues around street racing — where British Columbia has the most innovative laws in North America." All of those things had to be dealt with as tools for police, as we came through that.

As we came through that process, we also recognized that we needed to do some other things. When we became government, there was an organization called the Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia. It was a separate, stand-alone agency that wasn't fully integrated with law enforcement on organized crime. We sat down with law enforcement and had a conversation about the $9 million or $10 million we were spending there and the additional money we put into some specialized investigations — which I'm going to get to in a second — and said: "What's the real model here?" Shouldn't it be an integrated unit, and shouldn't it be under the management of the provincial police force — there's a reason for that, which I'll get to — or should it be a stand-alone unit that's going to

What we did is we created the integrated force for organized crime. We put it in management with the provincial police force, and we did that for two reasons. The Organized Crime Agency at nine-point-some million dollars a year was 100 percent dollars to British Columbia. As soon as it becomes a provincial unit integrated with other municipal forces around the province, it becomes a part of the provincial police budget. When it does that, the province gets a cost sharing. They get 30-cent dollars from the federal government. So even just by making the one move, we found three million extra dollars to fight organized crime.

When we did that, we also saw something else happen. We saw the integration of that unit with the national gang task force. The national gang units and other organized crime agencies across the country started to bear some fruit. We saw some specific opportunities for investigations, where additional funds were asked for and given for investigations.

You've seen recently that some of the organized crime groups in British Columbia have had a little bit of shot at them where they've been arrested because they have been charged by police. For the first time in Canadian history in British Columbia, we're actually going after the Hell's Angels as an organized crime unit, as a group, under the Criminal Code. That was an investment made about three years ago today on the belief that we had people in law enforcement in B.C. that needed the tools to do their jobs. We gave them to them, and they succeeded, and that's the way it should be.

In addition to that, we have some other pressures out there that have to do with giving tools to police. One of them is in some of our ethnic communities, where we've seen a disproportionate number of homicides of young people, oftentimes involved in the drug trade. We sat down in that community two years ago and said: "Look, guys, we and the previous government funded a package for a couple of years of about $4 million. It had minimal success in solving homicides within this community. We need to have a new integrated unit to do this, but we need to build a relationship with the community so we can get a free flow of information to have some success."

We committed to fund it — $6.8 million a year for the gang task force. The gang task force is not just tasked with dealing with those homicides but is also tasked with dealing with the whole aspect around gangs in British Columbia. As a result of it and their integration with gang investigation units across the country, they're having huge successes.

At the same time, we said to police: "What other tools do you need?" They said: "We think an integrated homicide unit would work." So the first integrated unit we actually did in B.C. was the integrated homicide unit. That particular unit has people on it from all the law enforcement community across the lower mainland and the RCMP. All the homicide files are in one place. All the intelligence and all the investigators are on one team. Today, the best solve rate of any homicide unit in North America is the integrated homicide unit in British Columbia.

It's about tools. It's about giving them the tools to do their job, and part of the tools is giving them the tools to push back on people that want to profit or benefit from crime. They asked for an integrated unit, as did MLAs and communities along the SkyTrain unit. Before, they were all special constables. They didn't have powers of police. They had very limited powers. Today we have an 82-officer policing unit with broader powers, integrated into the rest of the law enforcement community. So the intelligence that's picked up on the SkyTrain can be shared with communities along the line. That was done because people in the law enforcement community knew that another tool, another piece of integration could work, just like civil forfeiture is going to work as a piece of the tools, of puzzles, for communities in British Columbia.

Something else we found out as we came through this whole process of finding tools…. Remember, it's because we were actually able to sit down and have a discussion with law enforcement. The police came to us a number of years ago, about two actually, and said: "We think there is a significant benefit if we would have an integrated sexual predator operations team." First of all, they had to explain to us what that meant. It meant that they know, the communities know, that the sexual predators that have continuously committed serious crimes are going to re-offend or breach their probation when they leave custody or leave court. In actual fact, the statistics at the time were rather scary, because it's usually within 72 hours of coming out of the criminal justice system that they will breach.

We agreed to fund a pilot project. We put an integrated sexual predator operations team out on the ground, and this is what happened. In a 30-day period, 45 arrests, charges, offences and people taken off the street who breached their probation, who were sexual predators in B.C.

So now that you have the proof of the tool, what did we do? We funded a permanent integrated sexual predator operations team in British Columbia because of the fact that the law enforcement community could have the dialogue on tools that they needed for policing and protection of communities in British Columbia.

One of the most significant things that's taking place in our country today and worldwide is this. There's another aspect of an organized side of crime that takes place. It really is not so much for a revenue side but from a side of absolute destruction of lives, and that is the child pornography activity that takes place on the Internet. We know through technology that if we put a specialized team on that with integration again, we can track these back to the source and get this material off the street and get people off the street that would abuse children and use their pictures internationally around the world.

We sat down with law enforcement communities across this country and talked about this. Today in

British Columbia we do have an integrated team of people who specialize in that particular aspect of crime and who are already having success with their counterparts in Toronto, New York and other places around the world because they were able to talk to us about the tools they needed like civil forfeiture, because somebody says we can build this tool. You can imagine that we're spending a lot of time during those periods of time building these tools for the community.

While that's going on, we come upon another aspect that the police and, this time, the Crown and the courts told us about. They said this: "These organized crime files are very big, and they're very complex. From the time you start on what might come out of a wiretap or a piece of investigation and you start tracking the paws and the tentacles of this thing that go out, you find you have a very sophisticated criminal organization."

The police will conduct an investigation and then bring all this together for the Crown. They have to try and educate the Crown to be able to go forward and to go after the criminal organization as well as to charge the people involved in the file, whether it be for drugs, money laundering, credit card fraud or whatever the case may be.

A suggestion to us was this. Why don't you put a special prosecution team together to work with the integrated organized crime guys so when they get a major file, they're there at the beginning of the file, so they can give the legal advice coming through the file, and so they can build a prosecution as we build the file, and we get through the end game, and we get a better result?

What did we do? We funded a special prosecution team for organized crime, one that is out there today working with our communities to protect our communities and get the job done. As they come through those files, they need a tool like civil forfeiture, because they're going to find out where these assets are. In these investigations they're going to find out where their money's hidden and where the assets are, and they need to have the tool to take off the one thing of organized crime that is the head of the snake, that keeps it going, and that's money — that's money and assets. We shouldn't be sitting back and being shy about the fact that we think these people should be held accountable and that we should do something about it.

As we came through all these aspects of crime to get to where we're talking about this bill today and other tools that they wanted, a number of other things happened. We had a huge problem with auto theft, so ICBC and the police community came to us and said: "Why don't we try a bait car program? Why don't we fund that, and see what we can get?"

We picked one community, and we did it. We saw an 18-percent drop in auto theft through the bait car program. So we expanded it across the lower mainland. Today it's expanded across the province. You've all seen some of the visuals on TV of these people. In one case one fellow we caught was actually stealing between eight and 12 cars a day — just taking it, smashing up one, grabbing another one, taking it, smashing it up, grabbing another one, taking it, smashing it up, grabbing another one.

Frankly, the only problem with that whole program is the lack of understanding of the criminal justice system that for repeat offenders at some point in time…. If they're back before you ten, 15, 20 and 30 times for the same crime, then maybe they're not getting the message, and you can no longer give them probation or suspended sentence or house arrest. Maybe it's time to do something about them.

As we go through that and look at all the other tools, communities told us they need a number of things. One thing that had been very clear early on was that communities that paid for their policing were under significant pressure because of the cost of policing in their communities. Somebody the other night talked about $100,000 in community policing officers in Vancouver that were cut by agreement with the former mayor of the city of Vancouver because he thought he had too many officers. It was one-time funding — one of those one-time fundings that government did.

Instead of giving them $100,000, we gave over $5 million in traffic fines back to them to make the decisions about community policing, make the decisions about how many police officers they need to hire and all of those aspects of crime. And as we came through all that, there were a number of other things that we identified. There were tools that should have been done for policing, just like this act.

One of them was that we noticed how much money was being spent by ICBC in communities for different things like CounterAttack, corridor patrol, different types of things like that, and it was in the millions. The law enforcement community told us that instead of adding new officers into their complement, what they would do is have officers come in on their days off. They'd pay them time and a half or double time to do additional duty in traffic enforcement, CounterAttack and that sort of thing. If you took $15 million and multiply it by another half, that's….

You have $22 million sitting out there that's actually giving you $15 million of return.

On the ICBC thing, this was what was happening. We were tracking and actually seeing people taking

days off from their regular duty because they were out there doing time-and-a-half duty on ICBC money. So we said: "Well, look, why don't you sign an agreement with us and the provincial police force, and we'll take those funds and put them into full-time officers."

So this is what happened. Remember again that the provincial police force spends 70-cent dollars on an officer, and we're paying 150-cent dollars for the officers that ICBC would fund in the communities.

We took that money. We built an integrated traffic unit that is rolling out around the province as we speak. One was just recently announced by the Solicitor General in my home riding last week. We identified that we needed a specialized traffic helicopter in the lower mainland. We funded all that and funded an additional hundred police officers in the provincial police force who are now out there every day visibly policing our communities in support….

Hon. R. Coleman: And a hundred more — visibly policing our communities. What comes from that is increased intelligence.

Hon. members, I should also tell you this. Some of the most heinous and major crimes in Canadian history have been solved by the observation of an officer on the street because of something they picked up when they stopped a car. That's why the visibility and adding those police officers was so critical.

As we did that, we found out a number of other things. We needed to start to work on a few aspects of other tools in our community. One of them we became aware of as a tool was AMBER alert. So we went to work on a piece of legislation to create AMBER alert in British Columbia. We sat down with the broadcasters of B.C., the law enforcement community. Just so the members of this House understand, AMBER alert is when a child is abducted and it's considered by evidence from a very strict rule of package that a child is at risk. An AMBER alert is issued across the airwaves and across all of the province for people out there to know what to look for.

We have been fortunate since we put AMBER alert in place that we haven't had to use it in British Columbia, and I hope the day never comes. I do know that we were once within half an hour of doing it before we recovered the child. I think it's an important piece of tools that police came to us about.

They also talked to us about a sex offender registry. A sex offender registry is a major challenge because of the cooperation of the federal government and other jurisdictions across the country. We've agreed that with CPIC, we'll put it into it — the new evolution of CPIC. The challenge with that, of course, is this. We need to have it visual, we need to have geo-mapping, and we need to have retroactivity. These are things that the federal government and other jurisdictions haven't necessarily been prepared to cooperate on in order for that to actually be something that would work.

If you did the job of Solicitor General and worked with police in this province for any length of time, you would understand this — that under any circumstances, we need to give them the tools. We have to give them the tools in order to do their job. Whether it's the conversation we had with them one day when we had a real huge issue in and around street racing in British Columbia…. They said: "If we could just seize the car when we caught a street racer, the difference it would make." We changed it so that they could. It was a little thing, but it was an important thing. What they said to us was this: "If you don't seize the car, the passenger gets in and drives, and we get the continuation of the behaviour."

They asked us to improve on the graduated licensing program, an initiative started by the former NDP government and one of the best initiatives for public safety on our roads ever put together in our jurisdiction. It was improved statistically, because we had five years of the program in place, so we could look at it. The reason for the improvements was this. By having the proper statistical information and doing an intelligence-based type of operation, we determined that disproportionately, the number of accidents — serious and injury accidents — went up based on the number of passengers for young people under the age of 25. That's why there's a passenger load restriction on the new graduated licensing program in British Columbia — because we're going to save an average of 20 lives and save 3,500 injury accidents and 15,000 accidents overall as a result of that single change.

A tool that law enforcement and the communities asked for — no different than this act. It's a tool. It's a tool for us to be able to do certain things to build on the future for our communities. We said we were going to pass the Civil Forfeiture Act in the last election. We had introduced it in the House in the spring so we could have a look at it with our communities. We did that. It's before the House today. I can tell you that the communities that I spoke to in my former position were always in favour of this piece of legislation, simply because they saw it for what it was: one more tool to actually make it clear that in British Columbia we were not going to be soft. In fact, we're going to give tools to policemen in B.C.

Over the four-year period that I sat in that office, I attended four significant funerals of police officers — one funeral that was a national day of mourning for four police officers killed in Mayerthorpe, Alberta; three for officers that were killed in British Columbia and one other that took place in British Columbia as well. I left that portfolio with one deep personal attachment, and that was to the people that go out and make those split-second decisions every night — not because I'd been one of them. When I did their job, it was a whole lot simpler than it is today.

Today we ask law enforcement to go out on our streets and put their lives on the line in a lot more violent world. We ask that they make a split-second decision like that, which we as society will second-guess for six months to a year or two years from now. We ask

them to work shift work. We ask them to be away from their families and work overtime. We ask their families to put up with the stress of a very difficult job as it walks through the door every night.

A police officer doesn't know, when they get out of a car and walk up to the door of any car they might stop…. There's a little shot of adrenaline that hits them, of nervousness about what they might come across, because that's their job to do. They are incredibly dedicated, incredibly special people.

They are also people who are teaching our kids soccer and hockey, are part of our service clubs in our community and are very much part of our lives. These are the front line of our community, the front line between organized crime — people who would rather gouge us and take away our lifestyle — and a civil society.

Law enforcement in British Columbia is so special. It is as good as anywhere in the world and should be respected for that. Whether we be members of this House or members of the public…. Every opportunity you get, say thank you. That's all. Next time you walk into a coffee shop and see a police officer having coffee, just walk by and say, "Thank you. I appreciate what you do for my community," because they do care.

If they care that much and they're prepared to take that risk and defend our communities, they deserve to have any piece of legislation that will help them do their job and fight back at organized crime, like the Civil Forfeiture Act.

Let's get on with it. Let's get this act passed and do what's right for the police officer community and our communities in British Columbia for public safety. That's why I support this piece of legislation.

R. Austin: I'm happy to have this opportunity to get up and speak to Bill 13. I'd like to begin by thanking the Minister of Forests and Range for giving me a history of his last four years as Solicitor General. It was extremely informative. I want to thank him for that. He'll be happy to hear that I'm going to start off by saying that I believe that the intent of this bill is a good one and that it deserves my support and will be getting my support.

I have listened to the debate where people have expressed concern from a civil liberties view, whereby we might be going down a slippery slope. My own view is that in constructing a judicial system that recognizes the power of the state and the relative weakness of an accused to mitigate this power, we have probably gone too far in limiting the ability of law enforcement to do what we all know is the right thing.

In my mind, this bill does not threaten the civil liberties of the kinds of criminals…. I put it this way. When I consider criminals, I put them into two categories. I think of criminals as those people who have got such unfortunate circumstances that they have ended up as criminals. I also, like my fellow member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, spent some time working in a jail, and I met many of those people.

Then there are those criminals who are good at it, who make a living at it and are very successful at it. I don't believe that this bill will attack the criminals who are already in such a horrible state in their life. I believe that this bill will attack those who we are trying to get after — namely, the drug dealers and the organized criminals.

I think we all have to recognize that the burden of proof in a criminal court is extremely high. If you have a smart lawyer or a highly paid lawyer — and sometimes there is a connection between those two — then all you have to do is have one of those people working for you, and as the perpetrator, you can get off and return to your luxury lifestyle. This is wrong, and this bill, I believe, by changing the burden of proof to that of the civil code, is the right thing to do.

My riding of Skeena is a small community. We all know who the drug dealers are. The police all know who the drug dealers are. The users know who they are. Their neighbours know who they are. Their kids know who they are. Yet the police still find it very difficult to put them away.

I want to tell a couple of anecdotes. Last year I was having dinner with my kids around the table, and my son started commenting about one of his friends and all the new things that his parents had recently bought for him. So I listened for a little while. I said: "Oh, that's very interesting. Those are really nice new toys. What do his parents do for a living?"

My 14-year-old son said: "Well, they sell drugs." I said: "Oh, okay. How do you know that?" He said: "Because their son, who's my age, brings them to school." That's his cut. That's how he was able to buy all these things. So there you go.

I also want to mention that just over a year ago I was in a liquor store buying a bottle of wine in Terrace, and the gentleman in front of me — it was a summer's day; he was wearing shorts — bought a large 40-pounder of rye. When it came time to pay, he kneeled down and took a whole wad of bills out of his sock. It was this thick, and it was $100 bills. Now, I happen to know who that person is. He's well-known in our community. He's been to jail once. I think he got out after nine months after selling cocaine up there — nine months. But the point is this. When he came back out, he went back to that wonderful lifestyle, and he carries wads of cash that most people in my riding never get to see. Obviously, we have a serious problem.

Yesterday I heard the member for Langley say that it upsets her when her kids think that crime pays, and I agree. I also want to point out, though, that there are other categories that this bill should address. I want to speak specifically about those people who benefit from white-collar crime. We talk about the drug dealers and those in organized crime. But we should also recognize that probably the most profitable part of crime is white-collar crime. We've seen, in the last few years, people making not hundreds of thousands of dollars but tens of millions of dollars out of the corporate sector.

In the United States, finally we're starting to see people whose decisions, whose lying and avarice, have changed the lives of people. People have lost their pensions. People have lost all their savings because certain executives and certain corporations have done the wrong thing. I hope that once we come and start to address those issues in Canada, because certainly one cannot expect there to be only dishonest executives in the United States and none here…. But I hope that this bill will also address that. If we find there are people in publicly held companies who are making decisions, knowing that they are lying to the shareholders and stating that the facts are this and giving it to their accountant, saying: "Here you go. I know that these are the right facts…." Then they sell their stock or their stock options just before the company crumbles, and the truth comes out. Those people walk away with millions of dollars, and I hope that this bill will also address that fact.

When people abuse their power and are deemed to be pillars of the community and live in exclusive homes as a result of their avarice and larceny, they also should have the proceeds of their crime taken away. So I hope it's not just the drug dealers and the members of organized crime.

I would also like to say that in reference to some of the comments that were made yesterday…. It bothered me a little bit that the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine, who is also an ex–police officer, made comments that suggested that we need to just throw people away and lock the key. I don't think those were appropriate comments to make, having worked in a jail. I can understand that as a law enforcement officer, it's easy to get that kind of attitude. Policemen spend so much time working with people who have been labelled as criminals and who are regarded as sometimes being the low-lifes or the scum of humanity that it's easy to think that their lives are worthless.

I want to just state for the public record that there are many people in the criminal justice system whose lives were not theirs to necessarily control, and I agree that while we should all be held responsible for our actions, it's not fair just to write people off as easily as that. So I hope that we can make a distinction in this House between those who are actively going out there and organizing to destroy people's lives and those who are lowly criminals, and recognize that there's a difference between the two.

I hope that when we reach the committee stage, we can go into greater detail on this bill and put forward some suggestions that may be useful in making sure that this is the best piece of legislation going forward. But in principle, I am certainly in favour of this bill.

I. Black: Taking the profit out of unlawful activity — that's the main theme running through most of the commentary that we've heard from members on both sides of the House on this bill. I think it would not be too much of a stretch to suggest that members on both sides, from all of the comments we've heard so far, would agree on a couple of basic points.

We would agree that society cannot condone when unlawful people profit from their activities. So far, I think there's agreement on that. So far, I think there's also agreement that we cannot allow our society to get to the point where we allow crime to be accepted as a going business, not unlike the corner store. There's also agreement so far that the exploitation of the vulnerable and blatant intimidation of our society's members are unacceptable. We cannot condone that notion, and I think that is agreed on both sides of the floor. It's also not condoned by my constituents, and it's on their behalf that I stand once again in this chamber to address this particular bill.

The constituency of Port Moody–Westwood is served by two first-rate policing organizations. The first is the RCMP, which covers Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra, and the second is the Port Moody police force. The chief there is an individual with whom I spent a fair amount of time talking about crime and the main concerns of our constituents. And while health care would certainly be one of the first, if not the first concern at a very general level within my constituency, law and order is without question very, very close behind that. While it would be too easy to oversimplify the issue, let there be no mistake that the proceeds of unlawful activity are, without question, tied to the increase in all types of crime and in particular the area of crystal meth, which I'll come back to in a little bit.

When you're addressing this, one of the first questions to ask, of course, is why we would be concerned about this and who ultimately pays when criminal or unlawful activity takes place. The answer is: we all do. The aggravating and really annoying and arguably insulting part of that is that they enjoy a lifestyle at our expense. We pay in terms of increased health care costs, mental illnesses, property vandalism, increased hydro rates — especially when it comes to grow ops — and we pay, of course, when it comes to the increased costs in our courts and our courtrooms. It also breeds further unlawful activity, and I think crystal meth probably is an example of that more than any other at this point.

I was on the receiving end of unlawful activity more than once. My home was broken into twice back when I was a kid. It's a very eerie feeling to come up your driveway and see a police car sitting in it. It's quite frightening, especially if your parents' car is there as well, because it leads you to wonder what kinds of things are going on, and then to walk inside and see your parents — who, of course, are pillars of strength — looking quite uncomfortable and a little bit shaken because their home and the sanctity of safety that they're building for their family has been violated.

In our case, we were quite fortunate. It was small items that were taken from our home, but the more frightening element of this second break-in was the fact that we believe that my mother interrupted the break-and-enter thieves while they were in our home. There was no question that the petty items taken from the

home would be most certainly be used to further drug addiction by, likely, young people.

I've also had my car broken into a couple of times and my sacred golf clubs taken from me, and much as that's tongue in cheek and all the rest of it, when you arrive in a parking lot…. Any member on either side who's had the experience of going up to their vehicle in a parking lot and seeing all those little pieces of broken glass can appreciate that this is very, very annoying and aggravating, and you feel quite angry when it happens.

There's another element to it as well, of course, which is the other category of damage that gets done, and that's one of risk. I think now of fires, especially in our neighbourhoods. Grow ops, of course, use a tremendous amount of hydroelectricity, and they present themselves as great opportunities for fires. And of course, fires can spread from home to home.

There's the environmental impact, and without question, crystal meth is a scourge to our environment. In fact, in one of the forums I was attending just a few weeks ago, it was made very clear by the RCMP that the chemical derivatives of the crystal meth labs they break into indeed have to be shipped to Alberta. It's one of the few places where they can be treated and disposed of appropriately.

Of course, there are the drive-by shootings that have taken place. I think that probably one of the biggest fears, as happened to a neighbour of mine not too long ago — just down the hill from where I live — is where the wrong house got shot at instead of the grow op in question. Grow ops are an easy lightning rod in this particular bill. In my constituency there are over 350 of them on the police list waiting to be raided. The police know where they are, the neighbours know where they are, and it does get very, very disconcerting.

This bill also addresses other things. It deals with altering and preventing illegal gaming, tobacco smuggling and illegal dumping of toxic waste. One of the things that I think is a very redeeming element of this bill is that it compensates eligible victims.

Let's move into this area of: is this a good law that's being proposed? I'm quite encouraged, in reading through the materials, that other jurisdictions that have enacted similar legislation to this are passing the test at the constitutional-challenge level. Indeed, any law, especially one like this, must strike a balance. From all the evidence we can see before us, Bill 13 does strike this balance between constitutional and Charter issues and making sure that civil libertarians are also duly considered in the process of developing such legislation and, on the other side, putting in place an effective tool for the courts and for law enforcement.

This bill is very, very well thought out. It has a limitation period of ten years, which shows that it's been thought out in terms of the historical criminal element as well as that going forward. The mechanics and definitions of this bill have been shaped and debated by a variety of stakeholders involved in the prosecutorial end of the spectrum as well as law enforcement.

One of the elements that I think is very important — and in fact, I had occasion to get into a debate on this with a constituent — involves the exclusion within this bill of the uninvolved interest holder. You see, if you are a participant or you've acquiesced to any unlawful activity, your assets are subject to Caesar — to seizure, not Caesar.

I. Black: That was the old law — giving unto Caesar and all that. That's right — a little biblical reference thrown in.

If, however, it's clear that the individuals are not involved, they've got nothing to worry about. This bill, not by implication but very specifically, protects them. That was an element I was very pleased to see. I do have friends who own rental properties. Their greatest fear for the longest time when such bills were being drafted was that the homes they own in good conscience and good faith and as law-abiding citizens of our province would be subject to seizure at some point in the future because a tenant had turned them, which they can do very quickly, into a crystal meth lab or a grow op.

It also has taken into it the notion that secured creditors and mortgage holders and co-owners of the property are also protected. That's important, as well, both as private citizens and as small business people who register assets in an appropriate and law-abiding fashion. It protects their interests, as well, from any incidental exposure they would have to people who are conducting themselves in any unlawful manner. I think that reflects the way this bill has been thought out.

It also doesn't allow any what I call hiding and seeking on the matter. It doesn't allow individuals who have been involved in unlawful activity to go off and sell their assets or hide them or lend them permanently to other parties, etc.

What I also like very much about this bill is that it leaves a great deal of flexibility and control within the court system itself. It enables the court, where it deems it appropriate, to grant relief if the interests of justice are so served. In fact, many elements of the justice surrounding this bill, I would suggest to you, are approaching poetic, inasmuch as the proceeds of the seizures go to compensate the eligible victims.

Now, much has been said in this House in debating this bill about looking out for victims and how, in many of the actions of this government over the last few years, those less fortunate in our society have been overlooked. This bill actually goes a long way in the opposite direction.

Anyone who's ever had to face suing somebody to seek relief realizes that the courts, as a vehicle for suing somebody, are very difficult and onerous and very often out of reach financially for people. This law goes a long way to allow you to compensate eligible victims

Pick a headline. The member for Vancouver-Burrard made specific mention of the young gentleman who was subject to a beating here in Victoria over a red jacket, and now is in a permanently brain-damaged state and requires constant care by his family. That would be one.

The proceeds also go to administering the act and preventing unlawful acts and remedying the effects of these acts. This is not a stand-alone initiative. I think it's worth standing back for a moment and acknowledging that. This bill is part of a plan on public safety that is well-thought-out and highly comprehensive. The plan that we put in place as a government for public safety has involved a history and, indeed, a future of several elements.

I'm just going to touch on a couple of the relevant ones. We've invested an additional $122 million in policing to add 215 RCMP officers around B.C. to fight major crime and cybercrime and to boost the rural policing — rural policing, of course, being that it's one place where grow ops have now started to become very, very prevalent.

The cybercrime area is one that's getting more and more complex and the perpetrators more and more difficult to catch. We're also seeing an expansion of the successful bait car program to combat the auto thefts across B.C., and I don't think there's anyone who can question how successful that has been.

The very well-documented and -discussed returning of 100 percent of all the traffic fines — a total of about $41 million — to municipalities for enhanced community policing and crime prevention…. In my constituency I got to see this money used firsthand in the area of public safety. The Port Moody police department purchased a new cruiser — a new 4-by-4 vehicle highly specialized for policing. As well, they got to expedite the hiring of new officers for their motorcycle policing approach.

A little earlier we had the member for Victoria-Hillside talk in very dramatic terms about the perception of cuts in a variety of areas. Part of our plan involves increasing the funding to support programs that combat violence against women; 18 new police-based victims programs and seven specialized victims programs; and specifically, fighting the crystal meth menace through education, enforcement, policing and the Meth Watch program — and, I might add, the implementation of a dedicated senior officer in the Solicitor General's ministry.

I've had family members who have worked in the victim services arena, and I know the work that's done there and how important it is. I think what I'd like to re-emphasize is the fact that this bill in many, many ways looks out for those who can't sue. This bill in many, many ways is to the direct benefit of the victims, who are most often the most marginalized members of this society. I think that's one of the reasons why this is an outstanding bill.

Finally, let me touch on the special helicopter for traffic enforcement that has been put in place for the lower mainland, as well as some concerted efforts and initiatives to do with combating gang violence, new integrated-policing units to fight organized crime and solve murders, and a specialized prosecution team, as well, focused on organized crime.

Bill 13 has been well discussed. It continues to be well debated and well scrutinized. Frankly, to the Solicitor General and members of his staff, I say: "Well done." I support this bill.

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise on Bill 13 and add my remarks to those of other members of this House on this important issue. I will be speaking in favour of the bill. I'd like to set out a number of points why I think it's an important piece of legislation. I'd like to lay out a few concerns, some of which will be explored further in third reading. Mostly I want to touch on the issue itself and what I think is important in terms of how we deal with this issue.

Crime is something that affects all of us, and it is something that has become of increasing public concern over the last number of years. We've seen it rise in several areas in terms of not only the drug trade but also increasing prostitution, violence, gang violence, gun crimes — all of those areas of crime that people are concerned about.

It's especially important in my own community in Port Coquitlam, which over the last few years has seen a number of horrific criminal incidents take place. There is the Pickton case that is ongoing and possible links with organized crime. There was a very tragic murder that took place a couple of years ago.

There have been increasing numbers of grow ops that have been found and busted, including some very, very large crystal meth labs. There are concerns around the growth of prostitution and criminal activity around it.

It's important that we start to address these issues in a variety of ways. This is, as the former Solicitor General put out, a tool. One thing I think we need to recognize is that it's not a panacea. It's not a solve-all bill; it's not a cure-all bill. It won't by itself solve the problem, but it is a tool. It is a tool for the police; it is a tool for society. In that respect, it's very important.

In my mind, this bill goes to some of the key elements in the areas that we have been weakest on in terms of fighting crime. We can put police on the streets to arrest individuals, and more often than not, the guy holding the television set is the one who's arrested, not the one who masterminded the plan, not the one who organized the people. It's the little guy that gets arrested. It's the little guy that goes to jail, pays a fine, is the one who's punished. It's the organizer, the person up the criminal ladder, who is sitting away somewhere else enjoying the proceeds of crime, who is constantly out on the street, who we have not been able to get and who we have not been as effective in dealing with as we should be as a society. We have to have a

We have seen the rise of gangs. I think one of the challenges that we have faced in this province and this country has been our inability to deal with gangs and to reduce some of the attractiveness which many young people find in organizations such as this — young people who, for whatever reason, are attracted into either a drug culture or a petty criminal element culture which leads to further criminal involvement. Those are the ones that police too often catch, but as I said a moment ago, it's the major organizers behind these gangs, the people who are sitting enjoying the proceeds of crime, whom it has not been possible to get.

I think there is a very simple premise behind this bill, which is why I think it is an important tool. That is, many people don't respond to sentences. Many people can avoid sentencing, but one thing that most people hate and one thing that criminals, particularly those who are engaged in organized crime, hate is when they're hit in the pocketbook, when their assets are confiscated, when their lifestyle is disrupted and taken away — because for many, that's exactly what it is. It is about maintaining a lifestyle. It's about maintaining a lifestyle causing misery and hurt to countless thousands of other people, and that is what we have to deal with.

We have to deal with it at a number of levels. First, there's what we can do provincially, but equally important is what we can do federally. This is an important step at the provincial level, but more needs to be done at the federal level. The federal government needs to do more in this area. They can do more through the use of the Income Tax Act and the ability of the income tax department to make life difficult for people, and they need to be doing that.

At the provincial level, police and law enforcement officers know, in many cases, who the kingpins are. They know who the organizers are, and as a result, they know where the assets are. They know who's controlling the wealth. What they need are the tools to confiscate it. This bill will allow us to do that.

It won't work in every case. There will always be those who find a way to get around the system, who have assets offshore, who have assets out of the reach of our jurisdiction. But it will, in my opinion, be able to deal with a number of organizations that currently maintain a lifestyle based on the proceeds of crime.

One of the things I'm glad about is the ten-year period in the bill, because I think this is a piece of legislation that is going to have to evolve over time. Just as in the way that computer hackers get around the next layer of security in computer systems, criminals find ways to get around legislation. So we have to be ready to recognize this and change legislation as need be.

It's my real hope that this legislation can be used to particular effect in dealing with what I think are two of the most pernicious areas of criminal activity in British Columbia and a prime concern to people in the lower mainland and the rest of the province — that is, the drug crystal meth lab and grow-op operations, and organized gangs.

Organized gangs have seen a dramatic increase in activity and profile over the last decade. We have seen gang wars taking the lives of literally hundreds of young people who have been brought into this lifestyle through one way or another. We have seen the lives of many innocent people taken because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. We have seen the resources from crime used to bring weapons into this province that were unheard of ten or 15 years ago. We have seen a lifestyle that has been glamorized in many cases, because they have continued to flourish — often seemingly able to thumb their noses not only at the police and the courts but also at society in general.

I firmly believe that if you have legislation in place that allows, either through conviction or on the basis of civil probability…. That is a very high test to meet. I understand the concerns that people have around it, and I'll address that in a moment. But if you have that test and that ability and you can confiscate assets from criminal gangs and criminal organizations, then you remove one of the main pillars for why they continue to exist. That's not to say that you will ever, I believe, do away with it completely, but certainly you will do away with their ability to project a flashy and opulent lifestyle. You will certainly increase the risk of being involved. I think if you couple that with initiatives that need to be taken outside of this legislation in terms of other tools, you have the potential of a more successful strategy than what we have in place.

The other element around this is the grow-op and drug lab problem, which has seen a huge increase in British Columbia. The number of homes being used in suburban neighbourhoods, such as in Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam, is absolutely frightening. It is astounding, and it's something that we have to, and we do, take seriously.

It's an issue, again, that comes back to if people have the ability to either purchase a $300,000 or $400,000 home because it looks like it will be inconspicuous in a nice neighbourhood or they rent it and pay a significant rent on a month-to-month basis to finance and run a criminal operation from a quiet, suburban neighbourhood — such as in many of the neighbourhoods I have in my community but which also exist in communities around the province — then it's not just a simple arrest that's required. What you see too often is confiscation of equipment that's found on-site in many cases, and the same people go out and are in business in another location somewhere else a month later, a few weeks later, six months down the road, and that is simply not acceptable.

Again, it comes back to the ability to recognize who the main financial backers are behind this type of criminal activity. Who are the main beneficiaries? As many people have said, it's not the small-time player. We have laws to deal with the small-time person. What we need are laws to deal with those who make, in

many cases, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars of illegal profit on the backs of often unfortunate individuals and at the expense of misery and heartache to thousands of law-abiding citizens in British Columbia.

As I said, this is just one tool. I've remarked that the federal government has a strong role to play and needs to play a stronger role. They need to do it through such measures as income tax and greater cooperation with the provinces. Communities also need to be involved in terms of working with the province, with community groups and developing strategies on how to make communities more crime-safe, whether it's working with the police on Neighbourhood Watch programs…. We need to support and encourage all those kinds of things.

Indeed, my own constituency office was broken into just the day before yesterday.

M. Farnworth: There's the culprit. Well, I will say this, hon. member. You may not look like you could lift a 200-pound rock, but you did a pretty good job.

Somebody lifted a 200-pound rock and threw it through the window. That is actually the symbol…. I'm being serious here. That is literally the hallmark of someone involved with crystal meth — that rage of strength that the drug gives them to do things that they otherwise wouldn't be able to do. Anyway, the building was alarmed, and they did not get away. They got away with some computer equipment, but I think they were interrupted.

But it makes the point that people are looking for something to sell to buy that quick fix. Sure, they're criminal, but they're at the bottom of the chain. It's the person selling them the drug. They're buying it from somebody else, a middleman who is getting it from a supplier, from someone here in the lower mainland or somewhere else in the country who is bringing narcotics in from outside or financing the manufacture of narcotics here in our own province and in our own neighbourhoods and who is the real villain, the real person that is the one we need to be going after. That's what I hope this legislation does.

I know that in committee stage around Bill 13 we will be going through this piece of legislation on a clause-by-clause basis, and I think that's appropriate. Because while we support this legislation, I think it is incumbent upon us to do our job as legislators and to recognize that people do have legitimate questions and legitimate concerns that need to be asked, particularly around some of the sensitive issues, around the issues of civil liberties and civil responsibilities.

I am confident that in the course of that discussion and that debate we will be able to answer those questions or get answers to the satisfaction of many people and that the public will realize that while we support this legislation, we've also done our job in terms of scrutinizing this legislation to ensure that it is, in fact, fair and that it will be applied in the manner which I believe most of us in this House expect it to be applied, so that it can be as effective a tool as possible. As I keep saying, it's just one tool.

I've touched on some of the other areas where I think there needs to be strengthening. We also need to recognize that criminals and criminal gangs exist because they supply, in the case of narcotics and the drug trade, something that people want. So we do have to look at the other side of the coin. While we are being tough on crime — and we have to ensure that we are — we're also tough on causes of crime. We also have to ensure — for example, in the case of narcotics, in the case of crystal meth — that there are those treatment services and educational services there so we can break the cycle, so we can ensure that people get the help they need, that there are the detox beds available. We need to make sure those are there. That's the other side of the coin, and now those are choices that we have to make.

On this side of the House we will, while supporting this legislation, also be ensuring and pushing the government to ensure, for example, that in the spring in the budget there are moneys available to increase the number of beds in treatment centres and detox programs, because that is also crucial. If we're to make this legislation work, then we need to ensure that the other pillars are there as well. It's not just law enforcement, even though that is an important component. We also need to make sure that on the preventative side and the treatment side there are those resources available as well.

M. Farnworth: …innovation, and as the hon. member has said, cognizant of the time. I am very cognizant of the time and will make my remarks accordingly.

Anyway, we also need to be able to be innovative. We need to be innovative, and in this sense, again, I think this bill does that. But we also need to recognize that in our approach to crime we need to be innovative. For example, the four pillars approach that has been taken in Vancouver as a partnership between the federal government, the province and the city of Vancouver is a remarkable initiative that met with considerable resistance at first, and skepticism, but it was a new approach in terms of tackling the drug problem.

I think that's important, because we've seen many cases where traditional methods haven't worked. We're still engaged in the battle. That's why I welcome this piece of legislation — because it is something new. It is something different.

We know that it's in place now in Ontario. We know that other jurisdictions are looking at it. We've seen some response from the federal government in making changes. But this is an initiative that I believe can be applied to other jurisdictions. The former Solici-

tor General rightly pointed out that this is not just a British Columbia problem. This is more than just a Canadian problem. This is a global problem, because many of the criminal organizations that we want to use this piece of legislation against are based not just here in British Columbia but also in other parts of Canada, North America and the globe.

When I spent the last few years in Bulgaria, for example, they were talking about this type of legislation, in part because of the problems with organized crime there. What you saw there was organized crime trying to infiltrate countries such as Canada and provinces such as British Columbia. They're all related to each other.

We need to be one step ahead of them, and that's why this legislation is an important tool in that. That's why I am speaking in favour of this legislation and am happy to support it and am looking forward to committee stage, where we can debate it on a clause-by-clause basis.

With that, hon. Speaker, I will close my remarks. I know this is an important piece of legislation in Port Coquitlam, but I also note the hour, and so I would move, with the support of all the members in this House, that we now adjourn the debate.

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

G. Gentner: It's certainly wonderful you could make it here today. If I can slowly segue into this while people get ready, I was briefly debriefed by the minister earlier relative to where I'm going today. The first question I have is…. For many, many years, since 1992, Delta has been trying to wrestle with the new agriculture bylaw. It's been in the works for many, many years. Since this government, for the last four and a half years, Delta has been working strenuously to put that forward. In my understanding, the municipality of Delta has now passed third reading and is waiting for approval. Since the right-to-farm legislation, or shall we call it the farm protection act, has been invoked upon the municipality of Delta, it has to be cleared by the minister.

My question, therefore, is: when do we see some resolve and the ability for Delta to move forward with a new bylaw?

Hon. P. Bell: Thanks very much for that question. I've had the opportunity to meet with the mayor and council of Delta — I believe three times, if I'm not mistaken, two for sure — in the last three months or so. At the first meeting I indicated to them that there were some details yet to be worked out at staff level. It was recognized that it was still necessary. There was some work to be done. There were some discussions around the criteria of the home plate and a few issues of that nature. I asked them to get those resolved prior to signing off on the document.

I met with them a second time at the UBCM and was told that they were getting very close and hoped to take something forward to council. I did advise them at that time that I felt that any time of signing after October 15 would not be appropriate given the nature of our civic elections coming up this fall and that if it wasn't to me prior to October 15, I would wait until immediately after the civic election and then review with the then-elected government and, assuming the government is re-elected, sign off on it at that point in time, presuming that all the criteria had been met.

I did meet a third time, advised them of the same issues, and I have not yet received the document as approved by both levels of staff. So I'm still waiting for that. That's clearly by the October 15 deadline that I'd established. So I'll be happy to take that document as soon as the municipal election is completed, presuming that the two staffs are able to meet all of the issues that had been identified.

I believe that actually has been done at this point, or it's very close to being done, from my understanding. I'd be glad, again, to meet, assuming that it's the same council, and sign off at that time. If not, and if the new council does, in fact, continue to support the proposal that was brought forward, then I'd, again, be pleased to sign off on it at that time or follow council's direction if there is a new council.

G. Gentner: My understanding is that the approvals that had to go through would be, for example, the

ALR. My understanding is yes, the municipality has approved those guidelines or the bylaw, and it's waiting for your approval, and you received it before the 15th of October.

G. Gentner: Therefore, in the matrix somewhere or in the ether, it's stuck between Delta and you, Mr. Minister? You've never received it, upon completion of third reading, from Delta?

Hon. P. Bell: My understanding, again, is that there are still some unresolved issues that need to be addressed within the bylaw, and the entire purpose of this process is to protect agricultural lands, to ensure that we have an economy that makes sense and to meet the needs of the agricultural community. That's why this law has been put in place.

As I said, I understand there are still a few details to be worked out on it. That's why it has not been forwarded to my office at this point.

G. Gentner: Therefore, with some of the details that are unresolved, could it be that Delta is waiting for a clarification on the regulation guidelines coming from your ministry that could be implemented for this bylaw?

Hon. P. Bell: There are actually two issues. One is that we are still working around challenges of establishing policy for seasonal workers, housing and things of that nature. That is problematic. The second piece is the resolution to the interim measure that would be required to meet that. Currently, it would require approval from the Minister of Community Services, so it is a fairly complex piece as a result of that.

The shift that Delta wants to make in its bylaws involves a number of things, including housing for temporary workers. That requires some long-term policy decisions. The policy that Delta has brought forth to us as an interim option would require approval from Community Services, so it is complex.

I would offer to the member, though — if I have not fully answered his question at this point — that we'd be happy to sit down and really go through in detail, with staff, the information for you, so you're fully aware of it. If there's something you'd like to input into the process, we'd be happy to accept that as well.

G. Gentner: As a member, I would certainly like to welcome the opportunity to sit down with the minister. Having worked with the ministry for four years as a Delta councillor, I can tell you it's been a very arduous task. But I'm now a little hung up on this view of working with Community Services.

Under the protection farm act, it's your ministry that has complete control over the regulatory and zoning authority of Delta. That supersedes the authority of Community Services, so I don't know how or why you're holding this up, Mr. Minister, after October 15, waiting for consultation with an agency or ministry that really has nothing to do with this process. It's now by statute. You are the person, if I have it correctly, that has control of this issue, and I don't understand why you're holding us up.

Hon. P. Bell: I apologize if I was unclear, and I apologize in advance if I am equally unclear this time, because it is fairly complex.

The member is quite right in identifying my ministry as being responsible for signing off on these bylaws. The challenge that we have here is that the policy that Delta wants to implement currently is a policy that we have not completed yet within the ministry — around temporary housing for farm workers. We haven't completed that work, so they've asked us to expedite that work and allow them to go ahead and put the bylaw in place on an interim basis until we have established that appropriate provincial policy.

What they have suggested as a measure to ensure that the bylaw meets the provincial standards of the new policy, when that policy is adopted, is to utilize a section of the Local Government Act. We were trying to recall the number of the section and we thought it might be 874, but we think that's incorrect, so I'd hate to misguide you on it. It deals with provincial interests, and Delta had offered that as a tool to shift the policy or align the policy if it is not aligned when the new policy around housing of temporary farm workers comes into play with the provincial policy.

So it's very technical. I apologize for stumbling through that explanation. It's not meant to be evasive at all, and we'd be happy to provide you with a detailed briefing of this, just so that you're absolutely clear on it. The big issue I should point out, though, is that I don't think it's appropriate for any government in the final days of its mandate to implement a significant policy decision. We tried not to do that at the end of our mandate. I think it is the responsible thing to do.

In fact, October 15, as a chosen date for not implementing the bylaw, came from the municipal manager of Delta as a date that he felt uncomfortable with, in terms of moving forward past that date. It was a discussion that we had, I think, at the second meeting that I had with Delta. That was kind of the date that we had chosen. I didn't select it. It was the Delta city manager that selected it at that point.

G. Gentner: I certainly will talk to the CAO of Delta when I finish here today and try and confirm what his position is relative to the view that there's an election under place, and therefore the policy decisions, as is your view, are not forthright because there is an election. My understanding is that Delta has been at the table for four years — well before this election process. I don't believe Delta has been dragging its feet on this at all. They have been very much at the forefront of the table.

I will shift slightly to a different question, and I only have a few left. When will the ministry start working with the municipality relative to a new agriculture bylaw that will include intensive farming and greenhouses?

Hon. P. Bell: The member touches on a point that I think is extremely important, and that is: moving to a modernized approach to agriculture in British Columbia. The member highlights something that I've noted as a significant issue we need to deal with in this province — the urban-agricultural divide that really is growing, where urban B.C. is encroaching into agricultural B.C. Delta is certainly at the forefront of that, along with Abbotsford and Surrey and some other communities. But probably Delta is the community at the forefront of that whole issue. I think the member quite rightly points out that this is a challenge.

In my opening comments I did state that the member for Delta South would be leading a team that would be establishing an agricultural plan for B.C. This is one of the key factors. I don't think we necessarily want to wait for the entire plan, to go forward. I think there will be good ideas that will come as a result of the planning process, and the issue that the member identifies is one of the things that is top of mind for me. We'll be moving on that one. If the member has suggestions, we'd be happy to accept them and to see if we can implement some of those suggestions in the process.

G. Gentner: Upon completion of the agriculture bylaw, when do you foresee the need, if any, to rescind or remove the present farm protection act which is held over Delta? Mr. Minister, are you thinking of moving forward and giving Delta some authority back? In my understanding, this whole — I hate to call it a charade — farm protection act was sort of temporary until you could work out the differences. It's been four years now, so when are we going to see a removal of the farm protection act for Delta?

Hon. P. Bell: As a new minister in this portfolio, I can tell you that I am kind of looking forward to significant changes in dealing with agriculture in B.C. But I want to make something very clear to the member. I'm here to support agriculture in B.C., I'm here to make sure that we have a thriving industry, and I'm here to make sure that the industry works regardless of whether it's in Delta, Abbotsford, Prince George, Kelowna or Fort St. John. That will be the first priority of this ministry.

G. Gentner: Yes, I understand the mandate, minister. I don't know if it overrides necessary attention towards sustainability, but how does your purview or this farm protection you have over Delta interfere with Delta's streamside protection bylaw — and can you correct it?

Hon. P. Bell: My understanding, in speaking with staff, is that the current Delta bylaw actually has more, broader setbacks that would encroach into the agricultural opportunities for farmers in Delta than the provincial standard.

G. Gentner: If I have it correct, minister, you are saying that the bylaw, which evolved out of the old Streamside Protection Act, has no merit in Delta.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm not sure how the member got that out of my response, Madam Chair. What I said very clearly was that the standards that Delta is proposing don't align with the provincial standards.

G. Gentner: The farm protection act and how it's imposed — how much authority does it have over relaxing air quality standards for greenhouses?

G. Gentner: Very quickly, in a different vain. Delta is undergoing…. You know, minister, about Burns Bog and the wonderful work that's been done by four levels of government to protect it. It's a very special place; it's very unique. It's a dome bog. It has a water mound, and of course, in the winter it's like a sponge. It draws the water and holds the water. In the summertime it can release it, which is of some benefit to surrounding farms. However, during the rainy season there is a real problem with governing the water regime in Delta, which causes unnecessary flooding — uncontrollable flooding at times — and it's the municipality that's on the hook with several lawsuits.

What program or what kind of funding is available — compensation you can offer, since you are the minister in control of Delta's farmland? Delta doesn't have control of this anymore — okay? What type of funding can you give as compensation to Delta, which is facing numerous lawsuits relative to flooding on farmland?

Hon. P. Bell: The member points out quite rightly that there's been an incredible amount of work done by all four levels of government to ensure that Burns Bog is protected. I can't, quite frankly, imagine looking at Burns Bog as a paved-over parking lot, like a previous government intended to do. It is just shocking to me that anyone could possibly have considered doing that to Burns Bog when clearly it has such important environmental implications.

The water component of Burns Bog, and anything to do with that, would fall under the Ministry of Environment, and that would be more appropriately asked of the Minister of Environment during the estimates debate.

G. Gentner: To the minister. Without question, what happened in the '90s, the concept…. You know, it boggles the mind that we would spend 200 years of dredging sand out of the river to be able to put pavement on it. I understand your position on that part.

To quickly wrap up. Going back to the farm protection act, what type of compensation can you give Delta — since you are in control of Delta's farmland? Delta has an official community plan that recognizes certain truck routes. Now you have sort of changed the mix of how that planning structure has been, because your main purview….

Mr. Minister, will the ministry provide any assistance, compensation-wise, for infrastructure that's been created since your ministry has taken control of Delta's farmland and impacted Delta — the Delta taxpayer?

Hon. P. Bell: Thanks very much for the question. Again, the response, in terms of dealing with the water implications of Burns Bog, does fall with the Ministry of Environment. That's more properly asked of the Minister of Environment. I will say that this ministry simply ensures that farmlands are protected and that farmers have the ability to perform their business in a way that would be appropriate anywhere in this province.

My objective is not to interfere in any way, shape or form with any municipality's jurisdiction. There's nothing I'd like better than to make sure we get to a point where this law becomes redundant and we're able to repeal it. It will be a joint objective for both of us to work on — to find a way to make that happen and ensure that farming takes place in an environmentally friendly, scientifically sound, and sustainable method and continues to meet our food requirements in the province.

G. Gentner: In many ways the response about going to the Ministry of Environment is a moot point, because through the right-to-farm act, farm protection act, you have jurisdiction over most of the environmental statute. So to suggest that Delta or any other agency should go to the Ministry of Environment for compensation, I believe, is a moot point, because your ministry has authority over all jurisdictions in Delta, relative to farmland.

Quickly, to finish…. I think I'll end at that. I think it's a good start. We look forward to continuing this in the spring during the next estimates.

Hon. P. Bell: Certainly, as I said, we're eager to find a way to bring urban British Columbia together with agricultural British Columbia, and I look forward to working with the member over the next four years to make that happen.

R. Chouhan: Minister, you have the mandate to help the farmers make sure that they have certain policies in place and that they are helped to bring in the harvest in an efficient manner. Recently we have seen — especially this year, and maybe last year as well — that farmers have been faced with an increasing shortage of labour, which is limiting their ability to bring in the harvest in a timely fashion. So my question is: what action is this ministry taking to address the severe shortage of skilled farmworkers, farm labour, in B.C.?

Hon. P. Bell: I appreciate the question. Certainly, it's a big issue for our agricultural community around British Columbia. It's one of the things that occurs when you have such a vibrant economy. It's much tougher to find employees, particularly for seasonal positions, and it is the nature of a prosperous economy that has created this problem for us. It's a nice place to be, I suppose, but we are where we are, and we need to find solutions.

We do work actively with the Ministry of Labour to try and develop different programs that make sense, but I think one of the things that would be of interest to the member is certainly the seasonal farmworker program that the federal government is engaged in. I know I had an opportunity in a discussion with the member to talk about the opportunities to look at bringing Sikh workers in under that same mandate, under the federal government program. I think given the rich heritage that we have in the province and the number of people from the Sikh community that are directly engaged in agriculture, that that would be a very appropriate thing to do. I look forward to working with the federal government to try and make that happen.

It is a federal government jurisdiction not within our purview, but certainly, I think it's an interesting option and something that I'm pleased to be able to work with other ministers in government to try and advance.

R. Chouhan: I'm pleased the minister anticipated my next question. That federal program that we're talking about, to bring in migrant farmworkers, has not actually addressed the skill shortage in the fields. This year we have seen the migrant farmworkers, brought from Mexico, working in the fields and in the farms here. We have also seen some revelations regarding the poor working and living conditions of those farmworkers. What actions has this ministry taken or is planning to take to address the concerns over the living conditions of these migrant farmworkers?

Hon. P. Bell: In terms of working conditions, this actually falls under the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour, but we've been working very closely with the Ministry of Labour and the federal government to ensure that those provisions are fully met. Our expectation is that that should be the case. Certainly, we don't advocate, or we're not willing to support, any operation that does not meet the standards and requirements

for housing and all of the other conditions that are laid out for migrant farmworkers.

R. Chouhan: I understand that some of this stuff, or quite a bit of this, falls under the Ministry of Labour. Could I get some assurance from the minister that the minister will be making strong recommendations to address those concerns to the Ministry of Labour, to take care of those working and living conditions in the fields?

We were talking about a shortage of workers in the Fraser Valley, mainly. The one concern which I found out is that most of these farmworkers — the migrant workers from Mexico — are paid hourly minimum wage. They are also paid on top of their other expenses. If the local farmworkers, who live in the area — living there for many, many years — get the hourly minimum rate to work in the fields, in my view, that would help to address the shortage of farmworkers here. Would you agree with that?

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, the existing Labour Code, which the member quite rightly points out does fall under the Ministry of Labour — and perhaps you want to canvass with that minister as well — does clearly state that whether the minimum wage is paid hourly or in an equivalent amount via piecework, it still is a minimum wage that's required. So in effect, the current standards would indicate that minimum wage should be paid to all farmworkers, regardless of whether they are immigrant or not. For the migrant farmworkers under the federal program, it's actually mandated specifically by the federal government at the wage that's been identified by the member.

S. Simpson: I'd like to take the opportunity to discuss some issues related to contaminated sites. My first question to the minister is: it's my understanding that the target for priority sites for remediation, either underway or complete, over the next three years is four sites in '05-06, seven sites in '06-07 and ten sites in '07-08. Could the minister confirm those numbers?

Hon. P. Bell: I'll just take the opportunity to introduce staff. I have Brian Clarke, who is the director responsible for contaminated sites; Warren Mitchell, again, who is the assistant deputy minister; and then, of course, Larry Pedersen, who is my deputy.

Also, I understand that the budget for the year '05-06…. I believe that the minister told one of my colleagues, my colleague from Surrey-Whalley, earlier in the day that the budget was $21 million for contaminated sites. Is that the budget for the upcoming year of '05-06?

Hon. P. Bell: I apologize. I was in error earlier. It's actually $21.6 million.

S. Simpson: Thank you for the correction. Could the minister tell us what the budget allocations will be for '06-07 and '07-08?

Hon. P. Bell: For '06-07 the budget is $22.687 million, and for '07-08 it's $23.687 million.

S. Simpson: I believe it talks in the plan about remediation that will be underway or complete, and then it refers to the numbers for each of those years. Could the minister clarify the distinction between "underway" and "complete," and why those were grouped together as a single category?

Hon. P. Bell: Maybe I'll take a few extra seconds on this topic, because I think it's relevant. It would be very easy to establish benchmarks and measures, because one contaminated site could be $100,000. We could go in and clean it and say that we've met our mandate. That wouldn't be fair or reasonable. It's very difficult for us to establish those benchmarks, and priorities clearly will shift over the next number of years as we find other sites that perhaps need to be reclaimed and cleaned up. It is a difficult process in that it's an evolving process, and we haven't identified all the contaminated sites.

I'm sure there will be other sites that will be returned to the Crown over time that will require reclamation as well. It's difficult for us to…. We could certainly meet targets by being selective, not necessarily prioritizing the right sites in the province. We want to do the right thing and get after the sites that need remediating in the most immediate fashion. We want to deal with those that are doing environmental damage around the province decisively and quickly.

To specifically answer your question, completed would mean that the site has met the mandate of the ministry and is at the level that is expected for reclamation. Underway would simply mean that the site reclamation has started on the site.

To give the member an example, Britannia Beach is a site that has been under reclamation for quite some time. My understanding is that the water treatment plant at Britannia will be starting up shortly, but this is a project that has taken many years and many millions of dollars to complete.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the answer from the minister. The minister talked about priorities. Maybe the minister could elaborate a little bit on how those priorities were set for the projects that will move forward in each of the next few years.

Hon. P. Bell: I have a wonderful document that I've been handed, called Identifying Priority Sites. I'll just read it out to the member. The question is: what is the process for identifying priority sites?

S. Simpson: Could the minister identify for us the four sites that are underway in '05-06?

Hon. P. Bell: The four projects currently underway are Britannia, as I identified earlier, Pacific Place, Goose Bay and Yankee Girl.

S. Simpson: Have the sites been determined that will proceed in '06-07 and '07-08, and if so, can you identify those for us?

Hon. P. Bell: The previous description that I read out in terms of the process of identifying sites…. We're currently in step two. We've identified candidate sites, and we're in step two of that process. We'll follow through to step eight and then start the work at step eight.

S. Simpson: Seven sites have been determined for '06-07 and ten sites have been determined for '07-08, yet I see that we have budget numbers that are pretty close to the same for each of the three years, give or take a million dollars. Maybe the minister could explain how that budgeting is going to work and how he set those budgets if he hasn't determined the sites and the scope of work to stay within budget.

Hon. P. Bell: First of all, I just want to indicate that the numbers in the service plan are actually cumulative numbers. So the ten is…. You'll see that the numbers increase each year. The difference between the year and the year prior is the number of sites that would actually be engaged in a given year — just to be clear and so the member understands that.

The second point I wanted to make is that Britannia Beach was very expensive — about $99 million to complete the Britannia Beach project — so that consumed a large number of the dollars. The process the member asked about. Treasury Board establishes the dollar value of work that we will do based on our request, and then we prioritize within that budget and determine what work we can do in the given year and try and create the best value for the public asset within the dollar framework that we have established by Treasury Board.

S. Simpson: Just to confirm what we're in fact talking about here in terms of sites for reclamation. What the minister is talking about is four sites being underway or completed in '05-06, three further sites in '06-07 and then a further three sites in '07-08. That's correct?

S. Simpson: In terms of those sites, I believe the minister — and I think I heard him correctly…. The sites that are chosen are sites that have been identified by the Provincial Contaminated Sites Committee as priorities. Is that where the sites come from?

S. Simpson: I have a list of a number of sites that have been, I believe, identified by the contaminated sites committee. I'll just read through the list and possibly the minister could confirm that these make up the sites that are being considered at this time, or the body of the sites.

We have, of course, Britannia and Pacific Place that have both been mentioned and that I believe are in progress right now; Meadow Avenue in the city of Burnaby, an urban industrial site; Oak Street, another urban industrial site, in Vancouver; Yankee Girl in the West Kootenay, a mine tailings; Candorado in Hedley, also a minesite; Anyox, just south of Stewart, a mine and smelter; Goose Bay in Rivers Inlet; Sultana in New Hazelton; Canex, east of Salmo; and Ocean Falls.

Are those correct, and are there…? Maybe the minister at the same time could tell me if there are sites I've missed off this list that are in consideration.

Hon. P. Bell: The member is quite correct in identifying the sites. They are listed on the website. There are an additional ten sites that are in the early stages of review. I do want to highlight for the member that we did make a decision on the upper Pitt River as well. It was a big potential issue environmentally, and we thought we needed to address it quickly and decisively, so we did allocate $1.3 million, I think, for that particular site. That doesn't appear on any of these lists but was established as a priority.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that. I would agree with the minister that the upper Pitt River is an important site, and I'm glad that his ministry is moving ahead and doing work on that.

For those sites I read out and identified, has the ministry, through its process, determined the costs of cleanup for those sites — at least in general terms, if not specific?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm advised that Britannia, Pacific Place and Yankee Girl are all booked at this point, and we have costs associated with those. Meadow Avenue and Oak are actually both in legal action right now, so we're seeing where that flows. The others…. We're still

S. Simpson: Could the minister provide me with numbers for the three — Britannia, Pacific Place and Yankee Girl — that he does have numbers for?

Hon. P. Bell: Britannia — and these are book liabilities, I should indicate to the member — is booked at $99.3 million. Pacific Place is booked at $74.8 million. Goose Bay is booked at $538,270. Sorry if I'm going too fast; I'll slow down for you. Yankee Girl is booked at $14 million.

S. Simpson: Could the minister talk a little bit about the source of the funding for these projects in terms of what is coming from the ministry, what is coming from past owners of the sites, how this is being paid for? Is it all coming out of taxpayer dollars, or is there some combination with prior users of the…?

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, three of those four projects are fully funded through the provincial government. With the remaining one, Britannia Beach, there was the ability to track down some of the old operators of the Britannia mine, and there was a settlement agreement in the amount of $30 million that was funded through that. In addition, there are some incremental revenues that will flow to the province as a result of different sorts of real estate developments that are taking place in the Britannia area and some levies that are associated with that.

If the member is interested, I'm sure we can provide you with more detail on that. I don't have any more detail than that with me here today specifically on the Britannia project.

I appreciate the minister's comments that it's challenging sometimes to find the people who were responsible for producing the contamination. Could the minister maybe talk a little bit about the process that's gone through in a site? There's quite a long list of sites here, and there are another, as the minister says, ten or so that are in the hopper, in addition to the ones that I spoke about, that need to be addressed at some time in the future. Could the minister talk a little bit about what the process is that the government goes through to attempt to find the folks who may have been the producers of the contaminants and engage them, hopefully, voluntarily in a process? And if not, obviously there are sometimes legal questions.

Hon. P. Bell: We go through an extensive corporate registry search, a title search. We also look at subsurface rights as well as surface rights, and anything we can do, certainly, to get the original individuals that had responsibility for contamination, we do. It is challenging.

One of the good-news pieces of this now is that there's been a shift in the way we manage mines in the province. We now require, actually, a mine closure plan when the mine is first opened, and there is a bonding requirement that ensures that the citizens of British Columbia won't be liable for any contamination as a result of a mining operation. I think that's good news.

As the member will notice as he looks through the list of different sites, mines figure highly on the list of contaminated sites, so I think there have been some good strategic moves there. There's certainly more work to be done, but we do everything we can to try and ensure that we hold the original individuals that had responsibility for the contamination to account.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell me: over the past four or five years since the government came to power, I guess, in 2001, how much money has been spent on the cleanup of contaminated sites? And how much of that has been public dollars versus dollars that have been able to be recouped from the contaminators?

Hon. P. Bell: I think the member asks a good question, and I'm afraid I'm only going to be able to give a partial answer here. On the four sites we've identified and discussed here today, there's approximately $120 million of provincial funding that has been spent versus the $30 million that has been accrued through different organizations.

But I don't think that really answers your question, because it doesn't highlight literally thousands of contaminated sites around the province where they are either voluntarily cleaned up by the original owners of the site or where the provincial government has been able to actually find the original owner and hold them to account for the cleanup. That ranges from minor cleanups, although even these days gas stations are not minor — but relatively minor cleanups — all the way up to the large-scale ones like Britannia Beach.

I'm afraid those numbers probably don't accurately represent the question the member is asking, but I hope it gives the member at least a rough idea of how that works. It would be very difficult, and I'm not sure we could even find the private dollars that have been used to clean up contaminated sites around the province.

I should highlight, I guess, because this is important for the member to know, that this ministry and this fund have responsibility only for Crown-owned contaminated sites, even in a situation like Port Alice that we're talking about right now, as an example, that eventually could become provincially Crown-owned but, technically, is not Crown-owned at this point in time.

You know, you always evaluate those types of things and try and figure out how you mitigate your costs, both in the long term and the short term, around those challenges.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that. I know I'm involved in other discussions with the Ministry of Environment

around contaminated sites, gas stations that are privately held and the effects of hydrocarbon plumes on neighbouring properties. We're having those discussions now, and hopefully, they'll be fruitful.

I appreciate this is significantly — and maybe the minister can confirm that it is — in Crown sites. More often than not, it deals with private companies who have accessed those Crown sites for resource purposes, whether it be a mine or a smelter or some other activity, and there has been some kind of lease agreement where the land then comes back to the Crown. Are those generally the kinds of sites we're talking about?

Hon. P. Bell: The member is quite correct in his assertion there. It is largely sites, many of them mining, as we've identified, and that's why the ministry has moved to have reclamation bonds in place to ensure that that doesn't happen in the future. There would also be examples of privately owned properties where the owner has walked away from the property through a bankruptcy proceeding or something of that nature, where we've ended up with ownership as a Crown. That would be the other option the member didn't identify.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that it would be extremely difficult to identify every site in the province, private and public, where there has been a cleanup, either voluntary or where the government has had to intercede and ensure that it occurred. Would the ministry have information on those Crown sites and the amount of dollars that have been paid out for Crowns versus the amount that's been reclaimed on the sites within the responsibility of this minister?

Hon. P. Bell: That is the number I gave you earlier: $120 million provincial money and $30 million that we've been able to attract. That was the Britannia Beach project, and there are some incremental dollars that will come as a result of that.

S. Simpson: Then is the minister saying — and I'm fairly new to this place, so maybe I…. Has there been no work done on remediation prior to the '05-06 number, back to '01?

Hon. P. Bell: As I indicated earlier, many of these projects are very large projects. Britannia Beach would be a good example of that. These are rolling numbers that I've given the member, so $120 million…. I think I understood the question correctly initially. The member was asking, since 2001, what had been spent and what had been acquired. Those are rolling numbers. Those weren't last year's numbers.

S. Simpson: So then, when I go back and I look, the minister provided about $99 million and change for Britannia, $74 million to $75 million for Pacific Place, about $14 million for Yankee Girl and about half a million or so, I believe, for another site. That adds up, I believe, to…. Oh, my math's not that good, but it's got to be $180 million or $190 million dollars, roughly. Maybe it's something close to $200 million.

Is the minister saying that…. At this point with the program that's going ahead, it is those four sites that have been the four where there has been reclamation since 2001. Clearly, they're long projects, and they take time, and this doesn't happen overnight. But there were only four sites under this minister that have been reclaimed and cleaned up by government since 2001 as Crown sites. Or I guess it might have been…. I don't know if it was Sustainable Resource Management or Water, Land and Air Protection previously.

Hon. P. Bell: I guess I should just take a step back and be clear with the numbers for the member. The $99 million at Britannia Beach is a combination of $69 million of provincial money and $30 million that we were able to get from previous owners, so that's how you get to the $99 million there. Of the $99.3 million at Britannia, as of this point in time there has been $63.8 million spent on that project. This is perhaps where some of the numbers vary, but I can certainly provide the member with a spreadsheet that I'm looking at which provides all this detail for him.

The details behind this do actually come as a result of the old Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. That's where the budget dollars flowed for these projects. The four projects that have been identified here are the four that we have had responsibility for. That's not to say that there haven't been perhaps minor projects in other ministries that they would look after, just as a day-to-day course of doing business. But in terms of major contaminated sites, we deal with that, and it's these four that we've worked on.

S. Simpson: Would I be correct, then, in terms of dollars that have been able to be got from the polluters, the contaminators…. I believe the minister said about $120 million to date of public dollars has been spent, and about $30 million has been received from those who were responsible. All of that $30 million, then, is related to Britannia and not to the other sites? Would that be accurate?

S. Simpson: Actually, I'm going to move now, shift…. I thank the minister for the questions related to this area. I want to shift now and ask a few questions in relation to species at risk and those matters.

It is my understanding that the ministry has planned to submit to government by the 31st of March, 2006 — I think I quote from the service plan — "a scientifically credible and defensible approach to the management and recovery of species at risk in B.C." Could the minister tell us a little bit about what work has been done to date with regards to developing this plan?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, a huge issue. I'm glad the member's had an opportunity to canvass a couple of

significant issues. Both contaminated sites and species at risk certainly are two of the big challenges I think the world will face in the 21st century and are very challenging files.

It's early on, still, in the process of developing that policy. It is a very complex policy, and I think it is one that is going to take a great deal of work. We have a group of staff that are working on it within the ministry. I've met with them a number of times. I think some very, very good quality individuals from the ministry are working on this file. As we move forward, I will be pleased to brief the member and keep him current on the status of it.

S. Simpson: I would certainly agree with the minister that this is a very challenging issue and one that we are going to have the opportunity to speak about a lot over the next number of years — I think both in this place and as a public policy matter.

Could the minister tell us…? This is also an issue that obviously isn't…. While I appreciate that his ministry has the lead on this question, it obviously is an issue that is cross-ministry. It's not exclusive by any means. Could the minister tell us a little bit about how that relationship works — the working with other ministries to be able to put this plan together — and who those ministries are?

Hon. P. Bell: I'd be happy to. The Ministry of Environment has the responsibility for identification of species at risk. We have responsibility for establishing recovery plans and the implementation of those plans.

S. Simpson: One of the key issues here, and this is a key point of debate…. Maybe I'll step back one moment from that. Could the minister tell us a little bit about the budget for species at risk? How many FTEs are involved actively in developing this plan?

Hon. P. Bell: There are six full-time staff working very specifically on the development of this policy and an annual budget line of $626,000.

S. Simpson: Obviously, we know science is a big part of accomplishing this — science and being able to monitor and track and determine species. Could the minister tell us how many of those six full-time staff bring scientific expertise to the table?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm very pleased to be able tell the member we have a leader in this organization that in my view is second to none. His name is Dr. Mark Zacharias. He has a PhD in biology. I had an opportunity to spend some time with…. I'm fondly calling him Dr. Mark these days, actually. I think he's a real quality individual to lead that team and put together an effective strategy.

In addition, we have several other biologists, some technical staff, and then they work with individuals in the Ministry of Environment — different biologists and so on within other ministries as well. So it is well-staffed with a good complement and tremendous leader in Dr. Mark.

S. Simpson: I want to talk to the minister a little bit about some issues — maybe just a budget issue. Maybe the minister could tell us a little bit about what the thinking is. I notice when I look at the budget that the $626,000 figure is in place for '05-06 and '06-07, and then it's reduced by about $10,000, I believe, in '07-08. What's the expectation of the minister that there will be less cost to protecting species in '07-08 than there will be in '06-07?

Hon. P. Bell: We actually have three different budget estimates books over here, and we show $616,000 in one and $626,000 in the other two. The $626,000 number is in the document books that we believe are correct, so that's probably a typographical error — the reduction of the $10,000.

S. Simpson: Then just to confirm, the minister is saying that the budget stays static for each of the three years in the service plan?

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct. But I should point out that species at risk is a new program in the ministry, and additional funding will be provided from internal transfers within the ministry, which is not being reflected in these budget lines. It is a brand-new program and something that we're very passionate about. We think it's extremely important, and we want to make sure we do it right.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that this work largely comes under the integrated land management bureau. It's under that service plan, and that area of the ministry is where this effort is housed.

When I look at the service plan, I believe that it reads…. When it talks about being one of the four core business areas, it says: "….to ensure the most effective management and, where necessary, recovery of the province's globally significant species while furthering access to Crown land and resources." Maybe the minister could define for us what globally significant species are.

Hon. P. Bell: That comment is intended to reflect where British Columbia has a global responsibility for that specific species because we are the primary residence where they are found. Clearly, there are different species in the province that have plentiful abundances in other areas of the world and North America. We are very concerned about where British Columbia is the area where those species are particularly globally significant….

S. Simpson: Maybe the minister could tell me. I believe the number is four or three. I'm sure that the

minister could correct it for me. How many species are actually protected today?

Hon. P. Bell: Just to step back to the roles and responsibilities of this ministry versus the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Environment would actually be better equipped to answer that question. The responsibility of my ministry, once species have been identified as at risk, is to establish a recovery plan for those species. I encourage you to canvass that with the Minister of Environment during his estimates.

I guess where I'm going with this…. Maybe I'll move to where I'm going and not kind of get there in a long, roundabout way. Currently in B.C., depending on who you speak to, we have somewhere about 1,300 different species that have been measured as at risk. That number of 1,300 species comes from the B.C. conservation data centre. When you add in the natural plants that are at risk too, I think the number goes up closer to 1,600 that are at risk.

It's my understanding that four species have been listed to date, and I believe that about 43 different species have received some degree of protection. The problem here is with the way that the government is approaching this, I believe, so I'll lay this out for the minister and ask for his comment.

Currently the practice is to identify species — to list those species that need some degree of protection. There is a body of thought that says the key to this protection is a habitat question. It's about protecting the appropriate habitat that both allows those species to be protected and allows for multispecies issues as well. We would know, for example, that there's always the talk about the owl. Well, I've been told by sources that there are probably 130 other species within the ecosystem where the owl is that are affected as well.

What I would ask the minister is: in the work that his ministry is doing, what thought is being given to shifting to a habitat-based model around species at risk, rather than a species-based model?

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, that's exactly what we're doing through the land use plans we're working very aggressively on in the province right now. Actually, we canvassed that earlier on around land use plans. Well, in fact, we talked about all six of the land use plans in detail earlier on in the estimates period. But that's really the appropriate place, as the member quite rightly points out, to look at the overall land base and how that can be managed from an ecosystem perspective.

I think the headway that we've made, particularly on the central coast and the north coast, has been very progressive. There are some exciting things happening there that, given time, the member will be very encouraged to see. The process that the member is talking about is exactly what is taking place under the land use planning processes right now. We're very confident that it's going to be successful.

The sidebar piece that we were talking about a few moments ago, in terms of a recovery plan for species at risk, is really trying to address the minutiae of each individual species and to create a plan that will be successful — to encourage that particular species to thrive in the environment, given the conditions that we have here today.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that the government is choosing to look at moving increasingly to a habitat-driven model versus a species-specific model. Could the minister tell me, with the work that's being done, whether there has been any direction given to the people who are developing the model to have penalties put in place for those interests that may be deemed to be responsible for impacts against species at risk?

Hon. P. Bell: I can certainly tell the member that there are many different prohibitions in place around killing of species at risk, but those would be more appropriately canvassed of the Minister of Environment, who has responsibility for that area.

S. Simpson: We'll move to an area that, I believe, the minister said falls within his purview, which is recovery. Could the minister tell us what exists now in terms of plans related to recovery, both in planning and action? What does the ministry do today?

Hon. P. Bell: We're currently active in establishing plans around mountain caribou, marbled murrelet and spotted owl, and in the broader policy development as well.

S. Simpson: What about in the area around that? What about in the area related to the grizzly?

Hon. P. Bell: We're just checking with staff here, but I don't believe that the grizzly bear is actually listed as an endangered species, although there were some recovery plans initiated by the previous Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection some time ago around some specific herds. It's possible the member could canvass that with the Minister of Environment. I don't believe that the grizzly is actually listed as a species that we need to address at this point.

S. Simpson: I'd be interested in the minister's comment related to comments that were made by the Forest Practices Board on questions of species at risk. They were talking, I think, about those practices. In 2005 the Forest Practices Board reported out — and as we know, they've paid a lot of attention to these issues over the years — saying that there is a systemic failure to protect species at risk in B.C. and that endangered species are falling through the cracks. They also released a mountain caribou report calling the situation urgent.

I'd ask the minister, first, if he has any comments. Is he aware of the position of the Forest Practices Board? Would he agree with their position?

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, that's why we now have developed our SaRCO office and why we are undergoing establishing policy — to ensure that species at risk do have effective recovery plans in place.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us what current actions are going on related to the species that his ministry is dealing with — maybe starting with the mountain caribou? What are we doing to deal with those questions?

Hon. P. Bell: I'll give the member a couple of examples but also offer a full briefing to the member on the specifics around the plans, because they are extensive and would require quite some time. We're not prepared today to give that type of detail — but a couple of examples. There has been a large Land Act reserve area placed in the Kootenays for mountain caribou to ensure that in that particular area those herds can thrive. There are also a number of different areas around the province where we've put in no-go zones for logging to ensure that they're protected. Those would be a couple of examples of the types of actions that are taking place throughout the province. I'd be happy to offer a detailed briefing, if the member would like more detail.

S. Simpson: I believe that in addition to the mountain caribou, the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet are other species that are on the ministry's list. Are there any others, other than those three?

Hon. P. Bell: Those three are the first three that we are establishing to build the framework that we need to have a good policy, going forward, that makes sense to deal with all species at risk. They're the first three that we're working on right now, and from that we'll develop the policy for all species at risk.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us about the recovery plan or what's in progress or planned around the spotted owl?

Hon. P. Bell: We're really not prepared to discuss that level of detail here today, but I'd be pleased to provide a detailed briefing for the member on spotted owl and marbled murrelet and caribou, if the member would care for that level of detail.

S. Simpson: In the service plan, when it talks about the land management bureau, it says it's been tasked with developing what's called an "outcome-based vision" for species at risk management. Could the minister talk about what that means in terms of vision for outcome-based and how measurements are going to be made to determine those outcomes?

Hon. P. Bell: The term "outcome-based" is opposed to a prescriptive procedure to deal with species at risk. Our intent is to develop the best possible outcomes for species at risk — and that would be measured by the success of the particular type of species thriving in the natural environment — versus a prescriptive model, which would detail actions to take place but not actually measure the success of those actions at the end of the day.

We think that in this situation, certainly, an outcome-based approach makes the most sense, and the measurement will be in terms of how successfully the particular species is able to operate and function at normal levels after the plan is implemented and completed.

S. Simpson: I know that some of the options that are being considered…. Well, I don't know, but I believe that some of the options being considered around the spotted owl include notions of captive breeding and investing in those kinds of approaches in order to revitalize or recover the species, and other kinds of interventionist matters.

Is that the direction the government is looking to go? Is there an expectation that that will be the direction we'll go for recovery, versus looking at wild habitat and protection of the integrity of wild habitat? What's the balance here between trying to create artificial breeding opportunities and wild opportunities?

Hon. P. Bell: It really is a mix of activities that have to take place, and it depends on the level of the species. In the case of the marbled murrelet, clearly there may be certain types of activities that need to take place, versus the mountain caribou, which really has some sustainable populations around the province in different areas right now.

It is a science-based approach. We want to achieve the appropriate results. It is a very complex issue, particularly in areas of the province where there has been substantial activity taking place on the land base. I'm thinking particularly of the lower mainland, which has hosted a number of those species at different times. It's a little bit easier to work with in other parts of the province. It is very challenging, and we have to look at all of the different opportunities. We don't want to be prescriptive and only utilize one model of recovery in our attempts to allow these species to thrive again.

S. Simpson: Has the minister or government, in the direction that has been provided to the people who are working on this on behalf of British Columbia to come up with a new model…? Has there been a direction provided to them, or is it contemplated — within the legislation or regulation or whatever the proper tool will be — that there will be mandatory recovery plans in place that will, where government identifies a species at risk, oblige the government to intervene and put in place a time line and recovery plan? Will that be an obligatory part of any legislation?

Hon. P. Bell: Actually, federal legislation already obligates us to do that. This process, this office and these efforts are reflective of fulfilling our responsibilities in that federal legislation.

S. Simpson: I want to ask a couple of questions that I believe are somewhat related to this. They relate a little bit to LRMPs and to the coastal agreement — the Great Bear north coast–midcoast agreement. They particularly revolve around the question of ecosystem-based management. Could the minister maybe tell us a little bit about what he views ecosystem-based management to be in terms of his responsibility for land?

Hon. P. Bell: Actually, I am very excited about ecosystem-based management. I think there is a huge opportunity around EBM to really move forward provincially and create a real balance between environmental and economic values.

The member asked if I could describe what it means to me; I think that was the context of the question. Really, I see EBM, or ecosystem-based management, as a teeter-totter with socioeconomic values on one side and environmental values on the other side. EBM and the initial handbook that's available on the website are an attempt to try and balance those two values and deal with the socioeconomic challenges — particularly of small, coastal, largely aboriginal communities that have not done well, traditionally, through the 1990s and the first half of this decade.

I think EBM offers some very real possibilities. I'm looking forward to moving that initiative forward over time. I think it's an exciting new initiative.

S. Simpson: Could the minister, with this question…? One topic that gets raised for me by folks who are keenly interested and engaged in this process is the question about where the baseline is to begin work. The question that I have is: is it the intention of the ministry to establish a scientific baseline to build the EBM system on for measurement?

Hon. P. Bell: Thanks for the question, again. I think really what the member refers to is commonly known amongst the people involved in the process around EBM as schedule B. That is the suite of legal objectives that would be established on which you would build ecosystem-based management. I think the most important thing for the member to understand is that ecosystem-based management is actually adaptive and changes over time and operates on this balance point of socioeconomic and environmental values.

Clearly, part of ecosystem-based management is to have a baseline of environmental values that are legally established and that are built on as that initial suite. So the answer is: that's a key part of ecosystem-based management. It relates directly to schedule C, which is the socioeconomic table that is equally important to EBM.

S. Simpson: I want to ask a question. This is a question that came to me today; I believe it was during question period today. There was a question to the Minister of Forests and Range in relationship to the coastal industry. The minister acknowledged that there are certainly challenges in the coastal industry from an industrial point of view. I believe he made the comment that there were a number of business interests, industry interests, that he was bringing together to rethink the coastal industry in terms of the viability of the industry itself.

The question I have is: could the minister tell us whether, as the lead minister on the LRMP, the coastal agreement, is your ministry part of those discussions with Forests and Range on these questions of revamping the industry? And how does that relate to the work that's been done on the coastal LRMP?

Hon. P. Bell: As the member may know, I'm very fortunate to have Larry Pedersen as my deputy, who used to be the chief forester in the province. We have quite a unique advantage in this ministry in that we get to send him over to talk and have coffee with his old friends from time to time. So it is a very collaborative approach, in fact.

I actually think that EBM can present some new values in an integrated approach to economic benefits up and down the coast that perhaps haven't been present in the past. As the member well knows, there has been significant activity from international concerns looking at the north coast and central coast. That has been a primary driver of the land use planning process that we've undertaken. I think there are some new opportunities that will come about as a result of the implementation of the plan, as a result of EBM and as a result of the work that the Minister of Forests is currently doing.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that. My question, though, is: is there a process going on being led by the Minister of Forests and Range or by that ministry to rethink the industry as per what I believe the comments of the minister were in question period? If so, is your ministry formally involved in those discussions since you have responsibility for the LRMP?

Hon. P. Bell: We work very, very closely with the Ministry of Forests on this file and many other files. As the lead agency on the land use planning process, we will be a key player in the work that the Ministry of Forests is doing.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us then: does he expect…? As the minister will know, there has been a lot of anticipation about the upcoming coastal LRMP because it is unique, and it potentially provides a very innovative approach that I don't believe has been taken elsewhere in the province previously, certainly not in the last number of years. Could the minister tell us whether he anticipates the discussions that are going

on with Forest and Range right now around revitalization of the coastal sector that the minister spoke about a little bit today…? Does he anticipate that having any significant impact on whatever the final agreement is on the LRMP? If so, in what ways might that occur?

Hon. P. Bell: I would actually say it's more the reverse, that the land use plan, which hopefully we'll be able to bring forward shortly, will have a significant impact on the shape of the forest industry moving forward.

S. Simpson: I just have a couple more questions, and then my friend from Vancouver-Fairview will want to continue this line of questioning a little bit.

Could the minister tell us when he expects to be announcing the coastal LRMP with some substantive and hopefully enthusiastic announcement?

I would note that it's been soon for quite a while. I believe that since about April it's been soon.

I think that I'm going to stop at this time. I want to thank the minister and thank his officials for their answers and their participation, and I'll turn it over to my colleague.

G. Robertson: A couple of questions for the minister following up on the ecosystem-based management. I'm curious. With the ecosystem-based management, does the provincial government endorse the recommendations of the central and north coast LRMPs that ecosystem-based management will be fully implemented by March 31, 2009?

Hon. P. Bell: I think we canvassed some of this yesterday, if I remember correctly, but the status of the central coast–north coast land use plan is that it's in government-to-government negotiations. I wasn't trying to be cute when I said "soon." I'm looking forward to being able to move it forward.

In the discussions that we had yesterday, we identified that it is very challenging — 33 different first nations up and down the coast. Some very, very good work is being done by our staff — Gord Goodman, Mike Lambert and so on — on this particular plan. Part of that discussion is, of course, the EBM implementation process.

I need to be able to say at this point that it's in government-to-government discussions between ourselves and first nations. We're looking forward to taking that forward once that's been completed.

G. Robertson: I take from that that there are no endorsements for the recommendations at this point. There will be no endorsements for the recommendations until government-to-government negotiations have been concluded?

Hon. P. Bell: Perhaps this helps the member a bit: cabinet actually did endorse the original proposal and EMB to go forward to government-to-government discussions. So there was an endorsement in terms of moving it forward to G-to-G discussions at that point. It would be premature for me to say that we are endorsing something prior to completion of those government-to-government negotiations and knowing exactly what the framework looks like.

G. Robertson: Could you tell me if there are or have been any legal steps taken by the government as the first steps in implementing ecosystem-based management in the region?

Hon. P. Bell: The only legal things that come to mind immediately for me would be part 13 designations in the central coast, north coast and also mineral reserves on the north coast, but that doesn't relate directly to EBM per se. But I can tell the member that there are a number of pilot projects operating on the coast that revolve around EBM right now. They're very encouraging and moving forward.

At this point, as I said, in government-to-government discussions with 33 different first nations up and down the coast, I feel very good about where that's going. I think we have a reasonable chance of success here, but it would be inappropriate for me to endorse anything prior to full completion of those discussions with first nations.

G. Robertson: A question related again to the LRMP recommendations. They recommended that a permanent EBM council and EBM science team be established to steward ecosystem-based management, and that: "Secure funding for an initial period of five years is required to ensure effective EBM implementation."

I'm curious. If the recommendations have been endorsed to go forward at this stage to government-to-government, what resources is the ministry allocating over the next three years to this multi-stakeholder body?

Hon. P. Bell: It's actually part of the client service delivery budget, which is $12 million for '05-06, and $8 million and $8 million for the two future years.

But I also want to assure the member that, again — and I'm not trying to be evasive at all in this; I'm trying to be as upfront as I can — because of the nature of the discussions that are taking place, where we have committed to full and open engagement with first nations on the central coast and north coast, until those discussions are actually completed, it is very hard for me to say exactly what all of those components look like. They, of course, are shifting all the time as we go through those discussions.

As I'm sure the member can appreciate with a caucus of 33, reflecting the 33 different first nations up and down the coast…. I'm guessing there is occasionally a disagreement amongst the 33 of you, so I suspect the

member can appreciate the difficulty. But I am feeling very good about the package, and I think that it will be truly reflective of a collaborative approach when we achieve our outcome.

G. Robertson: Will the minister give some details on the proposed terms of reference for the EBM council as it is being established?

Hon. P. Bell: I hate to do this to the member, because I know it sounds like I'm being evasive and I'm trying not to be, but because all of the components of EBM are embodied within the government-to-government discussions that are taking place right now, it's just impossible for me to go into any detail of what any of those may look like.

If I can share with the member, I have put a tremendous amount of effort personally into this file. I think that EBM can play a significant role on the coast of British Columbia. I think there are some very good components of it. I think the balance of taking in socioeconomic and environmental values is very strategic and smart. We just need a little time to work through this process and get to the completion of the government-to-government negotiations with first nations. At that point, there will be a lot more that we'll be able to talk about, and I suspect we'll be able to go back and forth in question period a few times as well.

G. Robertson: You referred to the budget within client services delivery. Is that funding being provided for the interim EBM working group? Or is that projected out farther beyond that? If it's not for the interim working group, is there funding that is being allocated for this interim working group to assist in getting EBM implemented on the ground?

Hon. P. Bell: Certainly within the $12 million, $8 million and $8 million is currently embodied our best estimate of the cost of implementation of these plans, which would include whatever groups are established for implementation of the planning process at this point. As I said, I want to make sure it is very clear that I'm saying that is our best guess currently as to those costs.

G. Robertson: I will turn the questions more generally to the central and north coast Great Bear rain forest, as it's been dubbed, and the multi-stakeholder initiative that's been put together. I'm just curious at this point if your government has made it clear to the federal government that this coastal economic development package is a priority for your government and that you are actively seeking the necessary matching federal contributions in order to make the investments possible.

Hon. P. Bell: I'll try and kind of go through some detail for the member, because I know he has a real interest. The member will know that the Premier sent a letter to many different first nations, just prior to the election, very clearly identifying that the provincial government is committed to $30 million towards a coastal opportunities fund or CIII fund. Several different acronyms have been used, depending who it is the member is talking to.

As part of that package, we are certainly actively encouraging the federal government to match those funds with an additional $30 million, and at the same time we're hopeful that there will be matching funds from different foundations to match those dollars up to create a larger pool of money. We as a provincial government, clearly through the Premier's letter to first nations, have made that commitment of $30 million. We're actively pursuing the federal government for an additional $30 million, and we're hopeful that we will see some foundation efforts on additional matching dollars to that.

G. Robertson: One more question related to this, and then I'll be turning things back over to the hon. member for Surrey-Whalley. As I understand it, there is approximately a $180 million package of investment from a number of sources — provincial government, federal government, a number of private investors and other philanthropic interests. There is a great deal of concern about the delays taking place. I would love to hear the minister's response to whether further delay right now in the initiative being completed will put at risk the possibility of bringing the $180 million together in new investment for B.C.'s central and north coast.

Hon. P. Bell: The $180 million is not a number I'm actually familiar with. I think I previously mentioned the provincial government commitment of $30 million. Certainly, we are seeking matching dollars from the federal government, which would reflect another $30 million, and then there have been discussions with different foundations of matching those dollars to add up to $120 million. I am not familiar with the $180 million the member does mention.

To be clear here, the member — quite rightly, I think — has described the rock and the hard place that we find ourselves in on a regular basis on this file. There is a very real need, through the new relationship that we are developing with first nations, to take adequate time and to make sure we have consulted adequately with first nations up and down the coast. With 33 different first nations, that is very important. At the same time we know that the foundations want a timely completion to this file, so it is very complex.

I feel very good about where we are today on this file. Certainly, I would hope that foundations will meet some of the initial indications that they had proposed and come to the table, because this is critical to know: first nations up and down the coast have not had a strong economy for a long time. It has transgressed many different provincial governments. It is critical that we do something to support and help develop those economies, and if we are going to make significant strategic changes in the land use plan on the coast, it's important that those resources are there to support first nations communities up and down the coast.

G. Robertson: Just one final clarification before I turn it over. I thank the minister and staff for being so helpful.

In terms of the timing at this point, can the minister give assurances to the first nations and the foundations involved that their commitment to date of $30 million is secure and that the clock won't run out on it if these negotiations take longer to complete?

Hon. P. Bell: I would refer the member to the Premier's letter that was sent to all the first nations up and down the coast committing to the $30 million with no qualifications there, with the exception of the approval of the House, of course, which the member will have an opportunity to discuss at some time.

B. Ralston: I'm going to change topics, if I might. I wanted to ask some questions about the wine industry. Until recently, it has been a responsibility of the B.C. Wine Institute. The ministry made a public announcement about the creation of the B.C. wine authority. It was to have been set up by August 1, and I gather from information I have received in news reports — this is dated a week or two ago — that unless I'm mistaken, the authority has not met the August 1 deadline to be set up. I'm wondering if the minister could advise where the creation of the authority is at. I'll just leave it at that and wait for his answer.

Hon. P. Bell: August 1 was actually the date the regulations were to come into force, so there may have been some miscommunication on that particular issue. The authority still is in the process of being developed. We are very cognizant of the importance of the January date to ensure that the taste panels are set up and in place for the 2005 crop year, and we are in the process of ensuring that that will in fact happen.

B. Ralston: I'm quoting from a report in the newspaper, which is sometimes not accurate, but what it says here is that when it was announced in March, the new body was to be set up by August 1. That's from an interview with the minister, and this article is dated October 2, 2005. Was there a commitment made to have it up and running by August 1 or not?

Hon. P. Bell: I can tell the member that certainly the intent was to have the authority in place by August 1, but the really critical time frame here is to ensure that the authority is operational by January 1 and that the taste panels are in place for the 2005 crop year.

B. Ralston: Then the expectation and commitment are that this will be done in accordance with that new deadline?

Hon. P. Bell: Yes, and I just maybe will take the opportunity…. I had committed to getting some information back to the member prior to noon today. This is the first opportunity to see the member, so I can just give him some responses to some earlier questions he asked.

He asked about the capital plan for the integrated land management bureau being $600,000 and $195,000 and $150,000 over three years. This is simply a reallocation of the system's capital to reflect the reorganization of the ILMB.

The member also asked about the budget lines that were reflective of $7.893 million and $11.231 million and $8 million. That reflects the increase in the system's needs for the land and resource data, the data warehouse in the integrated land resource registry. That's why there is a shifting number in that budget line — to reflect the increase in the system's needs there.

The capital from Land and Water B.C., the $40,000 up to $533,000 and then $1.864 million, was from LWBC due to the Tantalis upgrade. The $857,000 in '07-08 reflects the upgrade as completed at that point in time. I hope that provides the member with the information he was looking for earlier.

In that context and with that backdrop, I want to ask the minister about the current crisis facing apple growers in British Columbia. The B.C. Fruit Growers Association has been pressuring the provincial government to take action.

The minister was quoted in the fall 2005 edition of British Columbia Fruit Grower as saying: "There could be some crops we can't support in B.C., even if this means turning to a different product for which there's not an oversupply." Was the minister saying to fruit growers and to the citizens of British Columbia that producing apples in the Okanagan of this province is a sunset industry?

Hon. P. Bell: Not at all. What I was referring to was that, particularly at this point in time, we're seeing significant overproduction in a couple of apple species, which has caused a crash in the overall pricing. What I was also thinking of at that particular point in time was that there certainly are products where we don't have enough critical mass in the province to maintain them. I think it is incumbent on the provincial government to encourage people to be in the products that can be profitable and functional.

No one wants to see any agricultural component in British Columbia go broke. Certainly, this ministry's responsibility is to ensure that we have a thriving industry. We produce something on the order of 285 different agricultural products in this province. That is a

very large number. It is a very diverse industry. My comments were reflective of how we always need to be willing to accept change and move to the world marketplace.

B. Ralston: The minister, in his response, refers to an overproduction. Is it his view, then, that there's an overproduction of apples in British Columbia rather than an influx of Washington apples being dumped at a price that's not competitive with B.C. producers?

Hon. P. Bell: My view is that there is currently an overproduction worldwide of certain apple species.

B. Ralston: But dealing with the British Columbia industry, is there an overproduction of apples in British Columbia, in the minister's view?

B. Ralston: The B.C. Fruit Growers Association has, I understand, filed a formal submission to Canadian Border Services Agency alleging that U.S. farmers are dumping apples in Canada. The minister was approached, although this falls in federal jurisdiction, to ask whether he would support such an action. Has the minister made a statement on this issue, or is he prepared to make one now?

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, my role as Minister of Agriculture and Lands is to support our industry and do whatever I can to ensure that it is successful. However, the member will know that trade responsibilities fall under the auspices of the federal government. That is the appropriate venue for the apple growers to work in, in order to bring a trade action, which is what we've advised. We do, however, have staff that are willing and able to assist the apple growers in their endeavours with regards to bringing this trade action as well.

In the softwood lumber dispute, although it is similarly a trade dispute falling within federal jurisdiction, there's been no shortage of statements by provincial ministers and, indeed, the Premier on a number of occasions. Is this a question of a selective application of that refusal to comment on what's deemed a federal matter? Why, if there's a willingness to comment upon the softwood lumber dispute, is there an unwillingness here, apparently, to comment on a trade action that affects B.C. producers of another commodity?

Hon. P. Bell: I should highlight that the difference is that the dispute in softwood lumber has been clearly identified and that there have been many rulings by NAFTA identifying the U.S. to be in violation of the trade rules that have been brought under NAFTA. That is yet to be proven in this particular alleged circumstance with the apple growers.

B. Ralston: So the minister, just so that I'm clear, is not convinced that B.C. apple growers have a case and, therefore, is not prepared to support their efforts in launching a trade action?

Hon. P. Bell: It is not my role to determine whether or not the apple growers have a successful action. It is my role to ensure they have a profitable, thriving industry. In order to accomplish that, we certainly have offered our services in the development of their trade action.

B. Ralston: I understand that the minister, in the same interview, referred to himself as a free-trader and so would likely not support such an anti-dumping action. Is that indeed the case?

Hon. P. Bell: I believe I've articulated my position in the previous answer.

B. Ralston: I'm going to repeat the question, if I might. Is the minister saying that he's abstaining from comment on this as a matter of principle because he's a free-trader? Or is it because he doesn't want to intervene in a dispute that he's not convinced has any merit at this point?

Hon. P. Bell: I will actually try to articulate the full response again, although I don't have the benefit of having Hansard in front of me here. It is my responsibility as the Minister of Agriculture and Lands to ensure that we have a profitable, thriving agriculture industry, and I'll do whatever I can to ensure that that in fact takes place.

As a result of that, we have offered our services to evaluate the strength of case that is being presented by the apple growers. If there's anything we can do to assist that case, we will participate in that. That is my responsibility as the Minister of Agriculture and Lands.

B. Ralston: Does the minister see any connection between his comments to the British Columbia Fruit Grower magazine in the fall 2005 issue that there are some crops we can't support in B.C. and accelerated applications before the Agricultural Land Commission to remove orchard land from production?

B. Ralston: What the minister was quoted as saying in the fall 2005 issue of British Columbia Fruit Grower was: "…even if this means turning to a different product for which there's not an oversupply." Has the minister or have his officials advised B.C. fruit growers as to what product they should turn to, for which there's not an oversupply, in order to assist them in this endeavour?

Hon. P. Bell: That is not actually our role. Our responsibility is simply to provide the sorts of resources fruit growers need to develop new crops, to ensure that

their crops are being produced in a way that is at the most profitable level it can be. That would not be our role. That's a market role.

Certainly, we've been very aggressive with the orchard replant program. It's something that we have continued to contribute to in a significant way. That has been a large component of the dollars that have been available out of our ministry to help producers around the province, and I think it's been a valuable thing to do. We will continue to support that type of activity and do whatever we can.

Simply, I think that it's important that apple growers realize that there is an opportunity within the existing replant program to look at different varieties and different options. I would encourage the member to look at the cherry industry and what's occurred around that. That has been very, very successful as a direct result of the programs that this government has implemented.

B. Ralston: In the service plan a reference is made — and the minister has talked about it in his opening comments: "…a new agriculture plan for B.C. to be developed by December 2006. It identifies the opportunities for innovation, investment, niche markets and value chains, e.g. agritourism and the bio-based economy."

Hon. P. Bell: I was going to say that we actually haven't announced that yet, but I did refer to it in my opening remarks. It is under development. I think it is something that can be quite an exciting initiative and certainly something I'm looking forward to having input from the opposition in terms of the development. I think this not a political issue at all. I think it is an issue that is important to our agricultural community. I think, in the member for Delta South, the parliamentary secretary for agricultural planning, we have an excellent individual that can lead this process.

B. Ralston: Aside from the Members of the Legislative Assembly, who else is being consulted in this process, and how are they selected?

Hon. P. Bell: The process has not started yet, and no one has been consulted at this time, other than ministry staff, in terms of developing the general outline for how we want to proceed with the plan. I intend to sit down with the opposition at the first opportunity and discuss their views on this as well.

B. Ralston: Is there a consultation plan, then, or will it be the usual industry groups? Given the reference to niche markets and innovation, is there any thought of reaching out — not that one would want to denigrate their input — beyond the usual industry groups that might comment on agricultural matters?

Hon. P. Bell: As I indicated, the process is under development, and I would be very pleased to sit down with the opposition critic and review the opportunities. If the opposition critic has suggestions of groups and individuals that should be consulted, I'd be happy to accept that input.

B. Ralston: Is there any funding allocated to this particular process at this point?

Hon. P. Bell: It is included in the base funding envelope as identified in the budget book.

B. Ralston: In the service plan, one performance measure is: "Level of local government support for agriculture and aquaculture, and this is to be determined through an upgraded evaluation index." Apparently, the evaluation index was used on 49 governments in 2004 and 2005, and I'm wondering if the minister could point me to those results.

Hon. P. Bell: There are 52 different communities identified that have significant levels of agricultural activity, and I'm disturbed to see that Whalley is not one of those communities, for some reason. I'm sure the member is shocked.

Hon. P. Bell: I thought there were abundant crops growing in Whalley, if I'm not mistaken.

Hon. P. Bell: Out of the 51 or 52 communities — which did not include Whalley — there were four evaluations done. The information has not been published. It was done to establish a baseline, but I'm informed by staff that there's no reason why we wouldn't be prepared to share or publish that material. It has simply been done to establish a baseline to measure ourselves against as we go forward into future years. If the member is interested in that information, I'd be pleased to provide it to the member at a future date.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that. I suppose I should correct on the record that although the north part of Surrey may not have any agriculture, one-third of the city of Surrey is in the agricultural land reserve and has a very active agricultural advisory committee, indeed one of the model agricultural advisory committees in the province. I know that at this hour one is tempted to become jocular, but I just want to set the record straight lest anyone think I'm not advocating on behalf of the city of Surrey. I appreciate the minister's offer to provide that data, and I look forward to receiving it.

I want to turn now to some issues about risk management, which are set out in the service plan. I understand that as part of the national agricultural framework, there's a new program being delivered jointly with the federal government. These risk management programs include the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program and the expansion of insurance from crop insurance to cover all farm production. I'm wondering if the minister can provide the committee or the House with an update on the implementation of the business risk management programs begun as part of the agricultural policy framework?

Hon. P. Bell: Two different programs. Production insurance, actually, has been operating since 1963, so for quite some time. Although there have been changes in the program over time, it has been pretty successful. The CAIS program was the 2003 production year. Payments have, in fact, been made. Future 2004 is in process right now, and we have staff who are continuing to work around the province with individuals to ensure that it meets their needs.

B. Ralston: Sorry, I didn't quite hear the last part of the response. Can the minister advise how much funding the province itself receives for business risk management per year through the programs?

Hon. P. Bell: We receive about $40 million per year over the five-year program with CAIS.

B. Ralston: Can the minister give some sense of the distribution of that $40 million?

Hon. P. Bell: I actually finished off my last statement by saying that CAIS was $40 million. It's actually $40 million total between production insurance and CAIS. Production insurance amounts to an average of $16 million a year, and CAIS operates at an average of $24 million per year over the five-year period.

B. Ralston: The risk management estimates increased from $18.603 million in 2004-2005 to $29.679 million in '05-06 and decrease to $23.530 million in '06-07. The service plan says these increases reflect the "creation of the production insurance special account and the related premium expenses," and they're listed on page 13, as well as "minor adjustments." I'm having some difficulty, and perhaps the minister can assist, in understanding that fluctuation and the disparity between higher premium expenses and lower expenditures.

Hon. P. Bell: This will be a little bit longer, more complicated answer, but the larger number in '05-06 was as a result of the shift of the province to generally accepted accounting principles, and there was a one-time dollar value that had to be brought forward as a result of that. The '06-07 and '07-08 numbers are reflective of shifting federal contributions through that period of time to these different programs.

What I want to assure the member is that the total dollar value available to clients remains constant through that period of time, and it's projected to meet the needs of clients throughout the period of the program. It's simply a question of where the dollars come from and accounting changes that are associated, but the total dollar value available to client groups will remain constant.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that response. I want to ask some questions about CAIS, or the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program.

As the minister is aware, he was contacted by letter by a representative of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business in August, expressing their disappointment with the national committee's decision not to take up their organization's offer to survey their agribusiness members regarding proposed changes to the CAIS program. In the letter the Canadian Federation of Independent Business urged the minister — and I'm quoting; it says "you," and I know that's impermissible here, but that's a direct quote — "in your capacity as the Minister of Agriculture, to pressure the national CAIS committee to reconsider working with CFIB and consult directly with producers of British Columbia. By working together, we can ensure recommended changes result in a CAIS program that is more accountable and responsive to agribusiness owners' evolving needs."

Can the minister advise what action, if any, he's taken on the concerns expressed by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business in this matter?

Hon. P. Bell: There are a number of different groups that we believe do this work already. There's a national working group that works with the CAIS program that has all producers on it that feeds back through to CAIS exactly how the program is functioning and what needs to happen. There's the APF advisory group that does the same function that has, again, producers on it.

We have our provincial advisory group that I meet with on a regular basis that also feeds back information. I provide that federally as well. In fact, I speak with Minister Mitchell on a fairly regular basis and have developed a good relationship with the federal minister and feed back different issues around CAIS. He and I have spent quite a bit of time very specifically discussing the CAIS program and some of the challenges around an issue that the member was canvassing earlier on, which is the one brought forward with regard to the apple growers of the province in the Okanagan and the challenges they were having getting access to CAIS funding.

We've been working quite hard to make that happen. Certainly, we think that this effort would have been redundant, with other efforts that are currently in place.

B. Ralston: I take it, then, that the minister has advised the Canadian Federation of Independent Business by letter of his assessment of the situation. I'm wondering if the minister would be prepared to provide me with copies of that correspondence and any subsequent response from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

Hon. P. Bell: That document is still being prepared. I'd be pleased to carbon copy the member on that document when it's sent.

B. Ralston: I certainly don't want to be picky, and we all understand the pressures of time. This letter was written August 8, 2005. Just so we're clear: there's been no response from the minister at this point.

B. Ralston: Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask 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.