2011 Legislative Session: Third Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, May 16, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 2

[ Page 7013 ]

MONDAY, MAY 16, 2011

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

N. Macdonald: I would like the House to join me in welcoming to the House Anthony Britneff, who's a good friend from Victoria and who has a lifelong passion for forestry. If the House could please join me in making him welcome.

Tributes

Kootenay ice
hockey championsHIP WIN

B. Bennett: It's my great pleasure to announce that the Kootenay Ice beat the Portland Winterhawks on Friday night to win the WHL championship. They're going to the Memorial Cup.

Introductions by Members

S. Fraser: Joining us in the gallery today is a friend of mine, Barbara Murray, from Nanoose. She's representing Pacific Wild of the Great Bear rain forest at an international conference. It's called the International Marine Conservation Congress, held every two years. It's in Victoria this year. It was in Washington, D.C., last year. She's taken time from that conference to join us here today. Please make her feel very welcome.

[1335]

R. Hawes: In the gallery today is Sandra Clarke. She is the executive director of the ACT Foundation. The ACT Foundation works with the B.C. Ambulance Service and the B.C. paramedics union providing CPR training to students in high schools across British Columbia. She is here today to have meetings with the Minister of Education regarding this program. Could the House please make her welcome and thank her for all the work that the ACT Foundation does for the kids in our high schools across British Columbia.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: It's my great pleasure to introduce to the House members of the Technology Education and Careers Council — that's TECC — who hosted many of our members for lunch today. I'm looking forward, actually, to meeting with them this afternoon.

TECC was formed in 2008 by the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians to bring together leaders in industry, education and associations to advance engineering and applied science, technology education and careers. Many of the TECC board members are here today. I'll just introduce the chair to the House: Sandy Innes. Please make him very welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today is my executive assistant Chris Sandve. He is joined by a number of guests, including Kirsten Harvie, who is his fiancée; Maggie Harvie, who is Kirsten's mom; Jennifer Harvie, Kirsten's sister; Sue Bermies, who is Kirsten's aunt — the whole family pretty much is here; Margaret Harkness, Kirsten's nana, which I interpret to be grandma; and Susan Walker, who is a great-aunt of Kirsten and who is visiting here from Glasgow, Scotland. So could I please ask the House to make all of our guests welcome.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General's 2011-2012 report 2, Audit of the Academic Ambulatory Care Centre Public Private Partnership: Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, and the annual report of the British Columbia Legislative Library, 2010.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

MINING INDUSTRY AWARD RECIPIENTS

R. Hawes: Each year during Mining Week the miner of the year is announced and recognized. Last week was Mining Week in British Columbia, and this year two giants of the industry were recognized.

Rob Pease has been a miner for over 30 years, working the bulk of his career in senior management with Placer Dome. In 2006 he formed Terrane Metals to develop the Mount Milligan mine northwest of Prince George. This is a copper-gold project. It's been fully permitted and is now under construction. Last year Terrane was acquired by Thompson Creek Mining, and that project is moving ahead and going to provide employment and an economic boost to the area. Mr. Pease is now a director and strategic adviser to Richfield Ventures, a gold exploration in northern British Columbia.

The irrepressible Jim O'Rourke was part of a team that brought in the Endako mine, Gibraltar mine, Quinsam Coal and Huckleberry mine. Jim managed the Similco mine in Princeton in the '90s when the mine closed. He later acquired a lease on the minesite and began planning for the Copper Mountain mine. This major redesign and expansion of the old Similco site has given a new lease on life for the people of Princeton.

This pine beetle–ravaged area had been suffering, but the jobs and investment provided by Copper Mountain
[ Page 7014 ]
have turned the local economy around. Copper Mountain has been a game changer for the Princeton area and its people.

Mr. O'Rourke is also a director of Compliance Energy, which is working to develop the Raven coal project on Vancouver Island. While this project has its opponents, they should be comforted by Jim's past. He's always shown great respect for the communities in which he has developed mining projects. Sustaining families requires jobs and revenue to government to pay for the services those people require.

Rob Pease and Jim O'Rourke have supplied both in abundance. Congratulations to each for the well-deserved miner of the year awards.

COASTAL DOUGLAS FIR ECOSYSTEM

D. Routley: I rise to speak about the coastal Douglas fir ecosystem, which is the smallest of the 14 B.C. ecosystems. It is restricted to low elevations along southeast Vancouver Island. The coastal Douglas fir zone is in the rainshadow of Vancouver Island and the Olympic Mountains.

[1340]

Rainstorms hit these mountains first and discharge much of their moisture. Consequently, the summers are warm and dry, and the winters are mild and wet, although drier than most other B.C. coastal zones. This climate creates a unique set of conditions allowing for a diverse group of plants and animals.

Coastal Douglas fir ecosystems are among the most imperilled coastal ecosystems. Since they occur along the coast in regions favoured by people, they were some of the first forest types targeted for logging and cleared for urban and agricultural development.

Today very few older ecosystems remain as isolated islands among a landscape altered by human development. Trees such as Douglas fir, western red cedar, grand fir, western flowering dogwood, Garry oak and arbutus, as well as endangered species, large animals, black-tailed deer, black bear, cougar, bats, amphibians, the marbled murrelet and the sharp-tailed snake make this area home.

Coastal Douglas fir ecosystems are adapted to warm, dry conditions. They may have a special role to play if this part of the world warms due to climate change as predicted. Particularly near urban areas, forests are valuable for providing spongy soil and organic matter that allow rainwater to soak into the ground, where it replenishes groundwater and is naturally decontaminated as it filters through rock, soil and plant roots.

An emergent industry is the non-timber forest products, involving collection and sale of mushrooms, medicinal herbs, berries and floral greens.

As the human population grows in this region, old-growth and older second-growth forests continue to be cleared. Only about 0.5 percent of the land base formerly occupied by coastal Douglas fir forest is now comprised of older forests. Invasive species also present a hazard. We need to act to protect this essential eco-climate.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AWARENESS WEEK

J. Les: I am pleased to announce that May 15 to 21 has been declared Local Government Awareness Week in the province of British Columbia. The purpose of this week is to generate awareness and educate the public on the importance of locally elected officials and the role that they play in making decisions through municipal councils, regional district boards and school boards. It's an opportunity for the public to learn more about how local government works and how they can participate in creating sustainable, family-friendly communities by making their voices heard.

In fact, this year's theme is "Be heard," a theme that reinforces the importance of voting, attending public forums and town hall meetings and learning about candidates' platforms. As we're all aware, this fall on Saturday, November 19, voters will choose their local representatives for a further three years.

Communities are celebrating Local Government Awareness Week throughout the province, so I encourage members of the public to call their local government or school district to see what activities are being planned in their area. I read in the news, for example, that Kelowna is offering school tours of city hall, holding a "Be heard" open house and giving the public access to advisory committee meetings. Kelowna also has a new website designed to encourage public engagement. The Comox Valley regional district is offering local government 101, a school for people considering running for elected office.

I would like to congratulate Kelowna, the Comox Valley regional district and other participating communities for helping to make government at every level more transparent and accessible.

As you know, this government has made it a priority to support open governance systems that enhance the democratic process. We're also committed to helping local governments create livable, family-friendly and economically resilient communities. For these and many other reasons, we want to reinforce the importance of learning about and getting involved in government processes.

Seeing as I have a bit of time left, I am reminded of a story. It was about 25 years ago, I think, that I was sitting at a regional board meeting along with Mayor Mike Dunn, who was then the mayor of the district of Kent, and we were discussing local government awareness. He said: "If you want awareness, double their taxes. They'll be aware."
[ Page 7015 ]

EMERGENCY SERVICES AWARENESS

S. Fraser: This week is also dedicated to recognizing the women and men that provide emergency services to those of us that need it the most when we need it the most. It is Emergency Services Week, and it is appropriate that we in this House honour the value of emergency services providers here in British Columbia.

Many professions and many more individuals make up our critical emergency services. They include our firefighters, paramedics, emergency nurses, technicians and physicians, as well as educators and administrators. All play a role that ensures that British Columbians can receive life-saving care 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

[1345]

When they jump into action, one thing is for sure: our emergency service personnel dramatically improve the survival and recovery rate of those who have the misfortune of experiencing sudden illness and injury. That can be anyone at any time.

Emergency service personnel often sacrifice much to do what they do — the time and training that never really ends, long hours and gruelling shifts. And sometimes they sacrifice everything.

On October 19 last year two B.C. paramedics, Jo-Ann Fuller and Ivan Polivka, both of Tofino, died after their ambulance plunged into the icy waters of Kennedy Lake. They were friends; they were community members — two ordinary people to us in the community, but two ordinary people with a long record of life-saving service, and they were doing their job in the wee hours that Tuesday morning.

While reflecting here on Emergency Services Week, I would like to remind this House how valued our emergency services personnel are and that they put themselves at risk in the hopes that we will all have a better chance of surviving our own tragedies.

DALIAN DELEGATION VISIT TO BURNABY

R. Lee: On Sunday I had the pleasure of meeting with a delegation from Dalian, China, which is visiting my city of Burnaby to discuss trade and cultural exchanges. This eight-member delegation is led by the assistant mayor, Mr. Lui Yan. Dalian is an important city for Burnaby and for all of British Columbia to have a strong relationship with.

Just as we are the Asia-Pacific gateway, so Dalian is the gateway to northeastern China. In recent years trade deals between Dalian and B.C. companies have covered areas such as wooden-frame house construction, the manufacturing of wind power generation facilities and garbage recycling.

Now that China has become the world's top emitter of greenhouse gases, cities like Dalian are becoming increasingly interested in green technologies. As the home to BCIT's Burnaby campus and many leading companies in the green technology field, my city is poised to benefit from this.

Burnaby-based Xantrex is already capitalizing on these opportunities by supplying Shanghai Electric company with electronic interfaces to convert and control raw electrical power from solar and wind into the high-quality power required for electric grids.

Our efforts to increase trade with China are paying off. We are seeing more and more delegations like this one from Dalian which is visiting Burnaby right now at this moment and bringing Dalian companies to invest in sectors such as biotech and biomedical devices.

We have much to offer to each other in terms of two-way trade, investment and cultural exchanges. I hope all members will join me in giving a warm welcome to our visitors from Dalian.

FESTIVALS IN KOOTENAYS

M. Mungall: Well, it did take a while this year, but spring finally did come, and the Kootenays, of course, know just how to celebrate its long-awaited arrival. As the rain showered over Baker Street in Nelson on May 7, locals piled on to the famous downtown street to get their seeds, flowers, herbs, shrubs, trees and garden decor. It was the West Kootenay EcoSociety's tenth anniversary of their garden festival, and the rain stopped no one from supporting their neighbourhood businesses.

This upcoming weekend brings two more festivals and, of course, a prayer for a little sunshine. The 70th annual Creston Blossom Festival starts this upcoming Friday. To celebrate the past 70 years, the blossom festival is hosting a very fun event in honour of a past long-serving festival board member and woman who left a tremendous legacy in the Creston Valley, the late Lela Irvine.

The event is a pageant tea for women over 70 years of age. Mr. Speaker, you might notice that I'm not eligible for this pageant, so I will be taking in the baking and the handicrafts and the fashion show that entrants will be proudly showing off. I welcome all to join me after they catch enough candy at the parade earlier in the day. The pageant is at the Creston and district rec centre from 2 to 4 p.m.

But not to be outdone by its Kootenay neighbour Creston, Kaslo also boasts a lively May festival this weekend. So whether you're entering the 5K run, the skate jam or logger sports or all of the above, May Days are sure to entertain and bring community together.

[1350]

Like Creston's blossom fest, there is a parade. Watch for me and my fiancé on our motorbike as we reach into the saddlebags and toss candy to eager kids and kids at heart.
[ Page 7016 ]
As the House knows, Nelson-Creston is the most beautiful constituency in B.C., so I welcome all to attend our wonderful May festivals. You will no doubt have a ball.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT TAX POLICIES AFTER
HARMONIZED SALES TAX REFERENDUM

B. Ralston: There seems to be no end of conflicting information from the B.C. Liberal government, especially when it comes to the HST. Last week in the House the Minister of Finance was asked to commit that when the HST referendum is successful, we would return to the PST with all its previous exemptions. He declined to do that.

However, on the government's telephone town hall on Thursday night, about 6:45 p.m., Rosemary from West Vancouver asked what will happen when the HST is voted down. The Finance Minister's HST campaign co-chair and the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure said: "We will go back to the previous PST exactly as it was before."

So there does seem to be another opportunity for the Finance Minister to offer an explanation. Will he commit, finally, to restoring the PST with its previous exemptions when the HST is voted down?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I've now said three times in this House, I'm not going to speculate on what outcomes may be on the referendum. But what I can assure British Columbians is that, as I've said before, three different times, we would make sure we go out and have a conversation with British Columbians to deal with whatever those impacts are and ensure that we discuss with British Columbians what the options are with respect to going back to PST plus GST.

In fact, if the members go on the hstinbc.ca website, they will see there's already a survey that provides and asks the public for their input with respect to that very issue.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, clearly the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure was providing a little bit more than a survey. He offered an answer, and the Minister of Finance doesn't seem to want to comment on that.

When British Columbians signed the initiative petition, they expected a referendum that would result in a clear vote on the HST. They don't want the government to damage the integrity of this process. The Minister of Finance won't commit to respecting that referendum and, in particular, returning the PST with its exemptions.

Again, to the Finance Minister: Why is he leading his government's abuse of the referendum process?

Hon. K. Falcon: No, what the Finance Minister won't do is speculate — I imagine for the same reason that the NDP Finance critic is not talking about what they will do if they actually are successful in having their option move forward, which is returning back to a PST-plus-GST system, which….

The independent panel report points out that the initial hit to provincial revenues in the initial two years alone is almost $3 billion. I imagine that's probably why we're not hearing from the NDP Finance critic on how they intend to not only go forward with all the financial spending commitments they are making every single day in this House — I tally it to be about $100 million so far and counting — and how they're going to square that with the fact they're going to have $3 billion less revenue to the provincial government in the initial two years. No speculation on that side either.

I can tell you, as a responsible Finance Minister, that we will do whatever the direction the public gives us, and we will do so responsibly.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

B. Ralston: Clearly, we on this side of the House will respect the results of the referendum no matter what.

The Finance Minister doesn't want to answer this question about the Referendum Act, so perhaps I'll direct my question to the Attorney General. I speak to him in his capacity not as a political member of cabinet but in his independent function as the chief law enforcement officer of the province. That's a non-political role, a unique role in cabinet.

[1355]

The HST referendum is binding. The Referendum Act makes that very clear. The question is clear: a vote to extinguish the HST and return to the PST as it was.

To the Attorney General: in his opinion, does the Finance Minister's threat to change the PST violate the binding aspect of the referendum vote?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, it is fascinating to me that, once again, the member keeps asking a question that he has asked before. I want to be very clear about something. We will fully endorse and respect the decision of British Columbians with respect to that referendum. There's no question about that.

As I have said on numerous occasions, we will engage in a public discussion with British Columbians on the fallout of that decision, whichever way that may go, to ensure that any tax changes are going to be built on the foundation of consulting with British Columbians — just as we are in the midst of consulting with British Columbians. Some 275,000 British Columbians have responded on how we can improve the HST.
[ Page 7017 ]

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY PREMIER
AND GOVERNMENT INFORMATION
ON HARMONIZED SALES TAX

D. Donaldson: Well, the Finance Minister likes to talk about consultation. They decided against consultation when every member on that side of the Legislature voted in favour of the HST a year ago.

This weekend the Premier fired off a promise to change the B.C. Liberals' HST even before the voters get a chance to vote it down. Of course, she forgot to aim first, because that promise means that the $7 million of taxpayers' money spent on an ad campaign launched last week is a complete waste. The whole purpose of the campaign is to draw their attention to a website that claims to explain their HST, but now the Premier says it's all going to change.

To the Finance Minister: to use his own words describing Premier Clark's management style, will he admit that the Premier's ready-fire-aim HST announcement just pulled the rug out from under the multi-million-dollar ad campaign?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is wrong. The fact of the matter is that what we are doing is making sure that the public have information so that they can make an informed vote.

You know, the members opposite laugh at that prospect, but it might be interesting if the members would just look at the website. We will find that, based on the surveys that have been filled out on the websites, 61 percent of British Columbians think that basic groceries have gone up under the HST, which is not true; half think that gas prices have gone up due to the HST when there's been no change; and 48 percent of people think electronics have increased after the HST, which is not true. It's exactly the same as it was under the PST and GST.

I wonder why the NDP is so terrified about the public having basic facts and information so that they can make an informed vote. I do wonder about that. I suggest that they're worried that their misinformation campaign that they have been part of for many, many, many months now might just be a tad undermined if British Columbians are making a decision based on facts.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: All the consumers in the province are wrong; that's what the minister is saying. They're the only ones that are right on the HST. That is total arrogance, and they will pay for that arrogance.

This government's idea of putting families first is to waste their tax money. The $7 million ad campaign was designed to direct people to a carefully crafted website attempting to salvage their HST. But now, just days after the ad campaign was launched, the Premier is saying that their HST could change, making the info on the site out of date already.

Again to the Finance Minister: given that the info on the site may already be out of date and knowing that no one in the province believes this government is neutral when it comes to their HST, does he believe this ad campaign was a useful way to spend millions of taxpayers' dollars?

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, to correct the member — because, again, this is how they like to spread misinformation — it's a $5 million information campaign.

[1400]

I'll tell you something, Mr. Speaker. I am interested…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: …in the hysterics that the NDP are displaying over this information campaign. The NDP were in power — in fact, the Leader of the Opposition was chief of staff — at a time when they felt a public policy decision that was important enough, the Nisga'a treaty, deserved a multi-million-dollar information campaign.

Now, the difference is this. The NDP said it was going to be a $2.3 million information campaign. It actually ended up being $7.8 million, and they didn't notify the public until three days before Christmas. That was their approach.

This Minister of Finance said that he would make sure the public was aware of exactly what we were going to spend, that we would do it before the campaign launch. That's exactly what I did. I announced it last week before question period. In fact, I didn't hear a single question from the NDP opposition last week when I announced that.

GOVERNMENT TAX POLICIES AFTER
HARMONIZED SALES TAX REFERENDUM

K. Corrigan: On one hand, the Finance Minister is threatening that he won't return to the PST as it was, and on the other hand, the Premier is trying to buy back voters with their own money — $7 million of their own money. What next? Will the Premier try to change the name of the HST?

Voters won't buy this good cop, bad cop routine. To the Finance Minister: will he stop wasting taxpayers' money, stop trying to change the conditions of the vote, and let British Columbians have their day free of manipulation?
[ Page 7018 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: The vote that British Columbians will be having is probably the single most important vote British Columbians will ever have either in the history of this province or perhaps even on a go-forward basis on an issue of very important public policy. For the life of me, I can't understand why the NDP are so terrified about the public having an informed vote, about knowing some of the basic elements about that HST.

I mean, we have listened in this House….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: We have listened in this House as individuals, including their own Finance critic, have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about basic elements of the HST. We just heard two members now try to misinform the public by saying there's a $7 million information campaign when it's $5 million. They should know that the other $1.7 million is going to both sides to encourage debate and to ensure the public gets to hear from both sides with respect to this.

I make no apologies, as the Minister of Finance, in ensuring that the public is having an informed vote on the single most important public policy decision they may ever vote on.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: I think the people of this province would like to have had an informed vote on this question in 2009. Voters do want to have their say on the question: extinguish the HST, and return to the PST with its previous exemptions. Yet this B.C. Liberal government is wasting millions of taxpayer dollars and desperately trying to confuse the issue and manipulate an outcome. That's exactly what they did in the last election when they promised not to implement the HST in the first place.

Again to the Finance Minister: will he stop wasting taxpayer dollars on a futile ad campaign, and will he commit to restoring the PST with its previous exemptions when the HST is voted down?

Hon. K. Falcon: On one of the telephone town halls we hosted…. Of course, there were 275,000 British Columbians that participated on the almost one dozen telephone town halls. But on one of those telephone town halls we had a senior who does tax preparations for low-income seniors, and he said to me….

You might want to pay attention. Mr. Speaker, the members opposite should pay attention.

[1405]

This senior, who does volunteer tax preparation for low-income seniors, said to me: "Mr. Finance Minister, you have an obligation to make sure that these seniors know. I do their tax preparations. They do not realize they are getting a rebate from the provincial government. If they knew they were getting that rebate, they would have a very different view on the HST. You have an obligation, Mr. Finance Minister, to get that message out."

That's exactly what we're going to do. Those members opposite are afraid of people having basic facts. On this side of the House we have an obligation to make sure that the public have an informed vote. That's exactly what they will have.

J. Horgan: It's nice to see my B.C. Liberal friends in their places with bright, shiny faces after their convention in Penticton over the weekend. There you go. There are not as many empty seats today as there were in Penticton, but I digress.

The Finance Minister last week said that there will be no policy pronouncements before the referendum. Now, he was doing that to deflect attention away from the fact that he will not commit to restoring the PST with its previous exemptions. Yet in Penticton Liberals assembled, with a smattering of media to cover the event. The Premier said the following: "I want to make sure the government is committed to a position of improving the HST prior to the vote being made."

To follow on my colleague from Deer Lake, you can't have it both ways. You can't say no to a direct question on a fact, as in "Will the tax be restored?" and then say: "We're going to jig with it until we get it so we can sell it on our $7 million budget."

What's it going to be: yes to the PST and no to the HST? That's the question.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm not sure which convention he attended. The one I attended had over 1,000 delegates in attendance — unlike NDP conventions, where if you subtracted the public sector union delegates, you could hold it in a phone booth. That's the difference.

You know, the fact of the matter is the member for Juan de Fuca was actually present while we were doing a town hall at the convention on the HST. There was not only not a seat to be available, but there were people standing at the back of the hallway, and there were questions coming through Livestream and Twitter. It was a tremendous success. It reinforces the interest that is out there amongst the public in getting basic information, and that's what we'll provide.

In terms of what the Premier announced, which is wonderful news, it confirms what we said from the very beginning, which is that we are going to have a listening exercise with British Columbians — listen to their ideas on how we can improve the HST — and that we would make sure British Columbians know
[ Page 7019 ]
what we're going to do with respect to it prior to them making that vote.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I guess there weren't that many B.C. Liberals in the room because half of them were outside trying to scrub the B.C. Liberal label off of everything they were handing out.

As much as it's enjoyable to watch the Finance Minister say, on the one hand, "Let us do whatever we want," and on the other hand, "I'm not going to answer your question," I'd like to go back to the Attorney General, in his non-partisan role, and ask him if he could give an interpretation to this House with respect to the Referendum Act.

The fact we're looking for is that the question says "extinguish the HST and reinstate the PST." It does not say: "Then consult with British Columbians." It says "reinstate." So will the Attorney General advise this House: what does that mean? Does it mean reinstate or have another dialogue?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I think we're starting to gain some insight on apparently how the NDP would conduct public policy should they ever, God forbid, find themselves on the government side.

[1410]

They are going to campaign for a return to a PST plus GST which, as the independent panel report points out, will hit the government revenues to the tune of almost $3 billion in the initial two years. They will do that without explaining in any way, shape or form how they intend to square that with their standing up every day in question period demanding more public spending in every single ministry of government. That apparently is the NDP approach.

On this side of the House we've been very clear. Should the public make that decision, which we will entirely respect, we will actually make sure to go and have a public discussion with the public to ensure that we make sure we get tax policy right to deal with the financial impacts, whatever they may be, as a result of that referendum vote — that historic referendum vote.

SCHOOL DISTRICT PAYMENT OF
PROPERTY INSURANCE PREMIUMS

R. Austin: School districts recently received a letter from the capital management branch informing them that school districts are going to have to pick up the tab for property insurance premiums previously covered by the ministry. This is going to take $3 million out of classrooms.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Wouldn't the $7 million that the government is spending on HST propaganda be better spent on ensuring districts don't have to make any more cuts to classrooms?

Hon. G. Abbott: I hope the member doesn't mind if I take this question on behalf of the Finance Minister. He wants to advise, first of all, that it's $5 million. That's the first clarification.

This issue involves insurance pooling by the school districts for claims under $100,000. It is a modest departure from the practice of the past. It is something which school board officials, their business and financial officials have been discussing with the ministry for well over a year.

It represents very good value for all taxpayers in British Columbia, and administratively it is a sound way to proceed. It does represent a pressure of 0.051 of 1 percent — or, expressed differently, 0.00051 percent — of the overall budget for the Ministry of Education.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: This is a minister who has to negotiate tens of millions of dollars coming back into education, which was stripped unconstitutionally by this government. That is a huge amount of money.

Not only are the B.C. Liberals sticking it to school districts by making them pay an extra $3 million in insurance premiums, but now they're upping their deductible on claims from $3,000 to $10,000.

Again to the Minister of Education: does it really make sense to slam school districts with last-minute cuts while you're spending millions of dollars on pro-HST ads?

Hon. G. Abbott: I certainly hope that the Education critic for the NDP makes a similar fuss later in the week when we announce a larger minor adjustment on the positive side to school districts in the province. I do hope that I'll get a question in question period that day on how we are relentlessly forcing more dollars on school districts every year. Back in the last year of the NDP's reign it was just over $6,000 per student in funding. Now we are forcing over $8,330, on average, per student every year in British Columbia.

M. Elmore: In Vancouver it's a quarter of a million dollars, and every dollar means less for classrooms, less for librarians and less for counsellors in Vancouver.

[1415]

This is what Patti Bacchus, chair of the Vancouver school district, has to say about the B.C. Liberals' last-minute decision to force school districts to pick up the tab for their HST ad campaign: "A week after we submitted a very difficult budget, now we've got to find another $291,000 in this stretched budget that's been scraped away at for too many years."
[ Page 7020 ]

My question is to the Minister of Education. If the B.C. Liberal government can afford to waste $7 million on HST stickman ads, why are you sticking it to school districts?

Hon. G. Abbott: I can't believe the remediation I'm expected to undertake on behalf of the Finance Minister in this House. This is deplorable that I now have to correct it again to $5 million.

But so the member knows…. And I hope again that this member will join with the Education critic later in the week in deploring the over $800,000 that will be going to the Vancouver school board later in the week.

I know I heard today from Chair Bacchus of the Vancouver school board and three of the NDP coalition that are on the school board, and I appreciated hearing that. I'm sure I'll look forward to hearing from them thanking the government very much later in the week for the additional contribution.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Elmore: Well, cute doesn't cut it with kids, and the B.C. Liberals are sticking it to kids in Vancouver classrooms. Michael McEvoy, president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, noted that most school districts already submitted their budgets to the government. It's irresponsible for the B.C. Liberals to force districts to cut another $3 million from classrooms at the last minute.

Again to the Minister of Education: do you think it's appropriate to ask school districts to make yet more cuts to classrooms after they've already prepared their budgets?

Hon. G. Abbott: I saw the press release from Chair Bacchus and, as usual, the alarming conclusions that she would make to any change in a budget. But I do hope I can say this with confidence. If a change of $3 million is alarming, think of the ecstasy that will be produced by $7 million or $8 million later in the week.

I do hope that the Education critic and other members of the NDP House here will be able to get through the balance of this week reflecting on a 0.051 of 1 percent change in a budget today and an even larger change on the positive side later this week.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
FOR PROPOSED
VANCOUVER ISLAND COAL MINE

S. Fraser: I have another prime example of a B.C. Liberal minister saying one thing and then doing another. Despite the Minister of Agriculture's claim last week in question period that "the highest environmental standards" will be applied — that's the quote — to a potential coal mine that threatens the very best shellfish farms in the whole province, the minister was wrong. The truth is that the environmental review policy, the plan, is second-string at best. That's not good enough.

Will the Minister of Agriculture speak up for his portfolio, speak up for his constituents in the Comox Valley and central Island and protect the shellfish industry in his riding?

Hon. T. Lake: I presume the member opposite is speaking about the Raven coal project that is in the very early stages of the environmental assessment, in the preconsultation phase.

[1420]

In fact, the environmental assessment office has gone out and met with all the stakeholders. They are making sure that they design the public consultation piece to make sure they accommodate all of those that have an active concern in this project.

It's a well-recognized system. I think we should let the system work through the process, and we'll stand behind that process because it is taking into account all of the concerns of the people in that area.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: I didn't direct to the Minister of Environment, because the minister responsible for shellfish marketing is sitting over there, and he's ducking this issue again.

The Minister of Environment finds himself on the wrong side of the facts too. Every local government, every local organization has demanded the most rigorous environmental review process, independent with a public hearing, and that's being denied, for the minister's information.

This industry represents the livelihoods — that is, the shellfish industry — of hundreds of families in the Comox Valley. The leaching of heavy metals into Baynes Sound would destroy the shellfish industry. It would ruin….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Fraser: Any heavy metals leached into Baynes Sound would shut down the export market of that product. It would ruin the industry.

Mr. Speaker: Question, Member.

S. Fraser: Will the minister stand up, the Minister of Agriculture responsible, for Island families and protect the shellfish aquaculture sector?
[ Page 7021 ]

Hon. T. Lake: The member should get his facts straight. He should be well aware that on March 12 and 13 the environmental assessment office, along with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, facilitated two day-long focus workshops with public interest groups.

These public interest groups included CoalWatch Comox Valley, Comox Valley chapter of the Council of Canadians, Comox Valley conservation strategy, Comox Valley Naturalists Society, Comox Valley Project Watershed Society, Eaglecrest Residents Association, Ocean Canal Clubhouse, Parksville-Qualicum KAIROS, Ships Point improvement district and the board of the trustees, the Sierra Club Comox Valley, Wilderness Committee Mid-Island chapter, Fanny Bay Salmonid Enhancement Society. All groups that have an interest are being consulted.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House this afternoon we will do committee stage, to begin with, of Bill 6, intituled the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2011. Should we have time, it will be followed by second reading of Bill 7, intituled the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2011, followed by the second reading of Bill 10, intituled Wills, Estates and Succession Amendment Act, 2011.

In Committee A we will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

[1425]

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 6 — CIVIL FORFEITURE AMENDMENT
ACT, 2011

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 6; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:30 p.m.

On section 1.

K. Corrigan: I have some questions. I wanted to clarify what the workings of this first section of the act are. It essentially seemed not only to incorporate the provisions of section 7 of the Civil Forfeiture Act, having them apply to the new administrative process, but also to remove cash from…. It changes the way that cash is dealt with in a civil forfeiture.

I'm wondering if I could get an explanation of what the impact is, particularly on cash and the timing.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, this does clarify this process for regular civil forfeiture and also the new administrative forfeiture process. It is very unusual to register cash under the personal property registry. It is something that is not common practice, so we're correcting that. Property means just that. It would be the registration of property and not cash.

N. Simons: Thank you to the hon. minister for her presence, as well as the presence of her people who help her with the answers.

I'm wondering if the minister would be able to outline, on section 1, what the general purpose of the section is in relation to the previous act, just on a general basis.

Hon. S. Bond: The general purpose here is to clarify the certainty around the effective date of forfeiture. It is essential. When you apply for forfeiture, the court requires there to be certainty as to the effective date, so we're clarifying that.

The second piece I've already clarified: we are correcting, in essence, what is an unusual practice of registering cash. The personal property registry is about things and not, typically, cash.

N. Simons: Can the minister explain what the problems were that are experienced by the director under the regime as it exists currently?

Hon. S. Bond: I should take this opportunity to introduce the staff that are with me. They are part of an exceptional team that has created a very successful forfeiture program in British Columbia. We have Rob Kroeker with us, who is the executive director of the civil forfeiture office, and Jerad Larson, who is the program manager. It's been an exceptionally successful process.

I think the member opposite is asking us why we are bringing in administrative forfeiture. Generally speaking, the reason is that we have seen circumstances where items that have a smaller value have often been far too expensive, through the court process, for us to pursue.

[1435]

This would allow us to use an administrative process, and if there is something that has a value below $75,000, we would be able — obviously, after referral by the police in British Columbia — to contemplate an administrative forfeiture, thus not utilizing an expensive court process. What it says is that we want to make sure that if you are benefiting from crime in British Columbia, no matter how small the amount, we're going to make sure that it's not worth your while.

N. Simons: Does the minister contemplate how low the amount is that the ministry expects to go to in recovery of property?
[ Page 7022 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Well, the upper threshold of this administrative forfeiture would be $75,000, but really, the amounts are much smaller than that. It costs around $5,000 or so to initiate a court proceeding. We're typically talking about amounts that may be less than $5,000, sometimes several thousand dollars, often related to the drug trade, in particular — small-time criminals who are selling drugs — and often related to cash, in particular.

K. Corrigan: I was starting to ask a question about the operation of section 1(a), and I had to leave the chamber for a minute. I'm wondering if I could go back to that.

The dealing of cash. I'm wondering what the change that has happened in this section means in terms of when the order is effective with regard to cash. What does that mean in a practical sense?

Hon. S. Bond: What it means is exactly as I've articulated it. Typically, one doesn't register cash as part of the personal property registry. This actually creates certainty for both the administrative and the court process related to forfeiture.

We will no longer register cash on the registry, but there will still be a requirement through administrative forfeiture to advertise for 60 days for belongings and property, for example. This is not common practice and probably was an oversight. We are correcting that.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering, though: does it then change…? My reading of it was that it would change when the order was effective with regard to cash and that it would make that order effective at an earlier date.

Hon. S. Bond: There's a very minute difference between when it's registered and when the proceeding actually is initiated. It can often take place on the same day. Really, the issue is that registering cash on a personal property registry is costly. It is burdensome. It is not a typical practice. It is correct that the date would now be effective at the beginning of the proceeding, but rarely is there a lengthy difference between registering and the beginning of the proceeding.

K. Corrigan: Has the ministry…? Actually, first, how much cash has been affected to date?

[1440]

Hon. S. Bond: As of a couple of months ago — we can look up the exact date — the civil forfeiture office has seen forfeiture of about $17 million, and about $3 million of that was cash.

K. Corrigan: Well, it seems like it is a fairly significant amount of money. The thing that I'm wondering about is whether or not, if the date does change and it could be earlier, there has been any evaluation of how much difference that makes in terms of interest or that office having the money. Is there any impact there, and was this the motivation at all for changing the section?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, a very minute difference. In fact, the only difference would be if there was a day's delay between registering it or the proceeding starting. At the end of the day, the process that is undertaken doesn't change. People have the opportunity, and in the case of administrative forfeiture, which we're contemplating here, people still have the same period of time from whichever way the clock starts ticking. So it won't make a significant difference from that perspective.

The member is absolutely right — $3 million is a lot of money that could be put to use by criminals in British Columbia. We've said, "You're not going to do that; you're not going to benefit," and in fact, that's been one of the significant successes of the civil forfeiture process.

K. Corrigan: I'm asking the questions because I want to see if there is a significant amount of money that is interest that the government would accrue because of the change of date. It would be just as possible to have the effective date be the date that there was notice given, could it not be? I'm just wondering why it was decided to do that this way.

Hon. S. Bond: I think the general principle here is that the change of date does not change the practice in terms of the process of civil forfeiture. In essence, what it does is potentially eliminate what is typically even the same-day registration of that cash.

At the end of the day, there is no significant additional benefit to government, and, in fact, government doesn't benefit from forfeiture anyway. Who benefits is…. The civil forfeiture office pays for itself, and any other money that is accrued is used for victims of crime and is basically put back into community in a positive way instead of a negative one.

[1445]

K. Corrigan: What is the average or norm in terms of how long the time period is from when a proceeding is commenced to when notice is given?

Hon. S. Bond: There isn't an average. In fact, every case is different. But the principle is that the moment the process and the procedure begin, we begin to look for that person. If we have a known address, we start there, and that may take a couple of days to track them down. If we don't know where they are, we have to find addresses. But there is not an average. Every case is different. As soon as we begin the forfeiture process, we begin to look for the people.
[ Page 7023 ]

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if we know how much interest has been raised to date on money that has been held in forfeiture.

Hon. S. Bond: We're debating whether or not interest meant people actually come and try to get their money back or whether there's an interest rate and it's accruing. In both cases, it's rare. Interest doesn't accrue because, technically, the money is in a lockup somewhere while we're attempting to find the owners of it to see if they're interested in pursuing that. I'm told that any accrual of any interest is rare and minimal.

K. Corrigan: This is a process that I am not, I was going to say, entirely familiar with. In fact, I think I would go a little farther and say that I'm learning a lot. So then, what the minister is saying is that the money does not get deposited in a financial institution?

Hon. S. Bond: In most cases, that is correct. It is being held securely. There are occasions — and it is rare — where it may be paid into the court, and it may accrue some interest there. But generally speaking, someone is holding on to that asset securely as we try to track down anyone who may be attached to it.

K. Corrigan: I think, actually, I don't have any more questions on that section.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

K. Corrigan: This is the substantive part of this bill. I do have a large number of questions with regard to part 3.1, which is called the "Administrative Forfeiture of Subject Property."

Starting with the definitions, I am trying to understand the impact and the relationship between the two terms "known interest holder," which is somebody, I presume, that notice needs to be given to…. The difference between that and a "protected interest holder" and how the two of them relate — I wonder if I could get some explanation on that.

[1450]

Hon. S. Bond: Well, there is some crossover between the two, but a known interest holder is an individual who we believe actually has an interest. They are individuals to whom notice must be sent. A protected interest holder is generally an institutional lender that has a valid security agreement. They would also, obviously, be a known interest holder.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if I could get, perhaps, a bit of a list of the types of protected interest holder. I would assume that that would also include, for example, somebody who has registered ownership of a vehicle. What other types of things would be included in who is considered to be a protected interest holder?

Hon. S. Bond: As I mentioned, it is generally institutional lenders, so it would be banks, credit unions, potentially lease companies. It could also be a registered vehicle owner.

K. Corrigan: I'm also wondering if things…. I know that when we met with the director, one of the common types of property that end up being forfeited when there is criminal activity is things like jewels and jewelry and so on. Now, is there any way the jewelry could be a registered piece of property? Would that in any way, or ever, be included in that?

Hon. S. Bond: Definitely. If there is a serial number, for example, or if it can be adequately described, then certainly it would be constituted as such.

K. Corrigan: I'm trying to fit together the pieces of this bill, which is difficult to do, because you're superimposing an amendment act on top of the original bill. I've got to say that it is difficult going back and trying to see how the different pieces fit together.

In one section often you have to refer to sometimes five or six sections in two different acts in order to understand what the workings of this bill are. It certainly has been a bit of a struggle trying to understand exactly how it all works together.

When somebody is a protected interest holder, that property, then, is protected from the operations of administrative forfeiture. Is that correct?

[1455]

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, they are protected, unless, of course, they were involved in any unlawful activity related to that property.

N. Simons: We have in front of us an act that has maybe a six-line explanatory note for section 2. Section 2 covers a new section called section 14, which covers a significant number of aspects of this bill. I'm thinking that that might be why there might be confusion. Usually there are explanatory notes when there are substantive changes, and there seem to be substantive changes, considering there are about eight or nine pages of this bill.

My question is…. Essentially what the director is seeking through this legislation is the ability to circumvent normal court processes, including service requirements and the commencement of a court hearing. Is that what known interest holders need to be aware of?
[ Page 7024 ]

Hon. S. Bond: I think that there is one substantive change. While there are many parts of the act that need to be amended, there is one substantive change. That change would be this: we will take the opportunity with small amounts — items that have lower value, below $75,000 — to engage in a process where we would make every effort for a 60-day period for people to claim their interest. The moment they stand up and say, "We dispute your claim to forfeiture," this process immediately reverts to a court-led process.

The fact of the matter is that there are many criminals in British Columbia benefiting from the proceeds of crime. This is one way to ensure that while they have their rights protected to step up and say, "We dispute your claim," in the event that they don't, there will be administrative forfeiture.

So there still is every opportunity for this case. Should there be a determination that it is worth the public interest to proceed, it would go through the court process, as forfeiture does today.

N. Simons: Does the minister recognize that by lowering the threshold, this will likely result in people with less money being pulled into the court process? Does the minister have any concerns that, in fact, legal aid will not cover someone's court costs should they be subject to this act?

Hon. S. Bond: The process won't change. Today there is a process in which if something is deemed in the public interest, there may well be pursuit of a forfeiture. In fact a judge very recently, I believe it was here in Victoria, decided that two individuals who continued to deal with issues like impaired driving and simply did not correct their behaviour…. Their vehicles were actually part of a process, and they were worth very, very little. That process was determined to be in the public interest.

There is no guarantee that once a person stands up and says, "I dispute your claim," that it will take a court process for them to get back what may be a very low-value item. That simply may just take place. It would be very much a decision about whether it is worth pursuing it through the courts, but that option is certainly available.

N. Simons: Who would be determining what is in the public interest? Is that an answerable body to the public? Is it a body with public oversight? Is there any ability to determine whether the public interest is actually the interest of a separate agency? How is that determined?

[1500]

Hon. S. Bond: The director is given the discretion as to whether or not to proceed with an action. I can say today that the process has been so successful…. We have been successful with every case that has proceeded with the forfeiture process today.

N. Simons: As the minister knows, the success of a process does not speak to whether or not it is a fair process. That, I think, is what is at issue here, and the responsibility of Her Majesty's Official Opposition is to ensure that legislation passed by this House actually meets the test of: is it in the public interest? That's why I asked the question about who is responsible for making decisions.

In most cases when you have a judge making that decision, it's a judge who is appointed under certain statutory authority and a judge that is chosen for that particular purpose. I have absolutely no reason to question any motivation of any party.

However, as I've said in previous discussions about this type of legislation, a less benevolent government could, in certain circumstances, use legislation as a tool as opposed to as a form of the protection of the public. And I'm concerned about known interest holders and protected interest holders. I'm concerned about the rights of criminals, because we protect the rights of criminals because we are concerned about the rule of law and equality under the law.

Can I just maybe suggest a potential circumstance where perhaps this law needs another look? That is, if somebody has…. Let's say, for example, someone's brother has an alcohol and drug problem, and they come to your house and you give them a couple of nights' sleep before they take off on the next part of their adventure. They leave for a couple of months, and you don't see them for a while. I know many families have been touched by people's addiction problems. So they disappear for a couple of months to northern B.C.

Little known to you, they've taken the jewelry from your great-grandmother out of your desk, and you haven't realized that. They go away. They spend two months on their — what do you call it? — tear, during the course of which they're arrested and their property is seized.

If that property is not theirs and you happen to be a sibling of theirs, what rights do you have as a sibling to recover, whether it's jewelry or family heirlooms, what that particular person might have absconded with? Where are your rights protected in this process?

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, we do care about people's rights, and that's been clear with the process that currently has court oversight. We've had over 600 cases referred. They are referred by the police in our province. We've had 250 of those cases which were concluded, and in fact they were all successful when that decision was made.

In the case that the member describes there would not have been proceeds of crime involved there, so this process would not apply.
[ Page 7025 ]

N. Simons: The integrity of legislation is measured not by how it's intended but by how it could be used. And I think that's really what we're trying to get at here, that the potential misapplication of law is where the rights of individuals are threatened. I believe there are some examples in here that leave, at least, questions at this point as to whether or not the rights that we and — the minister will acknowledge — our forefathers and mothers have fought so hard to protect…. One is the right to personal privacy and the protection of property.

In this particular case I don't think that you could make an argument that the rings or the jewelry that your brother absconded with to the north for three months would not be subject to seizure, because how will the law enforcement authorities know where that material comes from if, in fact, the person who's been accused is not forthcoming with those details? And will that money ever be able to be returned, or will it be liquidated and left solely as financial property, should someone decide to pursue a civil course of action later?

[1505]

Hon. S. Bond: Again, the circumstances the member is describing would be considered theft. The RCMP would deal with that case, and it would not engage the civil forfeiture office.

N. Simons: I'm sorry if I've confused parties here. However, I'm talking about someone absconding with property that happens to have been in your dresser drawer, perhaps, and you have no awareness of it being missing. Months go by, and your sibling is, as I mentioned, perhaps…. My siblings — I have five of them, and they shouldn't assume I'm talking about them.

They're up in the north, and they're stealing property and stealing jewelry and electronics, and the police come upon them and find all this jewelry and electronic material. How is the police officer, the referring agency, going to know that, in fact, this is the perpetrator's great-grandmother's stuff that he stole from his sister's house? Or brother's, in the case if it being me. That's the question I have.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, provided there was a police report filed that it was stolen, it would be entered in the PRIME database. One of the first things the RCMP would do before it ever got anywhere near the civil forfeiture office…. My staff have just described an event for me very similar to that. A person appeared with a bag full of jewelry. The RCMP meticulously went through that, matched it up to descriptions on PRIME of places where jewelry had been stolen and returned the property to those individuals.

You know, our first attempt is to return the property. As long as there's a police report, the police would do the work that they're expected to do. At the end of those processes, if there would be reason to refer it, the police would make that determination.

N. Simons: The particular situation I'm trying to describe does not involve a police report of the original theft of that jewelry. Nobody knows it's been stolen except the person who stole it. That person gets arrested 500 kilometres from the home where they stole it from. His little brother doesn't realize it's missing from the drawer. Immediately civil forfeiture, without having any ability to get that back….

I'm saying that no, there's no report about it. It's seized by the police, the Civil Forfeiture Act takes it away and liquidates it, and it becomes money. Immediately you have family property that is no longer recoverable. Is that the case?

Hon. S. Bond: The bottom line is that there will be every effort made to, first of all, publicly make people aware that the property has been basically received by the RCMP. There will be and are newspaper ads that talk about property that may potentially be considered for forfeiture. It is posted on the B.C. Bid website; I want to be clear that I get the right name.

Then if the sibling is suddenly involved with a forfeiture case, I'm assuming the family may want to make some connection. But at the end of the day, generally, describing the system that the member opposite has brought to the floor, it would not engage the civil forfeiture office. It would engage the police in British Columbia who will do their very best to try to find the people who belong to that property.

[1510]

N. Simons: The police arrest someone in downtown Dawson Creek in possession of three camcorders — if they still exist — five iPhones, three iPads, a BlackBerry tablet of some form and six rings. The police will arrest the person. They may have ample evidence to tie that perpetrator to most of the goods in his or her possession.

The process could, from that point, involve the director of civil forfeiture, the liquidation of those assets and the loss of those goods from family or friends, who I imagine do not on a regular basis go to B.C. Bid to see if their stolen property is there for sale because one would expect that the government would retain goods that have been taken or forfeited from criminals in order to ensure that the rights of the proper owner are protected.

Where is the protection for the proper owner of goods who doesn't know that his goods have been stolen?

Hon. S. Bond: The bottom line is that if you don't know if something is missing or stolen, it's very difficult for the police to help you. It certainly isn't going to end
[ Page 7026 ]
up on the desk of the civil forfeiture office. The bottom line is that if there are stolen goods, the police in British Columbia first would check for police reports. That's why we have the PRIME database.

So if you call in and say, "My grandma's jewellery is missing," and then your grandma's jewellery shows up, the beauty of that is the police can match it up and you can get it back. In many cases property that is not returned, if it is not tied to criminal behaviour such as drug dealers or gangs in organized crime in British Columbia, it doesn't end up on our desk. It could actually end up in a police auction. They auction bicycles all the time and a number of other things.

The key to civil forfeiture and administrative forfeiture is that it is related to an unlawful act. The biggest group of offenders that we have are typically drug dealers. We catch them with drugs, and we catch them with cash. What we're saying is: "You're not going to get that cash back to behave badly in British Columbia." It's been an extraordinary success. In fact, models across the country are now designed similarly to British Columbia's.

All we're asking for in section 2 is the ability to create administrative forfeiture, which allows us to look at smaller amounts of money after due process. In other words, we still go look for the person who is known to have an interest in that property. The moment they step up, they get the opportunity to go through the court process.

N. Simons: I understood the minister to say earlier that this would avoid the court process. This is an administrative tool designed either to avoid court or to avoid the service requirements of court. Is it one or the other? Would the minister be able to clarify?

Hon. S. Bond: The discussion has been about the protection of rights. So my point is this. If a person has an interest in something that we are contemplating for administrative forfeiture, if they step up and say, "We dispute your claim," we then have the opportunity to consider whether it goes through the court process. It may not at that point because the value is so low that if they claim ownership and dispute administrative forfeiture, there may or may not be a court process depending on…. But the point is that that option is still available to them. They still get to step up and say: "That's my property." That's the protection of individual rights.

In fact, we have a 60-day period, and there's an additional ten days after that. So they have 70 days to actually step up and say: "That's mine." I think that is what is considered a reasonable test.

N. Simons: Thank you for that clarification from the minister. I would just suggest that if they know their property has been stolen, they have recourse, and that's fair.

[1515]

The question that wasn't answered earlier was the person who's arrested and not even charged. This is the situation, for those that understand. A person can have property removed from them without being convicted of a criminal offence. The balance of probabilities is the test on whether or not to approve this forfeiture. In criminal cases you need a significantly higher threshold of proof, and it's the erosion of this threshold that I think the public needs to be concerned about.

As we all know, civil liberties don't disappear overnight. They are gradually eroded. I do consider that the elimination of due process in the removal of personal property is a problem.

It's not that I want to take the side of the criminals. I think that we need to reflect on the fact that there have been people who have been improperly accused. There are people who have been unfairly accused. It is those people who, at the same time as this minister talks about criminals, are going to be subject to having their property taken away from them. I think that is something that….

As much as the rule of law may be applied in good ways, we have to remember, that the blade of the sword is sharp on both sides. If we don't apply it properly, there is collateral damage that is obviously going to ensue. I think that the lack of recognition of this fact in the answers to my questions seems to belie what may be a simple notion of what a bad guy is. I think we need to recognize that by lowering the threshold, we're also talking about petty criminals.

The issue that I think we need to perhaps explore more is: is this a tool designed for gangs, or is it a tool designed for petty criminals? Is it going to be a tool now, because of the threshold reduction, that's going to be applied to people who are living in poverty?

As we know, there's a high incidence of criminal offences among people of certain socioeconomic groups. I'm talking about petty crime. I'm talking about people who are living hand to mouth. That, unfortunately, would be people considered by the minister as drug dealers.

I think we need to make sure that we understand that the target of this legislation may, in fact, be those rich criminals who drive Hummers, but we have a situation where it may now apply to people who cannot even afford legal aid to protect their rights. Is that the case?

Hon. S. Bond: There is a goal in forfeiture that is looking at criminal behaviour in British Columbia. We're talking about telemarketers that scam people in our province. We are talking about organized crime.
[ Page 7027 ]
We are talking about gangs in this province. We are looking at a reasonable approach to protecting people's rights.

I should correct the record: it is 67 days, not 70. I was enthusiastic in my ten days' additional. It is actually 60 plus seven. There are 67 days for a person who is involved with this piece of property to actually step up and say: "That's mine." We believe that's a reasonable test.

In addition to that, we must prove that the person using the property is benefiting from the proceeds of crime. Secondly, the test for facilitation in the use of a crime also means they have to benefit from that use.

There is a very significant test before any sort of forfeiture is considered. In this case this is about administrative forfeiture for lesser amounts of money — typically related to drug dealers who are selling drugs in our communities, often having small amounts of cash. We're going to give them the opportunity to prove….

They get to step up and actually have a known interest. But if they don't, we're going to make sure they don't benefit from the proceeds of crime in British Columbia. We're going to protect rights, but we're also going to protect British Columbians.

[1520]

C. Trevena: I wondered if the minister could just let this side of the House know which other jurisdictions go to this level for civil forfeiture, down to $75,000 and below. What other jurisdictions have a similar level of civil forfeiture?

Hon. S. Bond: We are the first to look at administrative forfeiture. However, just last week we announced that seven provinces, seven jurisdictions, are actually working together on the concept of civil forfeitures so that we can work cross-border, and we're pleased to see that kind collaboration taking place.

But the threshold is the same in every jurisdiction. The threshold actually starts at a dollar. The difference here is that we are looking at administrative forfeiture, which allows us to deal more cost-effectively and efficiently with smaller amounts of money, which today are not being processed because it is a costly court process.

C. Trevena: If we are the first jurisdiction to look at using this administrative process, what sorts of guidelines and protections are being established under this? What sort of oversight is there going to be to make sure it is fair?

Hon. S. Bond: The process we're putting in place includes the individual. If they are a known interest, they would be served notice personally that administrative forfeiture is being considered. It will be advertised publicly. There is a 60-day period, plus an additional seven days, and at any point during that process if they step up and say, "That belongs to me," the process that is in place today — which involves the courts, potentially — kicks in.

C. Trevena: I understand that from the minister's response to previous questions, but what I wanted was the oversight of the system itself, not just the onus on the individual to come forward, which I think is what the minister is saying — that it's up to the individual to come forward and say either "Yes, this is mine" or "This isn't mine."

Hon. S. Bond: Any decision made by the director is subject to judicial oversight, and those decisions could be challenged.

N. Simons: Just to clarify, once someone steps forward and says, "This property should not be seized," is the onus then on that person to prove that they have not committed a criminal offence?

Hon. S. Bond: The case would go back through the regular process, and it's up to the director to prove that it was a proceed or a part of the committal of a crime.

K. Corrigan: I'm going to go back to the definitions in section 14.01. Public body is described as meaning any of the following: "(a) an entity with which the director has an information-sharing agreement under section 22 (4)." That's subsection (a).

[1525]

I'm wondering if the minister could please describe what kinds of bodies are included in both subsection (a) and subsection (b).

Hon. S. Bond: Police agencies, the B.C. Securities Commission, gaming enforcement, the Ministry of Environment — I think those are pretty indicative of what the definition describes.

The Chair: Members, given that section 2 extends for some seven pages, I would propose we vote on them by subsection.

Section 2, section 14.01 approved.

On section 2, section 14.02.

K. Corrigan: With regard to section 14.02(1). It says: "This Part applies if (a) the director has reason to believe that (i) the whole or a portion of an interest in property, other than real property, is proceeds of unlawful activity…." What are the tests, and under what circumstances would the director come to believe that they are proceeds? I'm just wondering what the test is and what the process is there, in making that determination.
[ Page 7028 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Police agencies would refer a case to the civil forfeiture office. Obviously there would need to be direct evidence provided by the police agency as they refer that case to the civil forfeiture office.

K. Corrigan: So would the director rely, then, on the information that was provided by the police — rely on that? Or would the director be required to add some more thought or ask some questions? I'm trying to get a sense of what the process is and the safeguards, considering the questions my colleague has been asking in the previous….

Hon. S. Bond: The police provide the referral with all of the information attached to it. Very often there are lots of documents, including things like banking documents. The director's job is to review that before a final decision to proceed is made. So yes, the director has a responsibility to use due diligence and does review the information that's provided by a policing agency.

K. Corrigan: But just to be clear, when we say that they are proceeds of unlawful activity, this doesn't require that somebody has been convicted of or even charged with a criminal offence.

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct because this is a civil forfeiture process which has been in place in our province. But this is a civil forfeiture process. We still have to look at the balance of probabilities and be able to prove that there has been a connection with the proceeds of crime.

[1530]

K. Corrigan: It could also be property that was seized where the unlawful activity would not, if proven, be a criminal offence. Could it be other types of offences? Does it have to be a criminal offence?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, it can be a criminal offence, but it also could be a provincial offence. A really good example of that is securities regulations. It cannot be a bylaw, but it can be a provincial and certainly a criminal matter.

K. Corrigan: Could it be an offence under the Motor Vehicle Act?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, it can. It could be reckless driving, for example, or street racing.

K. Corrigan: Not speeding tickets, I take it?

Hon. S. Bond: No.

K. Corrigan: So it's either a property which is proceeds of unlawful activity or is the instrument of unlawful activity.

I'm wondering if the minister could let us know what types of property have typically been forfeited in the past and what the breakdown is of types of property.

Hon. S. Bond: We don't have a breakdown, obviously, of all of the items. You can imagine they would be fairly varied, but the typical and most frequent are vehicles, interest in houses and cash.

N. Simons: Earlier the question was asked as to whether or not the Motor Vehicle Act would be one of the pieces of legislation which could be the umbrella for what would be considered unlawful activity. Is there a schedule of acts or pieces of legislation under which civil forfeiture could apply?

Hon. S. Bond: No.

N. Simons: Why not?

Hon. S. Bond: The definition is that it's either used in a criminal activity or the proceeds of crime.

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to clarify. My understanding was that the minister just said that it was the proceeds of criminal activity. My understanding is that it is the proceeds of unlawful activity.

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

[1535]

K. Corrigan: Thank you, because I think that's why this line of questioning is being pursued. The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast is trying to get an understanding of what types of legislation and what types of offences would be covered by this particular provision of civil forfeiture. Could the minister give us an idea of the various offences against which would qualify?

Hon. S. Bond: We've done that. In fact, it could be federal — which is criminal law, criminal activities. It could be provincial — for example, the Motor Vehicle Act or securities regulations.

N. Simons: Would they be considered under the Wildlife Act or federal acts such as that?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, it could well be the Wildlife Act. Again, if it's an unlawful activity that leads to profit…. We've never had one under the Wildlife Act.

N. Simons: So to clarify, it must lead to profit, be the result of profit or result in profit.

Hon. S. Bond: There are two criteria. One is the profit from crime or property used for the offence.
[ Page 7029 ]

N. Simons: To get to section 14.02(1)(d), the application of this act: "This Part applies if…(d) the director has no reason to believe that there are any protected interest holders in relation to that property."

Referring back to my questions on definition, that is exactly the situation that I would contemplate as potentially problematic, in that the director has no reason to believe that there are any protected interest holders in relation to that property. What does the director do to ensure that that is in fact the case, besides publication, notification about the act?

Hon. S. Bond: We've walked through this with the member. The RCMP would begin by trying to match the property. The director would make every reasonable effort to publish, to seek out and to make the information public.

We have a number of processes. At the end of the day, the director actually, with the organization, works very hard to determine whether there is an interest holder. But at the end of the day, there may well be circumstances that if a person doesn't report something missing, and we have made every best effort to try to seek out someone of known interest…. There is a due process in order to try to do that very thing that the member asks.

N. Simons: How many staff are available to do that due diligence?

[1540]

Hon. S. Bond: There would be a case lead in the civil forfeiture office, backed up by a number of support staff and a legal team that would assist them.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask…. I recall that the minister said that this is a civil proceeding. Therefore, it would apply in a case where there weren't criminal proceedings — that the charges had been dropped or they couldn't make the charges or felt that they wouldn't be able to get a conviction or perhaps felt this was a more convenient way to go.

Is it possible that the Civil Forfeiture Act and the amendment act creating administrative forfeiture could apply and be used even when there is a criminal conviction?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes.

K. Corrigan: Has that happened in the past?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, a very public one. It related to drug trafficking and a Hummer.

K. Corrigan: I think one of the concerns that I have had about this act and, certainly, this provision is the possibility that police departments working with the director would come to an understanding, perhaps, that it might be difficult to prosecute somebody criminally and that they would be tempted to start using this act as a different way to, in a way, get around the requirements of the Criminal Code, which requires that you have to prove an offence beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to the burden of proof under the Civil Forfeiture Act and the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, where it is on the balance of probabilities.

I'm just concerned about what protections there are in place in order to avoid that kind of discussion happening.

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the question, and I know that the member opposite is attempting not to imply anything. This is about making sure that there is an appropriate process in British Columbia for looking at the proceeds of crime. Of course, the police and the civil forfeiture office are doing their jobs appropriately. There are policies in place which require them to meet all standards related to charge approval.

For example, a case may end up at the civil forfeiture office if the police cannot meet those charge approval standards or if the Crown says no. But there are policies in place which preclude the kind of behaviour that the member opposite is suggesting. I know it's even hard for the director to hear that kind of suggestion.

[1545]

This isn't about circumventing rights or the court process. It's about making sure that if someone in British Columbia is benefiting from the proceeds of crime, there is a process in place which says: "You're not going to take advantage of that in B.C."

K. Corrigan: I think my colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast earlier alluded to the fact that when we are considering a piece of legislation like this, we should not only consider what the potential is when we have entirely ethical and professional people in place, which we do. I am certainly not suggesting that the director of forfeiture or the police officers in this province would do anything inappropriate. That is certainly not my suggestion.

I'm merely looking at what the potential pitfalls are if there were pressures somewhere or it occurred to somebody that this might be another way to go. So I think it's always appropriate, and that is certainly not to in any way suggest lack of professionalism by anybody in government.

You know, there always are possibilities where individuals who work in any walk of life might be either pressured or where there's potential for inappropriateness. However, I'm not even suggesting that it necessarily is inappropriate. I was just trying to get an understanding of the workings of the act itself, because I can't imagine that it wouldn't occur to a police officer or to a
[ Page 7030 ]
police department that if they can't be successful in the criminal law, there is another avenue.

I understand that the minister even said in second reading — I don't have a quote of it — that this is essentially another way to attack crime. So it's in everybody's mind that this is another way to attack crime, and I would imagine that would be true of the police officers as well.

Maybe I'll ask the question in a different way. The minister talked about the protections that are in place. I wonder if the minister could explain what the process is in terms of how the property would flow from the police to the office. Is all the work that has to do with the criminal process completed and finalized and out of the way before there is, then, a referral to the director?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, my second reading comments were very clear. This is about cracking down on crime in British Columbia. It's about ensuring that we have a fair and reasonable process in place. I can assure you that the civil forfeiture office, the director and the police agencies in British Columbia do not use this process to circumvent other ones.

While the member opposite suggests she was not making that comment, in fact, that was exactly the question that was asked. That is not the case with civil forfeiture. In fact, a demonstration of that success would be 250 successful cases through the court process and not one that was not successful. There is due diligence. It is an appropriate process. Of course we're attacking crime in British Columbia within a proper process.

In relation to the question just asked: yes, the proceedings would be complete as it's related to property. That doesn't mean that…. The process related to the criminal charges may still be ongoing, but certainly, it would have to be complete as it relates to the property specifically.

N. Simons: I really hope that we don't see resentment on the part of the minister in having to answer these questions. These are the tests that the people of the province deserve answers to. The minister, if she implies, when we suggest that there are problems with legislation, that she then defends the people sitting next to her…. I think that's just not on.

I think the minister knows very well that when we consider, when we have criticisms about the structure of other agencies, the Liberals are the fastest to jump to: "Why do you have trouble with social workers?" or "Why do you criticize police officers?" That's not the point.

[1550]

We've got legislation in here. We're legislators. We're supposed to do due diligence on legislation. To pretend or to insinuate that we're somehow insulting staff, I think, is pretty unfair, and I think it should be immediately stopped.

I think these questions are fair. If the minister doesn't think the questions are fair, she should say so. If she thinks we're implying that we're denigrating the positions of people in her ministry, she should say so.

The Chair: Member….

N. Simons: We're asking questions because our job is to protect the interest of the public. If it's not our responsibility to be careful about this legislation, then we're not doing our jobs. I just take offence to that insinuation. I think these questions are fair.

Has civil forfeiture ever used the Safety Standards Amendment Act as a way of forfeiting property?

Hon. S. Bond: No.

N. Simons: I think it's incumbent on the minister to tell the people of this province what laws could be subject to civil forfeiture and not just leave it up to people to guess. I think that should probably be in the legislation as well, as similar situations exist in other areas.

We were talking about the ability for public servants to enter property, to investigate possible theft of electricity without conviction, without even an allegation being filed officially. The right of the court or the right of the civil forfeiture office — with the police assistance, obviously — would exist to forfeit property. Does the minister believe that this is the law that can be fairly applied, equally applied to all citizens?

Hon. S. Bond: The law in British Columbia, whether it's the Civil Forfeiture Act or any other act, applies to every British Columbian. Of course that's the case. So yes, I would expect that it is applied equally to all British Columbians.

N. Simons: Clearly, it has been expressed to this House that police forces, when they do not have enough evidence — and do not believe that the Crown will accept their evidence, the information they lay before the Crown, to convict — and all likelihood of conviction, have a backup plan. Can they go to their backup plan of civil forfeiture before presenting information to Crown?

Hon. S. Bond: This is not a backup plan for police agencies in British Columbia. It is a civil forfeiture. The case can proceed before it goes to Crown, after it goes to Crown. There are a number of ways for police agencies to make that determination. But let's be perfectly clear: there is a burden of proof. The member just spent five minutes articulating the fact that I should clarify when the member opposite makes points.

The point is, the member opposite is suggesting that the RCMP uses civil forfeiture as a backup plan with-
[ Page 7031 ]
out any sense of evidence or process. That is inaccurate. There is a proper process in place, which is adhered to by both the police agencies of British Columbia and the director of civil forfeiture.

[1555]

There is a burden of proof. You have to have evidence that it was linked to the proceeds of crime or was actually being used in a crime and of benefiting from the proceeds of crime. There is a very significant process. There is policy that prohibits police agencies and the civil forfeiture director from simply using this as plan B.

N. Simons: Can the police contemplate using it in a situation where a particular crime is a scourge of a particular neighbourhood, for example?

Hon. S. Bond: If Crown does not charge, there is an opportunity for the police, with the belief and the…. The burden of proof is whether it is an instrument to criminal behaviour and there is benefit to that criminal activity. Yes, the police can do that.

N. Simons: The balance is not whether or not it's an instrument. It's whether or not it's reasonable to assume it's an instrument. I think there's a significant difference.

I think the enumeration of criminal offences or of offences that could be targeted under this act…. I mean, you look at, for example, Bountiful. Polygamy is illegal. Maybe the Solicitor General is looking at other ways of dealing with larger societal issues.

Is it true that only once the information is returned from the Crown to the police that they proceed with civil forfeiture, as the minister just implied?

Hon. S. Bond: No, I answered that question. It can be before or after. It is a civil process.

N. Simons: My direct question was whether or not the police could perhaps use this as a tool to address particular crime problems in particular neighbourhoods.

Hon. S. Bond: Yes. If the house is being used as an instrument for committing crime, yes, they can.

N. Simons: So in fact there's a lot of discretion on the part of the police forces in how they apply this particular act.

Hon. S. Bond: There is a lot of process in place, and there's a lot of professionalism. As I pointed out to the member opposite, there are 250 cases that have been pursued by this director of civil forfeiture through the court system. Every single one of them has been successful.

N. Simons: Sometimes the success of legislation speaks to its autocratic nature and not to its precision. I think there's a significant separation of those two possibilities. I'm not suggesting one or the other, but that doesn't tell us anything. You've had 250 successful prosecutions. It means that…. How many were attempted and failed? Maybe none. That's fine too. It doesn't say anything about whether the legislation is relevant.

My question is: is it possible that municipalities are going to at some point request that funding from this particular source of revenue to the government…? Contrary to what the minister said earlier, that the government doesn't benefit, is it possible that in fact municipalities are going to be hoping for some revenue from this particular source of revenue for the government?

[1600]

Hon. S. Bond: The money does not accrue to the government. What happens is that the first call on any of the $17 million is to operate the civil forfeiture office. The director has the independent decision-making ability to deal with grants. Of course communities ask for grants. In fact, we have a number of programs that are being supported.

One of the reasons we believe we'd like to contemplate administrative forfeiture for those smaller amounts of money is, first of all, to make sure that petty drug dealers don't keep the cash they have on them when they're busy driving drugs to houses in communities. That would be one good reason.

Secondly, the other reason we would like to see administrative forfeiture is that any additional moneys actually would give us the opportunity to provide additional supports for crime prevention in communities. Those grants have begun and will continue under this process.

K. Corrigan: I'm a little confused, because the minister took a fair amount of exception when I suggested that this was another way to fight crime — that there's a possibility that the police or the Crown prosecutor, particularly if they didn't think that they would be able to make a conviction in court, would then see this as another opportunity to fight crime. The minister took some exception to the suggestion that there would be any kind of, I think, back and forth between the director and the police departments or the Crown counsel.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Yet the minister has now said that this would be perfectly appropriate to try to address a scourge in a neighbourhood or some other criminal activity that they wanted to curb. How is it possible that using this as an instrument to curb criminal activity, particular activity in a neighbourhood…? How would the direc-
[ Page 7032 ]
tor even know about that if there wasn't discussion back and forth with police officers and some understanding of what those problems were?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, it would work something like this. If the police agency got 500 calls about a house they were concerned about, but Crown was not able to proceed with charges, of course the RCMP or the police agency — I'm sorry, not necessarily the RCMP — would look at that case with 500 calls. They would contact the civil forfeiture office and then our office.

The civil forfeiture office would investigate whether or not there was enough evidence to prove that in fact this was related to the proceeds of crime or that the house was an instrument in terms of committing an offence. So yes, that is the process that would be used.

K. Corrigan: So what the minister is saying is that this is essentially like a backup plan.

Hon. S. Bond: What I'm saying is what I've said for the last few minutes. There is a process in place where there are policies that preclude there being a conversation about this being a backup plan in any other way — that when there are 500 calls about a house that the police agency wants to deal with and there is a case to be made for the proceeds of crime or an instrument in the use of committing a crime, there is a process in place.

I'm happy to describe it however the member opposite would like, other than implying that it's a process that simply says: "Hey, guys, we can't get him this way; let's get him another way." There are processes; there are policies; there is a burden of proof.

At the end of the day, the example that we could provide is that 600 cases or more have been referred. Only 250 have actually been pursued by the civil forfeiture office.

[1605]

K. Corrigan: The minister seems, on one hand, to say that's exactly what's happening and, on the other hand, to resent that there's a suggestion that that's what is happening.

You say there are 500 break-ins. The police obviously feel that they can't get a conviction or don't have the ability to get a conviction, and then they refer it to the civil forfeiture office. The minister doesn't seem to be consistent in her comments.

I also wanted to ask about the threshold. Why was the threshold of $75,000 chosen as the limit for civil forfeiture by way of administration?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the threshold was determined…. As we look at what cases will actually be captured, most of them will be far less significant than that. Typically we're talking about cases that could be in the $1,000 range, $3,000 or $4,000, where it is not worth pursuing from a court procedure process because of the costliness and the time it takes up, frankly, in courts.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate that the minister has said that many of the cases would be far less than that, but I'm wondering what the thinking was about why that particular threshold was chosen.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the major concern is much smaller amounts, but rather than try to attempt to, in several years, worry about the cap that is being considered, there is actually room for a relevant cap. In essence there would be room for growth, if necessary. But the bottom line is that we're mostly concerned about those very small amounts that are, as I've said, in the $2,000 and $3,000 range.

K. Corrigan: If the minister doesn't have concerns about any civil liberties issues and so on, why put a cap on it at all?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I think the member opposite can imagine that if the value of the property is over $75,000, we see a far higher rate of people contesting the forfeiture. We need to point out that one-third of the cases that come are uncontested, and the vast majority of all of those would be in this smaller value category.

K. Corrigan: But if there was a possibility that a $200,000 item would not be contested and the director would not have had to go through the court process, wouldn't that represent a considerable savings in costs?

[1610]

Hon. S. Bond: We've not had a case uncontested when the amount of money is that significant.

C. Trevena: I'd just like to go on to something that my colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake was canvassing a few minutes before she started talking about the limits, and that is this sort of close boundary between the use of civil law for criminal activity and how the two are clearly being used very closely.

I wondered if the minister could tell the House what consultations took place with civil liberties associations — the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and other organizations. I can see that this could cause some concern, particularly when you're talking about lower limits and, as one of my colleagues — I think, from Powell River–Sunshine Coast — described, some people who may be just caught in this because they are the petty criminals who are really stuck in the system.

Hon. S. Bond: I think maybe to just provide some context, while many of the questions here are about the
[ Page 7033 ]
general principle of civil forfeiture, the Civil Forfeiture Act was actually passed in the Legislature by both sides of the House. So what we're talking about today is an amendment that actually looks at administrative forfeiture.

I know that several of the members opposite had similar questions on the general bill, so I understand and appreciate them having the opportunity to answer those questions.

The Civil Liberties Association was consulted on the original act in terms of civil forfeiture in general and has not been specifically consulted on the administrative forfeiture piece.

C. Trevena: I understand the fact that we are in some ways going over old ground, but because it is now into an administrative process rather than a court process, I think it's worth re-examining some of these questions. As the minister has said, it makes it easier, makes it more cost-efficient, and therefore, I'm sure it's going to be used very thoroughly.

I wonder if the minister could explain why there hasn't been any further consultation for this amendment.

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, the explanation from the staff is that this doesn't change civil forfeiture. What it does is, in essence, deal with those cases which are currently uncontested. So there isn't a significant shift from the act that was passed in the Legislature.

It does deal with issues that were uncontested and looks for a way to try to provide a very clear message and signal to criminals in British Columbia that even if it's $2,000 or $3,000, that's not going to be tolerated in terms of the benefits of the proceeds of crime.

I appreciate the member opposite's questions. I think the general principle behind civil forfeiture hasn't changed, and it is really dealing with the vast majority of cases that are currently uncontested.

K. Corrigan: I think probably the reason that my colleague raised that issue, though, is that under the Civil Forfeiture Act, when one does have a case go before court, built into it are specific provisions that the judge will consider, including judicial fairness and other matters. There have been decisions, I think, on the basis of fairness and natural justice that the courts have rejected in some cases.

While I absolutely am sure that the director will also take into account those processes, they are not spelled out, and it's not in public. I think that's why the questions are being asked.

[1615]

Does the director then, in considering the application of this amended process, this administrative process, use the same tests and principles as a judge would use?

Hon. S. Bond: If you don't contest it today and if you didn't contest it yesterday and if you don't contest it after this has passed, nothing changes. All that changes is the ability of the Civil Forfeiture Act and the director to actually contemplate utilizing those funds for much better purposes in British Columbia. Nothing changes in that way.

To the member opposite's comment that this happens and it's not in public, that's not accurate. The information will be published in newspapers. We will make every effort to…. If there is a known interest, that process will continue as well. So it is public. In fact, it will be in newspapers, and the same process for attempting to contact a person with known interests will continue.

K. Corrigan: If somebody doesn't contest it, but there are circumstances that the director is aware of that may point to inequities or some injustice being done, how would the director deal with that?

Hon. S. Bond: This process is so interesting. The best person to answer that question is actually the director, who is impeccable at what he does. He wouldn't proceed with a case if he believed there were inequities.

A really good example that Jerad provided me with is if someone's car is at risk of being forfeited, and someone comes and says: "Hey, just a minute. My son borrowed the car. That's my car." The director has the discretion to say: "We understand that." So there is enough room for that type of discretion, and certainly, the director would not ever proceed without contemplating whether there are inequities and attempt to address those.

K. Corrigan: Yes, and I appreciate that type of situation. In a briefing with the director — which was very, very helpful, and I did appreciate — one of the ones that I had mentioned…. Maybe I mentioned it when we were dealing with the bill earlier, in second reading.

I think of the relationship between a husband and wife. Say the husband was the person who had committed a criminal activity, or there was a belief under the act that the husband had committed a criminal activity, and there was information that came to the director about the relationship. You know, maybe it was a domestic violence situation, those kinds of situations where the woman would probably not come forward and contest. Would the director get that kind of information from the police in a civil forfeiture case?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, they normally would. The determination would be made that it would not be in the public interest to proceed.
[ Page 7034 ]

K. Corrigan: I appreciate that, and I appreciate the high standards that we have in our public service. But that is why I think we're asking these questions.

[1620]

It does put the director in a role of making decisions — which are important, critical decisions — based on the interests of justice and fairness. It's an important position. While the information may be published after the fact in a Gazette, or notice would certainly go out, I think we need to ask questions about that when it's not in a court of law, which is a public process. Not to impugn in any way the director, but these are important processes that have a real impact on people's lives.

I do have more questions on this section. What is the test when the director…? Under section 14.02(1)(d), the director has to believe, in order for this part to apply, that there is no reason to…. "The director has no reason to believe that there are any protected interest holders in relation to that property." I wonder if it could be explained what the test is there.

Hon. S. Bond: A similar list to other questions. The police will have investigated. They will have, obviously, checked PRIME to see if there have been any police records or complaints filed. There would be a check against the property registry, and the director would also have published, indicating that information about the property. So there is a process of due process. Once the director had gone throughout that, then they would have reason to believe that they could proceed.

K. Corrigan: I have seen several references in the original act and in the amendment act to the property registry. I'm wondering if the minister can explain what the property registry is and how it operates.

Hon. S. Bond: It's a process where you register your interest in any personal property other than land. So if it's a car or if it's a boat or if it's jewelry, you then have the ability to register that property.

K. Corrigan: A car, for example, would already…. You don't need to register your car in the property registry in order to be caught up in the legislation.

[1625]

Hon. S. Bond: It's a secured interest in the property. So for example, if it's a bank loan, it would be registered, obviously, because it gives the bank priority if you default on the loan. So yes, a car would certainly be on there if you have a bank loan, for example.

K. Corrigan: If you didn't have a bank loan, but you had a car and were the registered owner of the car, does that not qualify as a protected interest holder?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, that is the case.

K. Corrigan: So the property registry, then, is primarily related to financial institutions. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: Primarily banking institutions, but anyone who provides a loan could register it.

K. Corrigan: Subsection (2) says that this part does not apply to property described in subsection (1), which we just talked about, if the director "has reason to believe that the limitation period for commencing proceedings under section 3 [application for forfeiture order] in relation to the property has expired…."

So is that a two-year date — I think it's two years — from the time that the notice was given? I'll just get a clarification on that.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, it's ten years, and it's from the date of the unlawful activity.

K. Corrigan: I had forgotten that. I did see the ten years. I think there's a reference to two years in another section, in another part of the act.

I'm wondering if the minister could explain why it was decided to have such a lengthy period. People's lives could have changed. You know, if the point is to change criminal behaviour or address crime, a lot of things can happen in ten years, and I'm wondering why ten years was chosen.

Hon. S. Bond: We are redebating the original act. That was a decision made in the original act. We're not changing anything in this amendment.

K. Corrigan: To get back to my earlier point, this is now extending the Civil Forfeiture Act to include an administrative process which does not go before the courts. I think in every respect we want to be clear that the provisions are fair. That is why I am asking questions as they apply to the amendment act, which deals with administrative forfeiture.

Hon. S. Bond: Again, as extensively discussed when the original act was passed, there is a consideration for the fact that police investigations often don't conclude within a two-year period. So at the time and certainly after much consideration, ten years was considered to be a reasonable amount of time.

K. Corrigan: Well, you know, I wasn't here in 2005 when the act was passed. So the minister will have to forgive me for asking questions, because unfortunately, I haven't read all the Hansard debates for that time period. So thank you very much for that answer.

Subsection (4)….

[1630]
[ Page 7035 ]

The Chair: Member, shall we pass 14.02?

K. Corrigan: No, I'm still asking a question. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm asking about subsection 14.02(4). Actually, I want to ask about subsection (3). This is a tough section to understand what the workings were. I'm wondering if the minister could explain what subsection (3) intends to do.

Hon. S. Bond: It simply allows the police agency to hold the property for a 60-day period while the administrative process of notice takes place.

K. Corrigan: I knew that that section made sense somehow. It was one of those sections where there is the section. It refers to subsection (2), and then it refers to subsection 14.08, and then it refers to section 3, and then it refers to section 14.05, and then it refers to section 14.05(a). I was a little confused by exactly what it meant, although I did read it several times. Thank you. I appreciate that explanation.

Subsection (4) is the final subsection in this section. It says that it "does not apply in relation to property if the property is the subject of an order of a court establishing a right of possession in that property with a person other than the public body or authorizing a person other than the public body to have or take possession of that property." I'm wondering if the minister could describe a situation where this might apply and/or give me examples.

Hon. S. Bond: There are provisions in the Criminal Code for the court to order something to be given back, and obviously if that takes place, you can't do an administrative forfeiture.

K. Corrigan: Would that be the only type of situation, or is that an example?

Hon. S. Bond: It's an example. It could happen with a Supreme Court or civil court action as well.

Section 2, section 14.02 approved.

On section 2, section 14.03.

K. Corrigan: This is the section whereby property that is the proceeds of crime or an instrument of crime is actually forfeited to government under administrative forfeiture — i.e., that it's done administratively as opposed to in the courts. It says: "Subject to sections 14.04 to 14.10, subject property is forfeited to the government for disposal by the director without having to commence proceedings under section 3."

[1635]

I could ask this question now or under a later section, but I think I will ask it now. When we were in second reading, I asked about the case of the Hummer that ended up being given to Abbotsford police department for two years. I think I pointed out at the time that it was interesting that there were three or four Liberal MLAs that represent Abbotsford.

I asked the question, and I guess I'll ask it again, about what the process is whereby a police department could be given a Hummer that was forfeited to government, because I assume that it could, given if it was less than $75,000, be forfeited under the administrative provisions.

Hon. S. Bond: I do want to very quickly review the fact that the $17 million that has resulted through the work of the civil forfeiture office does not accrue to government. There is a delegated responsibility to the director. For those funds, the management and decision-making is done by the director.

The first call on those funds is to pay for the office itself, so there are no costs accrued to government. There is no benefit accrued to government. In fact, the decision related to the Hummer was actually made by the director.

For the benefit of the member opposite, the Abbotsford police department have an exceptional program, an anti-gang program. In fact, long before the Hummer was actually engaged, the Abbotsford police department came and said: "If ever there is an opportunity to begin a unique program like this, we would like to be on your list."

Government doesn't make those decisions. The director made them, and we can see the benefits of the work that's been done by the Abbotsford police department.

K. Corrigan: I'm sure the Hummer has been a wonderful instrument in the fight against crime in Abbotsford. I've seen the pictures, and it's all wrapped with signs that say "Don't join gangs," and things like that. But I also recall that in the stories that came out when the Hummer was handed over to Abbotsford, there were pictures of one of the ministers.

Is what the minister is saying is that government ministers did not know ahead of time that this was happening, that it was decided individually without the knowledge of any ministers and no discussion with any ministers?

Hon. S. Bond: These are the unfortunate parts of debate. I clearly just said to the member opposite that the decisions made about disposition of those assets are made by the director of civil forfeiture. He has simply reminded me that he made the decision to do that. Of course, I'm assuming that the Solicitor General was there because it's crime prevention. In terms of a great
[ Page 7036 ]
initiative, the decision to deal with the Abbotsford police department was made directly by the director after a request that preceded, actually, the acquisition of the Hummer.

You know, I think it's fantastic that we have police forces in British Columbia who are tackling the gang problem in innovative ways. It's essential that children's career plans don't include a stop in a gang. It was innovative. The decision was made independently by the director of the civil forfeiture office.

[1640]

K. Corrigan: Well, I absolutely agree that it's critical that young people's lives should not include a stop in a gang. As so many of us on this side of the House have said, the best way to do that is to make sure that children don't grow up in poverty and that they and their families have access to the services they need in order to ensure that they don't do that. I would fully agree.

With regard to that decision, is the minister saying, then, that there is equal opportunity for every municipality and that there's a process in place whereby another municipality could make an application for a Hummer or whatever proceeds of crimes might come forward?

Hon. S. Bond: Of course. The proceeds of civil forfeiture are to provide opportunities around the province after the initial costs of the forfeiture office are covered. It is about trying to find ways to reduce crime in British Columbia.

Yes, every community can participate. They cannot, however, put in a wish list. The Abbotsford police department didn't come and ask for a Hummer. They came and said: "Here's a concept that we'd like to try, and if in the future there is something available that we could partner with, we'd be interested in pursuing that." Of course, every community has that opportunity.

One of the reasons…. We actually believe that in one-third of the cases that are brought to the office that are uncontested, we can actually help provide additional funds to communities if we move to a form of administrative forfeiture that we're recommending today, which still protects the rights of individuals.

K. Corrigan: How long was it from the time that the Abbotsford police came to the director until the Hummer became available? I wonder if the minister would know.

Hon. S. Bond: It may have been a matter of months. The staff isn't specifically aware of that. Perhaps eight months or so, they suggest.

K. Corrigan: This may actually refer to another section, but it is relevant to this section as well, so I'll ask the question. I think the understanding was that earlier, when we decided to go through section by section, there was acknowledgment that many of the sections interrelate.

My understanding from the operation of the act is that property is supposed to be disposed of, and I'm wondering what the guidelines are on when property should be disposed of.

Hon. S. Bond: I think the director would look at where the maximum benefit can be derived. I assume — if the question is related to the Hummer — that there was a direct belief, in an area that was concerned about reducing gang activity, that this would be an innovative and creative way to do it. That discretion is left to the director, and disposal doesn't necessarily mean a cash value. It means what is the best and highest use of that asset.

K. Corrigan: I don't have the section in front of me right now, but I thought disposal meant selling.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the Hummer will be sold after a period of time. The point here is that there is an asset that will help us, we hope, with the reduction of young people choosing gangs in British Columbia.

I believe it's a two-year period. I'll check that when I sit down, but I think it's a two-year period. The Hummer will be used for this innovative gang reduction strategy. It will then be sold and liquidated.

K. Corrigan: To me, it seems like a bit of a stretch in the interpretation of the act, because my understanding is that the act does say that proceeds are to be disposed of. I would have thought that that meant that when it came in, it was to be disposed of, not given to Abbotsford police for two years.

[1645]

The Chair: Shall section 14.03…? I'm sorry, Minister. I didn't hear a question in that.

Hon. S. Bond: That's all right. I think it's important for clarity that….

You know, I think the goal here is to find ways to have safer communities. We've had an exceptional process run by an exceptional team of people, and the director does have discretion. The vehicle will be sold, but in the meantime we're hopeful that we have supported the Abbotsford police department in an innovative and creative way. The asset will be liquidated in a two-year period of time, and the director made a decision which I think many people, particularly in the Abbotsford area, would applaud.

N. Simons: I just think it's important to have this on the record. The minister says that the government doesn't benefit from the forfeiture of property in any
[ Page 7037 ]
material way, yet throughout the act, there's reference to "subject property is forfeited to the government…." It can't be much more clear than that, and in fact crime prevention programs and programs for victims of crime are funded by general revenue.

How are decisions made as to what programs deserve funding outside of the regular process by which municipalities, crime prevention agencies and victim services organizations can apply for money? Is this an entirely separate stream of funds, and is there a formal process in place for a CAO of a municipality to find something on the website on how to apply for civil forfeiture money?

Hon. S. Bond: This money does not accrue to government's bottom line. The discretion for the disposal of properties and revenue is delegated to the director of civil forfeiture. Yes, when funds are available, it is posted on the website, and communities across the province can apply and benefit from proceeds that are typically being used for criminal activities in British Columbia. It's been a significant success story.

N. Simons: In that case, I'd be interested in knowing: besides the Abbotsford Hummer, what other police forces benefited from money or products that were seized by civil forfeiture?

Hon. S. Bond: The focus is on distribution to crime prevention. For example, there are opportunities for municipalities to ask for that type of support. It's far less frequent that property, for example, is provided to a police department, but one of the significant things that the civil forfeiture office funds is actually con air.

N. Simons: Does the provincial government also fund con air?

Hon. S. Bond: No, the civil forfeiture office does.

N. Simons: So con air is solely funded by the office of civil forfeiture, in the same way that their office is also funded by civil forfeiture. Are those the only two statutorily required services to be funded by the proceeds of civil forfeiture?

Hon. S. Bond: Con air is funded by the civil forfeiture office and the city of Vancouver, but other police departments can take advantage of the service.

N. Simons: Wouldn't it be fair to say that were it not for the office of the civil forfeiture directorate, funding for these programs would be provided by government?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm not going to speculate. The good news is that the civil forfeiture office and the city of Vancouver take care of con air. The fantastic news about civil forfeiture in British Columbia is that we're going to make sure that criminals in British Columbia are not benefiting from the proceeds of crime.

[1650]

N. Simons: Victim services programs throughout this province are terribly underfunded. Crime prevention programs throughout this province don't have adequate resources. Those are two areas that government has a fiduciary responsibility for. Is it not the primary interest of government to ensure that those programs are adequately funded and are not reliant on discretionary funds accrued through the office of civil forfeiture?

Hon. S. Bond: The point of the civil forfeiture office and act in British Columbia is to make sure that where possible, with appropriate evidence and a process in place, we are able to take what is the proceeds of crime in this province and make sure that we are actually utilizing it for crime prevention, the protection of victims in communities. That is nothing short of a good-news story.

Government continues to provide services to families and to women and to victims of crime across British Columbia. This is an opportunity for us to take advantage of sending a very strong message to criminals in British Columbia that they will not profit from their behaviour in this province.

Section 2, section 14.03 approved.

On section 2, section 14.04.

K. Corrigan: This subsection describes how notice of forfeiture under this part must be given, and it says: "The director must do the following to initiate forfeiture in relation to any subject property…." First it must register notice in the personal property registry, unless it's cash. We've talked about that.

But it also says under subsection (b): "…give written notice of forfeiture under this Part to each of the following: (i) the person from whom the subject property was seized; (ii) any other person claiming to be lawfully entitled to possession of the subject property; (iii) a person who the director has reason to believe may be a registered or unregistered owner of an interest in the subject property."

Again, I'm trying to discern what the gap is between this person who claims to be lawfully entitled and the person that may be a registered or unregistered owner. I wonder if the minister could explain the difference — some of it's been discussed — between the two subsections there.

Hon. S. Bond: Basically, it is an attempt to spread and cast the net as widely as possible. If it's been taken from
[ Page 7038 ]
you, if you own it or if you have a registered interest in it, we're going to try to find you to say: "Here's what we have. If you're interested in it, let us know." So it is an attempt, a broad catch-all phrase to try to make sure we are contacting everyone that we could possibly imagine is linked to the asset.

[1655]

K. Corrigan: Well, I'm trying to figure out what the difference would be between a person claiming to be lawfully entitled to possession of the subject property and an unregistered owner. I'm trying to discern the difference there.

Hon. S. Bond: In essence, it's the difference between the person who is the registered owner of it or someone who might in some possibility have even a likelihood that they have a claim to the property or to the asset. So it's either the owner or someone who has even the potential of having a connection to it.

It's a very broad net. Again, it goes to the heart of the discussion about whether or not it's due process and fair and reasonable. We're attempting to be as broad as possible and capture every variation of someone who may have a claim on the asset.

K. Corrigan: I know we've gone over this ground a little bit. What protections are put in place that notice would get to a person who the director may not be aware of having what could turn out to be an appropriate interest?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, it will be published in the newspaper. It will be registered in the personal property registry, and it will also be posted on a website.

K. Corrigan: I know that there's not a lot more, perhaps, that can be done. But I just had a constituent come into my office where we successfully managed to get back some money that that constituent had paid in advance for ferry passes that didn't expire. The ferry corporation said that she shouldn't receive any compensation because the information that there was now going to be an expiry date had been published in newspapers and at the ferry terminals.

So I think that there is a possibility that people can get left behind on this because it's very difficult for the director to know everybody who could have a rightful claim to the property. So it's a bit of a gap. I don't know how you address it, but it does open up that possibility of not catching somebody.

I'm wondering if there is a difference in the amount of public notification between what would happen with the administrative forfeiture as opposed to if the case were to go to court.

[1700]

Hon. S. Bond: The amendment is modelled and the administrative forfeiture proposal is modelled on the existing one. So it's virtually the same. It would be posted on the court website, it would be published in a newspaper, and the court would attempt to serve the person at the last known address.

This section is modelled on the original legislation. I think we have to continue to remember that a third of the cases that we're talking about are not contested today. So this is simply saying that a third of the cases are not contested, but it is not financially worth pursuing through an expensive court system. One-third of the cases are today not contested.

But to the point, the model is based on the original act.

K. Corrigan: Yes, I understand that it's very similar to the original model. What I was getting at, and I did not express well, is that the court process itself would include potentially another layer of publicity. The very fact that it's in court might be reported in a local newspaper, although probably not, but it may be that the decisions of the court are published.

Is there any further level of publicity that would happen merely by the fact that the case is going to court as opposed to being deposed of administratively?

Hon. S. Bond: No. In fact, I think that when you look at what the civil forfeiture office has done, they've actually expanded best practice. Probably the minimal requirement would be putting up a notice in the courthouse lobby.

The civil forfeiture office has expanded and, I believe, has looked at what would be best practice. The goal here is to ensure that wherever possible, it is a reasonable process and fair. We understand the importance of ensuring that we have tried to connect person with property, but one-third of the cases are not contested, and there are, I believe, very reasonable processes in place to attempt to make a connection between a known interest and the property.

K. Corrigan: Have there been cases under the Civil Forfeiture Act to date where individuals have come back later with a claim against property that has been forfeited? Do any of those cases involve people who have said: "I didn't know that the property was being forfeited"?

Hon. S. Bond: There has been only one of those cases. In fact, they did not win their application against the default. But the provision does exist that if someone finds out after the fact, they can come back and make a claim against the liquidation.

Section 2, section 14.04 approved.
[ Page 7039 ]

On section 2, section 14.05.

K. Corrigan: This provision deals with the entitlement of the public body to possession. Actually, I don't have any questions on this one.

Section 2, section 14.05 approved.

On section 2, section 14.06.

K. Corrigan: This section deals with how notice is given to known interest holders. "Notice to a known interest holder may be given by registered mail to the last known address of the known interest holder."

[1705]

Does this refer to any of those categories that were described earlier — either a person claiming to be lawfully entitled to possession or the person who is registered or unregistered and all those categories that are referenced in section 14.04?

Hon. S. Bond: All of them.

K. Corrigan: So the notice requirement does not apply if the address of a person referred to in that provision is unknown to the director. I'm wondering what steps the director would take in order to try to find an address.

Hon. S. Bond: I think we have to remember that there would have been a police investigation before the case actually arrived at the civil forfeiture office. Very often the last known address is included in that investigation.

Having said that, there is also a national credit agency, which is called Equifax. That would be another tool that the director and his team might use. Generally speaking, the police agency will have done a very thorough investigation, and very likely the last known address would be included in that information.

K. Corrigan: Is there always a police investigation prior to a civil forfeiture?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, wherever the police agency is the regulatory body. But of course, as we discussed earlier, there is a list of other bodies, including, for example, securities regulators. The appropriate public body would have done an investigation. So yes, there is an investigation. It depends on where it's coming from — who does that.

Section 2, section 14.06 approved.

On section 2, section 14.07.

K. Corrigan: This deals with the notice of dispute by the claimed interest holder. It says, "A person who claims to have an interest in subject property may dispute forfeiture under this Part by filing a notice of dispute with the director in accordance with this section," and has a number of provisions about how that will be done.

Is this similar to any of the processes that would happen under the present act?

Hon. S. Bond: No, this is much less onerous. In fact, if it's a court process, you probably would have to hire a lawyer, and you would have to file a response. So it would be far more significant.

In this case, pretty much all you have to say is: "I'm here, and that's mine."

[1710]

K. Corrigan: Yeah, any court process is much more onerous — absolutely.

Would it be expected that some people will, in fact, engage lawyers in order to assist them with the oath, the affirmation, the notice and so on?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I suppose that might be a possibility. Having said that, we need to remember that (1) one-third of these cases are already uncontested; (2) the vast majority of the cases that we are concerned about are very small dollar amounts; and (3) we're going to make the system as easy as possible, so it should be a very straightforward process and certainly would not require a legal counsel.

Having said that, if the person chose to do that, they certainly could.

Section 2, sections 14.07 and 14.08 approved.

On section 2, section 14.09.

K. Corrigan: Section 14.09 deals with what happens if no notice of dispute is received by the director. That's on the seventh day after the expiry of the dispute period, so I assume that's the 67 days that we talked about. If there is no notice of dispute, "the subject property is forfeited to the government for disposal by the director."

My first question: is this similar wording to the provision that is in the present act in terms of disposal?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, they are.

K. Corrigan: Subsection 14.09(2)(c) says: "For the purposes of subsection (1)" — that means for the purpose of disposing of the property — "the director must…(c) take possession of or seize the subject property and dispose of it."
[ Page 7040 ]

This is the section that I was referencing, but to be honest, I couldn't remember where it was in the act. To me, it is clear that the intention is that the property is to be taken by the director and disposed of. To me, it seems like a very loose interpretation of the direction that somebody could…. The director could take, for example, a Hummer and give it to Abbotsford police department for two years. It seems pretty clear to me, and I'm wondering if the minister reads those words differently than I do.

Hon. S. Bond: The property will be disposed of. It will be disposed of in two years, and I actually have confidence in the director of the civil forfeiture office to have looked at whether or not there was additional benefit that could be derived from something that is very symbolic in terms of criminal behaviour in this case in British Columbia. I actually have confidence in the decision that the director made, and I am ever so hopeful that it will be incredibly effective in the two years before it's disposed of.

K. Corrigan: Well, I'm certainly not in any way attacking the credibility of the director or suggesting that this won't be an effective tool in the fight against crime.

[1715]

I'm merely pointing out that to me, it does not seem to be contemplated by the wording of the act that this was an appropriate use…. I won't say appropriate or inappropriate. I'm not suggesting that. It does not seem to be a use which is contemplated by the wording of the act.

Hon. S. Bond: The act suggests and directs that it be disposed of. It will be. It is being used…. The director of the civil forfeiture office believed that he had the discretion necessary to look at an innovative program, to take a very public piece of property — to make a very strong statement about anti-gang opportunities in the province — and ultimately dispose of it. At that point, it will be liquidated.

K. Corrigan: I would quote from a different subsection of the act. At the beginning of 14.09(1) it says: "If, by the 7th day after expiry of the dispute period, the director does not receive a notice of dispute to forfeiture under this Part of a subject property, the subject property is forfeited to the government for disposal by the director." My sense of the wording would be that the purpose that it is forfeited to the government is so that it can be disposed of — not that it can be given to Abbotsford as a crime-fighting Hummer for two years.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I guess we could debate the decision for the rest of the afternoon. I have confidence that the director made a choice that would utilize an asset in British Columbia for crime prevention, and that's exactly what the vision and goal of the civil forfeiture office is about. Ultimately, it will be disposed of. It will be liquidated, and that is a two-year period.

As I've said on numerous occasions, the Abbotsford police department, concerned about the young people in this province, came with a very innovative proposal. I think the director made a choice. I'm very hopeful that the benefits that would accrue far exceed the revenue. I hope there are young people who choose not to join gangs because we've seen a Hummer utilized in an innovative way in the province.

K. Corrigan: I'm certainly not questioning whether or not it is useful. I'm simply saying that it does not seem to me to be that that is a use contemplated by the legislation, and so I'll read it the way that I do. Then again, I guess this is a government that said that giving a lease for a railroad for 900 years was not disposal of a railroad, either.

So is there a limit to how long a piece of property could be used in some way, like this, before it did not fall under the purview of the act or the appropriate application of the act?

Hon. S. Bond: There are no specific guidelines about what period of time. There might be some utilization of that asset in this very innovative way. I think it needs to be reasonable. I think that in the decisions the director made, he would have contemplated what period might be appropriate for this to be considered.

Again, he weighed all of the benefits that might accrue from something that had been linked with very serious crime issues in the province and found a way to turn that into something that could make a difference in this province. I want to reiterate the fact that it will be disposed of, and it will be liquidated after a two-year period.

Section 2, sections 14.09 and 14.10 approved.

On section 2, section 14.11.

[1720]

M. Dalton: I have an overarching question. I'm not sure exactly where it fits in, but I wanted to bring out the question at some time during the debate on the act.

The minister may know that I've had the opportunity on a couple of occasions to bring the director of civil forfeiture to both Maple Ridge and to Mission. It's an important issue in our community. Since that time the RCMP have actually started to use civil forfeiture both in Maple Ridge and in Mission, so it's very pleased with that.

The funds have also been used towards a youth diversion program in our community, and that's very
[ Page 7041 ]
beneficial. In a most recent meeting I've had with the RCMP, one issue that came out was with regards to criminal forfeiture. It appears that the RCMP move forward with criminal forfeiture before they go forward with civil forfeiture, and it seems to lead to a bit of a lag and somewhat of a disincentive. I'm wondering if the minister can make some comments on that and if the administrative forfeiture will actually help out with speeding up the whole process.

Hon. S. Bond: Thank you to the member. I was not aware of his interest in the civil forfeiture office, but I appreciate knowing that and his rising to ask a question today.

In terms of criminal forfeiture, a police agency has to at least consider the possibility of criminal forfeiture. So they don't make an arbitrary decision that this is the route that it's going to take, and it certainly doesn't have to cause a lag in a procedure.

The test is whether or not they've considered the possibility of criminal forfeiture, and then, of course, if the Crown says that this is going to be a criminal forfeiture process, then obviously that's the route that's taken. But if the police agency — in the member's case, the RCMP — at least considers the possibility of criminal forfeiture, if it is unlikely to proceed, they can then immediately move it over to the civil forfeiture process.

K. Corrigan: I had a question about subsection 14.11(7), wherein "a person who indirectly engaged in the unlawful activity was defined. It says: "…a person who indirectly engaged in the unlawful activity that would have been the basis of the proceedings referred to in subsection (6) includes, without limitation, a person who had knowledge of the unlawful activity and received a financial benefit from the unlawful activity." Is that an exhaustive definition?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, it is.

K. Corrigan: Subsection (8) says: "The court must order the government to pay a claimant who is successful in proceedings under this section an amount that is the lesser of the following…." This subsection deals with innocent failure to deliver notice of dispute under this part.

So if somebody who did have an appropriate interest in the property did not file their notice of dispute in time, and then the property was disposed of, it says: "The court must order the government to pay a claimant who is successful in proceedings under this section an amount that is the lesser of the following: (a) the value of the claimant's interest in the subject property at the time of forfeiture; (b) the liquidated value of the subject property that the government received on the subject property's disposition."

[1725]

I just want to clarify that this means that somebody who does have an appropriate interest, did not directly or indirectly engage in unlawful activity and then came back later, maybe because they didn't see that notice, could end up actually receiving compensation in an amount that is less or even substantially less than the value of the property that they successfully have applied for.

Hon. S. Bond: The member is correct in that if the person, after all of the exhaustive ways we try to track them down…. Plus we do public notice. If at that point someone still believes they have a claim, they can actually come back and make that claim.

In fact, the liquidated value of the property is what would be appropriate, what would be the amount that the person would be making the claim against. When you look at clause (a) and then (b), we would assume that there would be very little difference between the value of the property at the time of forfeiture and the time of disposition. Obviously, the civil forfeiture office is going to do its very best to get absolutely as much as they possibly can, but the claim would be against the liquidated amount.

K. Corrigan: I believe that there are similar provisions under the Civil Forfeiture Act. So I'm wondering if there is a history or examples of this happening under the Civil Forfeiture Act, where somebody has come back and made a claim later, and if I could get a sense of what the difference between the value of the property and what the original claim value was — the liquidated value versus the actual value.

Hon. S. Bond: There is no provision for this in the other process because, in fact, it goes through the courts. So they don't have the same ability to come back in this particular way. In terms of the difference between the value at the time of the forfeiture and what the liquidated value is, to date we've only had one person, one disputant, come back in more than 200 civil forfeitures, and they were not successful.

Section 2, section 14.11 approved.

Sections 3 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

[1730]

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if perhaps the minister could explain what is intended by section 14(a).

Hon. S. Bond: What this does is it actually provides consistency with the Offence Act. This takes anything that might be dealt with under provincial legislation —
[ Page 7042 ]
we discussed some of those things earlier, like the Motor Vehicle Act or the Wildlife Act — and lines it up to be consistent with the Offence Act.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The director advises me that this has never been used and can't imagine potentially when it might be. But it is an important provision to cover off that consistency between provincial legislation and the Offence Act.

Sections 14 to 16 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:33 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Civil Forfeiture Amendment
Act, 2011

Bill 6, Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2011, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. P. Bell: I call Bill 7, intituled the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2011. I call second reading.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act, 2011

Hon. B. Penner: I move that Bill 7, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2011, now be read a second time.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Bill 7 amends a number of statutes. Amendments to the Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, will address issues that have been raised with the legislation since it was passed. The amendments, which are generally minor in nature, will ensure consistency, make corrections and clarifications, and close a number of gaps. For example, they will help ensure that an attorney can properly manage the financial affairs of the adult by requiring delivery of the adult's property from third parties.

Further, the amendments will provide an exception for lawyers and some notaries public from the prohibition of an agent or employee of the attorney or representative acting as a witness to the execution of an enduring power of attorney or representation agreement, thereby removing a potential barrier to efficient practice.

Madam Speaker, proposed amendments to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act will result in reductions in workload for court services and the family maintenance enforcement program as well as cost reductions for the program by streamlining processes, eliminating unnecessary filing requirements and making the enforcement of maintenance obligations more effective.

[1735]

For example, the changes will require payers and recipients to maintain a current address with the director, thereby encouraging more effective communication and, should it become necessary, more efficient service of documents for pending enforcement actions, including court actions.

The amendments will also serve to eliminate the often unnecessary requirement for the director to file notices of attachment and default fee certificates….

Interjections.

Hon. B. Penner: Excuse me, Members. I'm just having a hard time hearing myself think.

The amendments will also serve to eliminate the often unnecessary requirement for the director to file notices of attachment and default fee certificates with the court when administrative actions are taken. The amendments also modernize and improve the client service by expanding the methods to remit and receive funds to include electronic means, thereby allowing faster and more efficient movement of child support funds.

Amendments to the Clean Energy Act will allow B.C. families and businesses to finance energy efficiency improvements to their homes or businesses through a loan from their utility company, B.C. Hydro or FortisBC. Through pay-as-you-save financing, British Columbians can pay for energy efficiency improvements on their utility bill and have the option to transfer the loan to the next owner or renter when they move. In many cases B.C. families and businesses will be able to cover the cost of energy efficiency retrofits through their energy savings.

Amendments to the Ministry of Environment Act will provide authority for the publication of personal information regarding individuals with overdue fines owing under environmental legislation. These amendments build on existing authority in the act that authorizes the publication of information about environmental violators.
[ Page 7043 ]

Finally, the bill also makes consequential amendments to a number of related statutes.

L. Krog: I am delighted to rise to speak to Bill 7, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2011. I am mindful, however, that the proposed amendments to the Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, etc., put me in mind of that scene in the movie about the life of Michelangelo. I can't remember whether it's historically based when the Pope comes in and looks up at the ceiling, waiting for the ceiling to be finished in the Sistine Chapel, and says: "Wilt thou ever be finished, Michelangelo?"

I'm beginning to wonder if we'll ever see the end of the changes to the adult guardianship and planning statutes in this province before they're finally thoroughly ready to face public use.

My understanding is that the legislation is supposed to come into force in September of this year. Certainly the public has been waiting a very long time, and it has been the subject of much debate. Most of these changes, on the face of it, it would appear to me, appear to be — I won't say cosmetic; it's not the word I'm grasping for — certainly not substantive changes in the approach that the legislation was supposed to take.

Some of the more practical things, obviously, are important, I think, for those who practise law to ensure that employees of lawyers' notaries can actually witness documents that give power to their bosses. It's not entirely uncommon that lawyers or notaries end up being appointed to these positions. They are in some cases the only people that clients will trust and, indeed, with the retirement ratio in British Columbia, often the people they are closest to, because their relatives are all back east and unavailable to undertake those kinds of activities.

The enduring power of attorney requirement that says it has to be filed and then refiled if it's changed is, I think, a very important protective measure, and I compliment the government for undertaking it. It's a very sensible thing.

There is certainly no question that in practice today, given that the generation of parents to most of those of us who are members of this assembly are supposed to be the wealthiest in history, there has been, I think, an observable increase in the fraud and abuse of seniors in this province — powers of attorney being inappropriately used, assets being transferred, moneys being filtered away. Anything that improves protection to ensure that the appropriate persons are, in fact, acting on behalf of individuals who have appointed them is, I think, a very appropriate reform.

That does, however, lead to one question, and that is why the protection for the mentally ill is somewhat weakened. The change contemplated is to change a transaction undertaken from being void for fraud to being simply voidable. For the benefit of those who are listening, "void" means, quite simply, that the transfer would be void at law ab initio — in other words, from the beginning, as if it never happened. To change it so that it's voidable simply means that if no one takes steps to set aside the transaction, then the transaction will stand.

[1740]

I'm not entirely sure what the benefit of that is in terms of protecting the public. Obviously, the minister will have a chance to answer those questions when it comes to committee stage of the bill.

Now, I am not going to be critical of the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, but the bill also provides that the Public Guardian and Trustee can pay itself for acting as a representative without a court order. It may save some court costs, but I think there is a concern amongst the public about the fees that are charged by the Public Guardian and Trustee's Office from time to time. I would hope that there will be some general public education undertaken with respect to that change so that people in fact understand the implications of it and so are therefore more conscious of what exactly it means.

The act also goes on to provide what I would call a housekeeping change, confirmation that clarifies the rule that someone with representative or power of attorney may compel the production of property but not a will if the testator has specified that it not be provided — which I thought was a rather interesting concept.

Normally speaking, a person so appointed takes authority and control over all the documents and property of what we used to call the patient. In this case, however, if the testator involved has specified that their will not be provided, then that stands, interestingly keeping secret the terms of their will.

There are some other housekeeping changes obviously relating to lawyers, notaries and terminology referred to, and some minor changes saying that an employer or agent of someone named as an attorney or representative cannot witness the document giving their boss that power, although exemptions are made and added to include lawyers and notaries, in addition to the exemption that existed previously for the Public Guardian and Trustee and financial institutions.

The onus that is being placed on someone who does rely on a power of attorney, ensuring that it must be filed and also updated versions is, I think, appropriate, but a bit of a concern around the proposal that if a mentally ill person becomes a patient other than by court order, that that person's power of attorney representative agreements are suspended, and then are sent to the Public Guardian and Trustee. Then it's up to the Public Guardian and Trustee to decide whether to take control or to step back and to allow the powers of attorney representative agreements to come back into force.

It does seem to me that you are extending powers to the Public Guardian and Trustee to act almost in a
[ Page 7044 ]
judicial capacity — in other words, to make decisions that may not meet with the same level of open public scrutiny that you would expect in a court of law. So I do have some concerns about that, and I expect that the Attorney General, I'm sure, will be able to answer appropriate questions during committee stage.

I do note also that the forms for representative agreements can be published rather than prescribed — i.e., changed without reference to an order-in-council. Again, that may be extending it perhaps further than it should.

I appreciate part of the concern around this is the element of cost to the public. That's always a good thing to consider. But I'm not entirely convinced that just making something happen more easily is necessarily a good thing.

With respect to the changes around the Clean Energy Act and the Ministry of Environment Act, others more able in their particular critic roles than I will offer their criticism and comment on that area.

But with respect to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act changes, I do have some concerns. They come on this basis. We still have, and this legislation does nothing to solve, the problem of court orders being made in Supreme Court — pursuant to the Divorce Act for spousal or child support or in the Supreme Court pursuant to the Family Relations Act for spousal and child support — which, once granted, obviously can only be varied by Supreme Court orders.

[1745]

The enforcement of orders or agreements filed with the family maintenance enforcement program are carried out in Provincial Court. So to the…. I won't call it the unsuspecting public — and I use the term "ignorant" not in the pejorative sense — but to the ignorant public who rely on legal counsel or think they've got what they're supposed to have and they get an order in Supreme Court that says that they're supposed to pay X amount of dollars…. It's all well and good as long as you've got the money.

But suddenly, when you find yourself out of a job or in arrears of support, and you're hauled into Provincial Court by the family maintenance enforcement program and told that you've got to come up with this money, and this is the area to enforce it…. You explain politely to the judge in the Provincial Court that you're really sorry, but you lost your job three months ago; or now you're on social assistance; or you suffered a critical injury that disables you from working, and you have no disability plan, and you're looking at provincial disability, and you can't possibly pay the existing support order.

The judge will very politely, if they have time, explain to you as best they can that this is not the appropriate court. You have to go back to Supreme Court, and you therefore have to seek a variance in the order in the court which granted it — not the court in the geographic sense necessarily, but the level of court.

To undertake an application to vary in Supreme Court is no small undertaking. It becomes extremely difficult for the average individual to consider doing it. Family practitioners expect to get paid and support their families, so you're really going to have to hire a lawyer. Now, let's be candid about this. The reason you're going back to court is because you have to vary the order. I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who is the payer — not the person receiving; the person paying.

If you're asking for an increase, you may be in the same difficult position and have to hire a lawyer in Supreme Court once the order is made there, but we're dealing with sections relating to enforcement.

So you have an individual who has quite probably lost their job, suffered a significant reduction in their income, and now they have to go back to court to vary it. They're told by the wise Provincial Court judge or a lawyer or anyone they speak to: "Sorry, this is just the court that enforces. That's all we do here, and we're going to continue to enforce it until you go back to Supreme Court to vary it."

In the meantime, that individual discovers, much to their chagrin, that the forms are a bit difficult, that the procedures are complex, and that they can't afford to hire a lawyer to make the change or to vary or reduce the amount of support payable under the Supreme Court order. So where are they left? They are left with increasing amounts of arrears building up.

One of the particular sections proposed under section 17 of the act is a provision that makes default fees debts that can be recovered as if they were orders of the court. Right now default fees, which are charged by the family maintenance enforcement program, in fact aren't recoverable in the same way that the amounts payable and due under the order are recoverable.

Again, to come back to the picture of the person who is already in difficulty, they've discovered they can't vary the order in Provincial Court. They can't afford to vary it in Supreme Court. Family maintenance enforcement continues to do its job quite legitimately — I'm not saying this with criticism — and the debtor, if you will, continues to default. He defaults or she defaults twice a year.

What it says is that you have to pay these default fees, and they're recoverable as if they were to be payable under the act. If you miss two or more payments in a year, the default fee is $400 or one month support, whichever is less. The problem is that the very people who are in this position are already in trouble. That's why they're there. That's why they defaulted.

Contrary to popular belief, certainly in my experience and practice, there are some people who just refuse to pay child and spousal support. But for most, they do the best they can within reason, but circumstances be-
[ Page 7045 ]
yond their control make it impossible for them to do so. So now we're adding to the burden default fees of $400, which can now be enforced as court orders the same way the support is. This is an ongoing problem, and I appreciate the difficulty in terms of jurisdiction.

[1750]

I suppose, by way of my comments today, I'm encouraging the Attorney General to look at it seriously, because there is not much sense having a family maintenance enforcement program vigorously pursuing individuals who have been out of work for substantial periods of time or are living on disability or whatever and who have no realistic access to justice and who are not going to be able to go back to Supreme Court and vary the order and/or cancel the arrears that have built up.

Accessibility surely should be one of the prime goals of our justice system. In fact, these provisions don't do anything to address that ongoing problem. It isn't the first time I've raised this problem. It's certainly been raised by various groups and individuals. It's been raised by the men's resource centre society in my own community, in Nanaimo, because — I won't say commonly, but certainly in the majority of cases — the people who are paying are males, and the recipients are female.

What we do is condemn, if you will, to almost a permanent poverty individuals who fall behind, because they never get themselves ahead of the game enough, in many cases, to hire the lawyer to do the legal work to cancel the arrears, to reduce the amount of support and to bring their payment into line with what their income is and what the guidelines, which are part of the law in the province of British Columbia, in fact prescribe as reasonable payments and appropriate payments for child support.

That is an issue which, if you're not affected by it, is inconsequential. The vast majority of British Columbians, I would submit — I'm speculating — are probably not paying spousal or child support orders. But if you are in that position and ordered to pay, and you've lost your job, or you've suffered an injury that has made you unemployable or put you on a disability plan or provincial disability or perhaps even Canada Pension Plan disability, and you've got an order ticking over at $500 or $1,000 a month for spousal and child support, and you have no access to justice — legal aid isn't provided in cases like that — you're going to be in a very, very difficult position.

You wonder why some people give up and get tired. Of course, on the receiving end you've got an individual who is hoping to receive a payment that they're never going to receive. It continues, if you will, a bit of an ongoing farce. So, in fact, the default fee of $400 if you miss two or more payments, being now codified as an enforceable court order, may in many cases be simply punishing the poor.

It is assuming a fairness that simply doesn't exist. It is assuming that there is simply an adamant refusal to pay a court order when, in fact, in the vast majority of cases it is simply a significant change in circumstances which, at law, would entitle one to apply for variance. But in practice, it is impossible to apply for a variance, because you cannot understand the procedure in Supreme Court, and you cannot afford a lawyer to undertake it on your behalf. So you're stuck.

I am asking the Attorney General quite directly by my comments today to consider this proposition. It is something that impacts on not just hundreds but thousands of British Columbians who find themselves in these circumstances. It is perhaps time, obviously, to consider moving to a unified family court in which process is as simple as it can possibly be, consistent with the problems, if you will, around division of property so that individuals who have been victimized by circumstances often beyond their control — the unemployment, the injury, whatever, that means they're no longer in a position to pay — will, in fact, have a judicial forum that is readily accessible to them in which they can seek to vary.

Simply adding another penalty, I would submit, in many cases is not going to solve the problem. Those difficult individuals…. I have in my practice acted against a few of them and, indeed, acted for a few of them who simply will never pay. A default fee won't do it for them. They're going to have to face contempt of court. They're going to have to face the prospect of going to jail.

[1755]

For the others who are themselves victims, this does not advance the case very much. The provision requiring that a debtor or creditor "whose address changes must promptly file with the director, in the form and in the manner required by the director, a notice of the change of address," is, on the face of it, very commonsensical, appropriate. It makes the work of the family maintenance enforcement program much easier.

It further provides: "If a debtor or creditor does not file a notice under subsection (1), the director (a) is not required to take any steps to determine the debtor's or creditor's current address, and (b) despite any other provision under this Act, may proceed with any enforcement or other action under this Act without notice." Again, I come back to the problem: in many cases you are simply further punishing the poor.

For someone who is on social assistance, who is getting by on the employable amount of roughly $630 a month, just paying for a change of address becomes an issue or a problem. At a certain point, one has to consider the circumstances of a person who finds themselves so beaten down by life that this further just gives an opportunity for them, in their own minds, to be punished by a judicial system and a family maintenance enforcement program that they simply cannot fight, understand or control.
[ Page 7046 ]

I ask the Attorney General to consider that, when it comes to a change like this. You in fact may be in a position, unless there is some fairly easy communication, where you're simply adding to the burden of those individuals I'm talking about. I'm not suggesting they're the majority, but those individuals are already very beaten down by the process.

With respect to the rest of the bill, I look forward to committee stage. I know I have friends in the House who have a much stronger interest and greater expertise, as I indicated earlier, with respect to certain sections. I know they're going to wish to comment on them, so I look forward to hearing from the Attorney General at the next stage.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to enter into second reading debate of Bill 7, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2011. It's always fun to follow on the heels of my learned colleague from Nanaimo, particularly when we have Attorney General Ministry bills such as this.

What interested me about Bill 7 is that I heard that there were going to be amendments to the Clean Energy Act, and I was all atwitter. I wasn't tweeting, per se. I was all atwitter at the prospect of coming in and reading a piece of legislation that had amended some of the more egregious elements within the Clean Energy Act, which we did debate in this place some ten months ago — actually, coming on 11 months ago.

We didn't get into the committee stage on that bill, so we weren't able to burrow down and do the intensive work that was just done on Bill 6 by the Solicitor General and members on this side of the House as well as a government member. We weren't able to take a good, hard look at what the impacts and the implications of the Clean Energy Act were, and yet here we are again now, some 11 months later, amending that legislation.

So when I picked up the bill, I was hoping to see that we were going to be amending section 7 of the Clean Energy Act. Sadly, it's section 17. But had we had an opportunity to take a look at section 7, we would have been able to maybe clear up some of the confusion around the Utilities Commission and what its role and function are in setting rates in British Columbia and in reviewing projects that are brought forward by B.C. Hydro.

When we look at one of the subsections of Bill 7, it points out, and this is section 17.1(9): "In setting rates under the Utilities Commission Act for a prescribed public utility that has entered into a financing agreement, the commission must incorporate the financing agreement into those rates."

So we've got a bill before the House, an amendment to the Clean Energy Act, which took away from the Utilities Commission the ability to look at significant inputs from B.C. Hydro, some $10 billion: the smart meter program, a billion-dollar expenditure; the Site C proposal, $6 billion or $7 billion or $8 billion or $9 billion or $10 billion — we don't have a final number on that — a whole host of significant capital projects that have been exempted from review by the Utilities Commission.

[1800]

But we have before us today an amendment to the act that would provide for financing for energy improvements in people's homes. On the surface, prior to getting into committee stage, which I'm hopeful we'll be able to do…. I assume that that's going to happen with every bill, hon. Speaker, but as you know, it doesn't always happen.

I'm hopeful that when we get to committee stage on this bill and the Minister of Energy will be here, he will be able to assist us as we go through the bill and explain in some detail how it is that we have now created a lending agency with our electricity utilities, whether it be B.C. Hydro for the vast majority of energy electricity users in British Columbia or Fortis, which, as most members will know, provides distribution services in the Kootenays and the Okanagan region as well as some of the smaller municipal utilities across B.C.

The interesting part about this amendment is that it's providing those utilities with an ability to do energy improvements in dwellings or commercial buildings. The owner is not necessarily prescribing that activity, but the utility is in consultation with the owner or with a renter or a lessor. I think that's a good idea.

I know that my colleague the Attorney General is always delighted to hear me say that I support a government initiative, and on the surface, I have to say that I would support this. We have been trying right across the piece for decades now to find innovative ways to improve our housing stock, to improve our commercial stock, to ensure that we're not wasting electricity.

The Power Smart program goes back several decades, government after government after government trying to find ways to reduce our energy consumption. I believe, on the surface, the amendments to the Clean Energy Act outlined in the miscellaneous amendments before us may well do that.

I want to read some sections. I'm hopeful we'll get an opportunity to do this in more detail, but in theory, what we're proposing here is that a client of Fortis — for example, someone living in Kelowna — will be able to approach their utility after they've received an energy audit of their dwelling or their commercial space, and that energy audit will have had to determine that there can be an upgrade or an improvement in some way or another that will reduce your electricity consumption.

Once that work is done, the cost of that professional work then goes on to your hydro bill, and the savings that you accrue…. If you paid $100 a month before you had the energy efficiency work done and you're paying $90 a month after that, that $10 savings will go directly
[ Page 7047 ]
back to the utility as the cost of doing the improvement — on the surface a really good idea.

Many in this House will know, and certainly my colleagues that are paying attention to the energy debates we've been having in B.C. over the past number of years are aware that B.C. Hydro is on the ropes. B.C. Hydro has been forced to sign long-term power purchase agreements with independent power producers that are putting us on the hook for many tens of billions of dollars in unfunded liabilities for energy that is selling now at a rate that is three and four times the market rate.

On top of that the government is proposing a good idea that may well further hamper the utility by making it a bank of first choice for energy improvements.

Again, as I said, and I know it shocked my friend the Minister of Jobs when I said that I supported the initiative, I think that if we are looking at ways to improve the condition of our housing stock, if we're looking at ways to improve the condition of our commercial stock that will reduce our energy demand, that is good for the utility. That's good for British Columbians. That means we don't have to rely on high-priced independent power. That means we don't necessarily have to go proceeding to Site C, as the government wants to do.

Hon. Speaker, you were there. I heard that at the Liberal convention on the weekend the Minister of Energy, on the stage, said that although there were some consultations going on, he wasn't terribly bothered by that. "We're going to build Site C come 'h' or high water." It seemed a bit of a surprise to me. We were in the listening mode. I'd heard the Minister of Finance say, "I'm in listening mode," and then there was the Minister of Energy not listening at all — instead, going as fast as he could towards Site C.

This initiative will provide us an opportunity to test whether or not we can grasp the mettle and improve the condition and reduce requirements for electricity in housing stock, whether it be in the Lower Mainland, whether it be in the Kootenays, whether it be in the far north. I think this is a very positive initiative.

I am concerned, however, that while the Clean Energy Act excluded billions of dollars of expenditures from review, this amendment prescribes the Utilities Commission to insert within the rate structure some way to provide for this mechanism. Again, I don't know where we're going to get this money from.

[1805]

I hear the Minister of Finance often talking about the money tree that we refer to on this side of the House. This bill tabled by the Attorney General is saying to utilities public and private — Fortis being a private utility; B.C. Hydro being a public utility — that you must — not may, you must — provide loans to customers so that they can do these energy retrofits.

I support the energy retrofits. I support the notion of finding an efficient and innovative way to get capital for those projects, but I'm not entirely convinced that forcing the utility to take on what could well be bad debts is such a good idea.

One of the positive things, though, that I want to touch on…. One of the sections says that the renovation loan is not to the customer; it's to the dwelling. So if you're a renter, for example, and you're renting a home in Spuzzum in the Fraser Canyon, and you get an energy audit done — it's determined that there are savings that can be accrued by replacing your windows, by doing some work with your insulation, and it will reduce your energy dependency — it doesn't go to you as the client, as a renter. It goes to the dwelling. That means you're going to have the landlord buying into it, you're going to have to have the renter buying into it, and you also have to have the utility buying into it.

I don't know about you, hon. Chair. I know my friend from Nanaimo in his private practice as a lawyer deals with these sorts of things all the time. When you have two parties in an agreement, quite often you have disputes. When you increase the number of parties in the agreement, you increase the likelihood of disputes. I'm a bit concerned that the government may well not have thought that through. I'm looking forward to the opportunity at committee stage to review that in more detail.

The last thing I want to touch on before I give the floor to my colleague from Cariboo North to discuss issues within this bill is I want to talk a little bit about the regulation-making power which is part of this bill.

Again, committee stage is an opportunity to have a back and forth with the minister, have a better understanding of why they put the language in the bill that they have, but it concerns me greatly that I am standing on my feet in this place a few metres away from where I was 11 months ago, appealing to the government to take the Clean Energy Act and put it to a committee, put it to British Columbians so that we could get into listening mode, as the Minister of Finance is now. All members of the House, I understand, are in listening mode on issues of tax policy, on issues of social policy.

Why in the world would we not take our competitive advantage with respect to low-cost electricity in British Columbia and put that to the test of listening ears on the executive council? Why wouldn't we take the very capable backbenchers on the government side, marry them up with those on this side of the House and go about the province talking to British Columbians about what they want to see in a clean energy act? What innovations do they have in mind?

All the good ideas, as you know, hon. Speaker, do not live in the caucus room of the B.C. Liberal Party. In fact very few, in my view, live in that part of the building. There are, when we have people of goodwill coming
[ Page 7048 ]
together with their good ideas and then taking those out and test-driving them with the public — talking to people, getting in listening mode…. I love that. When I think of the Minister of Finance in his listening mode, I think he might have some little special hat that he would wear that would maybe have amplifiers on the ears so that he could really, genuinely hear what people are saying.

I know it doesn't work very effectively in this place. He certainly isn't in listening mode when the opposition brings forward good ideas for him to think about. The opposition often, and particularly on bills such as this, brings forward ideas all the time.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: We did agree with it. Well, yeah, if you agree with it so much….

See, I'm diverted by a heckler, hon. Speaker, and I know you hate it when I do that. You're bringing me back to the point.

Deputy Speaker: Members, through the Chair.

J. Horgan: I look forward to discussing this with the member for Saanich North and the Islands off line. But as I see we are running a little short on time and I do have two colleagues that want to proceed, I want to just again say it one more time. I hope this is a good idea, and when we shine the light of day on it at committee stage, it will be able to get through to legislation.

B. Simpson: I'll just take a few minutes here, but I don't want to belittle the topic that I have. It's a very serious topic, and it has to do with what may or may not be happening in section 10 of this bill and the changes to the adult guardianship statutes, particularly with respect to representation agreements.

The issue that has been brought to my attention by a constituent of mine whose mother died this February, and subsequent to that a number of people have brought this issue forward…. It's a threefold issue.

[1810]

First is the use of anti-psychotic drugs to treat dementia patients. Health Canada and the FDA in the United States have both indicated that these drugs should not be used for dementia patients. In fact, Health Canada has issued three warnings to that effect. Unfortunately, here in British Columbia, as in other jurisdictions, those drugs continue to be used in what they call an atypical fashion. But according to Health Canada, according to clinical studies, the use of anti-psychotic drugs with dementia patients leads to early death, mostly as a result of stroke or cardiac problems.

Mrs. Hilda Penner was the constituent of mine's mom, and despite repeated efforts on the part of the family to prevent this treatment from occurring, they were not able to stop it.

The issue, pertinent to this bill, is whether or not section 10…. The note says it "clarifies that an adult may authorize a representative to make specific decisions about the adult's personal care or health care." The section itself says that it is amending the impact on the Representation Agreement Act "in relation to the personal care or health care of the adult."

As I've said many times in this House before, it's hard to know what's happening in an amendment act until we get into the committee stage. But what happens here is that families who try to prevent the use of anti-psychotics with their loved one, if they push that far enough, the health authorities certify the patient under the Mental Health Act. So by certifying the patient under the Mental Health Act, they negate the representation agreement and take away the power of the families to prevent the use of anti-psychotics.

There's a very dramatic situation that has occurred here. I challenge any of the members to just google anti-psychotics and dementia, and you'll see that this is a significant issue throughout the United States. They're in the process of now starting class action lawsuits against health authorities, against hospitals, against doctors.

I have written a letter to the previous Minister of Health, and we forwarded it to the current Minister of Health in February, asking for the government to conduct a comprehensive review into this. My understanding is there may be such a review underway — I'm trying to confirm that — where there are three things that must be investigated.

First and foremost, the use of anti-psychotics in British Columbia for the treatment of dementia patients and whether or not that is counter to Health Canada, is counter to good clinical practice and is accelerating the death of these dementia patients.

And No. 2 is whether or not the default to using these anti-psychotics is a result of a shortage of staff. It's a process called chemical restraints of patients as opposed to providing appropriate staff levels for the level of dementia care they have.

Then, No. 3 is this issue of investigating how we stop health authorities from certifying patients so that they have full control over the treatment of those individuals, full control over whatever drugs they're going to give to these patients, even if it's over the express protest of the families — families which have gone through all of the necessary requirements and the legal requirements to have these representation agreements.

So I'm not clear from this bill if it does it. The language seems hopeful. I know that the families that are involved in this dispute, one of which has gone all the way to the Supreme Court of British Columbia…. On February 18 the judge took that, and we're still waiting to hear the outcome of that ruling.
[ Page 7049 ]

I would like to know, and we'll canvass the minister in committee stage as to whether this addresses that issue. If it doesn't, then it will fall short of the needs of these families and other families in British Columbia that do not want the lives of their loved ones shortened by the inappropriate use of drugs that are explicitly stated not to be used by Health Canada and the U.S. FDA.

I'll be looking forward to committee stage to see if this part of the bill actually addresses that very critical issue.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the member for Surrey-Tynehead seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[1815]

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: I have some very special guests here in the House today, and these guests are my volunteers. These are the guests who help me at the fundraisers. These are the guests who help me as MLA when we had to do some functions, barbecues. They're always here helping us.

Some of these special guests include my mother, Baldev Kaur Hayer, who is one of my biggest supporters and one of the biggest helpers; then also my wife, Isabelle Hayer, who is always helping and volunteering; my sisters, who are also volunteers and supporters, Rupinder Bains, Daljit Sidhu, Satpaul Aujla; and my nephews Nav Aujla and Daman Bains; and my nephew Rajveer Dhanda and his mom, my sister-in-law, Vickey Dhanda. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Debate Continued

C. Trevena: I'd like to address this section in Bill 7 of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act that deals with the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act. I'd like to both echo some of the comments made by my colleague from Nanaimo on the program and also throw in some others, because I think that all of us as MLAs see the effects of this. We have people who come into our offices who are really affected on both sides — both those who are trying to pay the maintenance and those who are trying to get the maintenance.

In principle, the concept of a family maintenance program seems to be fine. It's a good way to make sure that families can get the maintenance that is needed. I don't think that the amendments in this act, though, really make it effective in the way it should be effective.

I refer to the comments that my colleague from Nanaimo made about the need to simplify the system and to give people more access to perhaps a different court system, to a family court system. Everyone who does come through my office, at least, to discuss this issue is really struggling. Whether it is somebody who owes the maintenance and just cannot pay it or somebody who needs the maintenance and can't pay it, they are really in a quandary, because the reason they have the need for maintenance or have to pay the maintenance is financial.

I am not as familiar with the court process as my colleague from Nanaimo is, but if you have to deal with the court process at any stage, you are going to get into the issues of both cost and complication. If you've got to deal with both provincial and supreme courts, I can see that that it is very intimidating for very many people. With the lack of access to the judicial system, to the court system, and the lack of money for legal aid for family law cases, it really is very prohibitive.

I'd just like to give two instances that have come to my office very recently. One is from someone — it's a mother — whose son got evicted. He's unemployed. He was evicted from his apartment because he couldn't pay the rent. He can't pay for his bills. He can't pay for his food. He's really struggling. How can he pay family maintenance? How can he then pay the back load of the $400 even if he gets into that situation? We have a real problem.

This gentleman isn't alone. There are many, many people who are in the stage where they are out of work or they are facing real financial problems. It's not because they don't want to pay. Yes, there are some people who don't want to pay — quite obviously that — but there are many people who want to pay and just simply cannot afford to. This doesn't deal with that.

On the other side of it, I have a woman who is trying to get family maintenance but her husband won't…. They have a house in both their names, but the husband won't sign over on the mortgage and won't sign until, he says, the family maintenance arrears are cancelled. She's trying to take him to court and can't get a court case because there are no judges. All their money is locked up in GICs and RRSPs, and she just can't get the access to money.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Again, this is an issue that isn't dealt with in this amendment. I think that we really have to make sure that if we're having a program like the family maintenance enforcement program that it is made so that it works — not made so that it punishes people but made so that it's effective.

One of the ways to make it effective is by improving, I think, the legal system — by improving the access to legal aid and improving access to the court system, improving the number of judges. We've had the discussion both in question period and other times during our short resumption of this session where we have been
[ Page 7050 ]
dealing with this issue of access to the judicial system — putting money into the court system, putting money into both legal aid and into judges.

[1820]

I think that would be a good way of starting to address the family maintenance program and making sure that it can be effective in its present state. As I say, I don't think this amendment deals with its present state.

Going again to my colleague from Nanaimo, his idea of simplifying the system, of ensuring there is better access to the court proceedings and establishing a really workable family court system that is affordable and accessible to families so that you're not making it a system that only people with money can afford — only people who have the wealth to access the court system, only the people who have the wealth to ensure that the maintenance is paid…. Those aren't the ones who oftentimes really need it. Oftentimes it is those who can least afford it, who have least access to the court system, who really need it.

I'm sure it's going to be very well canvassed in committee stage to find out just how far it goes. I think that from my initial reading of it and my initial understanding of it, this amendment does not deal with what we really need to deal with, which is access to improving the family maintenance program from both sides — for those who are trying to pay it and those who need to be benefited from it.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. B. Penner: I thank the members for their contributions to this debate. For the member for Nanaimo, I, too, have some memories of practising in this area — it seems like quite a long time ago now, and I guess it was — in terms of family maintenance enforcement and providing advice to clients on both sides of the ledger. It's always a challenging issue.

As for the adult guardianship statute, I believe a number of provisions are due to come into force this August, so stay tuned for that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 7.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Penner: In addition to moving second reading, I also now move that Bill 7 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 7, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2011, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Hon. P. Bell moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:23 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
FORESTS, LANDS AND
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

On Vote 30: ministry operations, $363,399,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have an opening statement?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, thank you. I'm very pleased and honoured to be here this afternoon to commence the debate on the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. I'm joined on my right here by Doug Konkin, the deputy minister. Behind me are Craig Sutherland, the executive financial officer, and Terry Gelinas, the chief financial officer of the ministry. I have other staff here, as well, that may join us as required, as we get into the various areas that the members opposite want to canvass during the debate, and I'll introduce those as they come forward.

Thank you again for the honour of being able to stand here today in the debate of the ministry. As you know, British Columbia is world-renowned for its beauty and its natural resources, and I'm very pleased to be the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

There's no doubt that natural resource development drives British Columbia's economy and contributes important revenue for our critical services of health, education and social services. After the global economic downturn it's encouraging to see signs of economic recovery in our resource sectors.

B.C.'s forest products exports increased in 2010 to $9.1 billion from $7.6 billion in 2009; 26 mills have re-
[ Page 7051 ]
opened since November 2009, with many dedicating their lumber production to China. That's created over 1,600 new jobs in the sector, and when you add in the indirect jobs that are related to that for transportation and harvesting for those mill jobs, that's over 6,000 new jobs in the sector just since November 2009. Recent reports from the Export Development Corporation of Canada and PricewaterhouseCoopers also say that forestry is on the upswing again and point to optimism for the future.

Mining, a $3.7 billion industry in British Columbia, is also on the upswing. Mineral exploration expenditures reached $322 million in 2010, more than double the $154 million in 2009. B.C.'s world-famous ski resorts provide economic contributions worth $2.1 million. Freshwater fishing contributes $480 million to the B.C. economy.

As B.C.'s economy continues to grow again, especially in the natural resource sector, it's important for government to effectively manage the complexity of natural resource decisions on B.C.'s land base. We need to effectively manage our natural resources to ensure economic prosperity and environmental sustainability.

The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations was created to be the province's one land manager. We're a large ministry with a small Victoria component. Over 80 percent of our staff reside and work in diverse communities all around the province.

[1435]

That built-in community interface means that our staff are keenly aware of the importance of B.C.'s natural resources to rural British Columbia and rural families. Our regional structure positions us to make better decisions on the land base that directly affect those communities. And a strong resource sector means good-paying jobs for B.C. families, better decision-making, upholds our strong environmental standards.

This integrated approach enhances our ability to understand the cumulative effects of multiple resource activities on our land base. Coordinating natural resource sector–wide activities on the land — permitting, First Nations consultation and wildlife and wildfire management, to name a few — through one ministry means more durable and timely decisions. Whether you're a homeowner looking to build a dock at your lakefront property or a clean energy producer wanting to develop a wind farm, you only have to engage with one place in government now.

This year the focus of our ministry is to streamline our processes to be more efficient and predictable, and by the end of 2011-12 we've set a performance measure to achieve 90 percent of implementation of one project, one process. We're reviewing and rationalizing our permits and licences to make the application steps easier to understand. We're opening more FrontCounter offices around the province, one-stop intake offices for natural resource applications, and we're reducing backlogs of Land Act and Water Act applications.

We're already seeing signs of success with our one-project, one-process approach. For example, with the Mount Milligan mine, a coordinated approach meant one letter from government to four First Nations instead of 28 letters, and a 120-day consultation time frame instead of 320-day consultation time frame. That project will support 400 jobs in northern British Columbia.

On the coast, processing of a Forest Act special use permit and processing of a Land Act licence of occupation for log-handling sites are now done together, reducing processing and consultation times from over 120 days to 30 days. Also on the coast, processing times for over 50 authorizations required before a clean energy project can proceed have been cut in half. This is done by bundling the authorizations in the consultation process and processing the high-priority permits first.

In the northeast applications for aggregate have increased from nine applications in 2009 to 53 in 2010 because of the increased oil and gas activity. It's estimated that processing times will be reduced by one-third because of the coordinated one-project, one-process approach.

As well as concentrating on one project, one process in the year ahead, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations will continue to improve forest utilization by solidifying bioenergy as a major forest product and become a world leader in growing trees.

We will pursue new policies and strategies to guide and attract investments in B.C.'s forest-based carbon offsets and incremental silviculture activities. We'll improve access to B.C.'s Crown lands to support sustainable development. We'll ensure collaboration with First Nations through relationships and consultations based on operational decisions.

I had mentioned that the B.C. economy is starting to recover, but we still have a long way to go. In 2005 direct revenues to government from the forest industry totalled over $1.1 billion. The forecast for the coming year is an estimated $520 million. You can see that we have a way to go, but with the recovery that's underway, we hope, over time, that we'll achieve those revenue targets for the provincial government again — again contributing important revenue for those critical services of health, education and social services.

The ministry's net operating budget for 2011-12 is $589.852 million. This reflects the previously announced budget reductions that were announced as part of the government's plan to eliminate the deficit and balance the budget by 2013-14. We need to continue to prioritize spending on health care and education and continue to work towards achieving those budget targets.

You'll note that following this current fiscal year that for the following two the funding of the ministry remains stable. The reduction that we have in place reflects
[ Page 7052 ]
workforce adjustments that occurred last year, benefits charged back and an increase in the B.C. Timber Sales special account spending.

In the early days of the ministry I've had the opportunity to travel the province and to meet with the mill operators and stakeholder associations involved in this very important sector, both in the forest side of it and across the resource sector. It's been an honour to get out and meet the people in the industry, to see the hard work that's been done by everybody in the industry. This is a great sector to be involved in, and I'm very much looking forward to the discussion, the debate, and what I expect will be some constructive suggestions, as well, from the members opposite. I'm very pleased to be able to take my place here to entertain this debate.

[1440]

I've had a couple of great opportunities in the very beginning of the portfolio. One was to be at UBC to celebrate the United Nations year of forestry, and so it's appropriate that we're discussing the Forests Ministry here.

Also, one very gratifying experience is that I was able to join the citizens in the community of Midway in their celebration as they look forward to the mill reopening in that community and to once again becoming a mill town. Little steps like that, very significant, are showing that we have economic recovery underway, that there's optimism and that people are looking forward to the future.

N. Macdonald: Just to begin by congratulating the minister for his appointment and to thank the staff that not only are here but also the staff that make it their lives' work to serve the people of British Columbia within his ministry. I think all British Columbians appreciate that work.

I'm looking forward to the time that we have to go through some of the issues. Before I do that, just one more thing — to make sure I do it before we finish. We have an intern, Annabel Rixen, who has done a lot of work on this file. I'd just like to recognize her and, of course, one of our staff members, Jeff Dean, who with a number of ministries does really important work also. So just to recognize the contribution that they have made, as well as interested citizens who take the time, whether they're in business or members of unions or employees, to speak to us on the issues that are covered by this ministry.

Today we're going to focus on forestry, and I would just like to focus the questions as we get started on two key issues. The first is the degree to which the current estimates succeed or fail in protecting the financial interests of the government and the citizens of British Columbia as set out in the Ministry of Forests and Range Act.

The act very clearly lays out that, to the fullest extent possible, the government should be doing all in its power to ensure that the financial interests of the government in its forests and range resources are pursued in a systematic and equitable manner. This is done for the simple reason that the forests of British Columbia belong to the people of British Columbia and that the people entrust this government to ensure a fair return for the use of their forests.

The second aspect of what we'll talk about this afternoon is the degree to which the current estimates succeed or fail in ensuring full and effective stewardship of the many values in our public forests.

Two key phrases in the act are critical in that regard. The first is the requirement…. I want to quote here from the act just to frame the discussion that we're going to have this afternoon. It comes from the act that governs what we do on the public lands, and it reads like this. The responsible of the ministry is to "manage, protect and conserve the forest and range resources of the government, having regard to the immediate and long term economic and social benefits they may confer on British Columbia."

A second quote from the act is to "plan the use of the forest and range resources of the government, so that the production of timber and forage, the harvesting of timber, the grazing of livestock and the realization of fisheries, wildlife, water, outdoor recreation and other natural resource values are coordinated and integrated, in consultation and cooperation with other ministries and agencies of the government and with the private sector."

So just to frame the discussion around those two legal requirements for the minister and for the ministry.

Now, despite two significant reorganizations beginning last fall with the creation of the short-lived Ministries of Natural Resource Operations and Forest, Mines and Lands, and the more recent abandonment of both of those ministries and the creation of the current Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, it remains the case that the Ministry of Forests and Range Act is still in effect, and it is the guiding legislation that directs forest policy.

To that end, it strikes me as imperative that any coherent discussion of the current estimates must be driven by what that legislation says the government is to do and whether the funds, as currently allocated, are up to the task of ensuring that the forests of British Columbia are managed sustainably, to the optimum benefit of all British Columbians.

[1445]

I, clearly, have deep concerns, based on what we have before us, that this is not the case. Both forest stewardship and the financial interests pertaining to our forests appear to be at serious risk with the current fiscal framework.

To begin with, Mr. Chair, I have the following question relating to the estimates for the Ministry of Forests,
[ Page 7053 ]
Lands and Natural Resource Operations. I'd like just to begin by asking the minister to confirm the following. He alluded to it in his opening statements. The question: first, was the budget estimate for the fiscal year that just ended — that's March 31, 2011 — $641 million, and is the budget estimate for the current fiscal year approximately $590 million?

Hon. S. Thomson: The budget, restated as in the resource summary in the plan, was $633 million for 2010-11. The number that the member opposite referred to, of $590 million, is the correct number for the estimates for 2011-2012.

N. Macdonald: So $590 million. There's approximately $633 million at March 31, 2011, for that fiscal year ending at that period, and the current fiscal budget is for $590 million. I just want to thank the minister for that information. Let's frame it there.

As a result of the cabinet reorganization that I spoke about a moment ago, we know that the duties of the ministry have expanded substantially. For example, the ministry now has responsibility for water stewardship and water allocations. These are major new tasks that require careful integration with more traditional roles and responsibilities of the ministry, including forest stewardship. That will have a significant bearing on the province's energy resources, farmland and the environment.

In light of the expanded responsibilities of the ministry and a projected budget decline of 8 percent this year, where does the government intend to cut services?

[1450]

Hon. S. Thomson: The savings or the reductions that the member opposite noted have been achieved, as I mentioned in my opening statements, primarily through workforce adjustment, attrition within the staffing across all the agencies and divisions that have been brought into the new ministry. I think that points very clearly to the reason for the establishment of the ministry on an integrated basis.

We have faced the overall budget challenges. The steps we've taken are meant to make sure that we can do our decision-making in an integrated way — to find the streamlined processes, to find those efficiencies across all of those divisions — to make sure that we can continue to deliver the service that is expected from this ministry.

It also means that we can shift resources within the integrated approach into those priorities as they're required. We'll continue to find those operational efficiencies as we work through the processes in terms of implementing the full implementation of the natural resource operations component of the ministry.

I'll use one small example. Moving from cruise-based processes within forestry to scale-based sales — the other way around; sorry — has saved us significant dollars in being able to do that. We continue to look for those efficiencies. We continue to look for the streamlined processes.

Some of the examples I used earlier in my opening comments, of where we're reducing timelines, increasing those operational efficiencies, will help us to address the challenges we faced with the reduced budget and reduced staffing.

N. Macdonald: Well, just to give the public a sense of the difference between the ministry that we looked at, which had a budget of $633 million…. Comparing it to the ministry as it now sits, there is a massive amount of new work that is being done.

I understand the minister's need to talk about efficiencies, but really what we're talking about is a lack of rigour, and we're talking about a job that already was widely thought to be done quite poorly being done even with less rigour. That's really what we're talking about when the minister uses the term "efficiencies."

If you look at the additional list of responsibilities, it includes independent power production. It includes mineral and coal titles. It includes mines and minerals permitting and inspection, except for major mining projects. It includes aquaculture licensing and regulation, water use planning and authorizations, resort and alpine ski developments. These were all in different ministries before — now sitting with this ministry, with its reduced budget.

It also includes licensing and permitting for angling, hunting and trapping; GeoBC; the provincial hatchery and stocking program; watershed restoration; fish, wildlife and habitat management; drought management; dam, dike safety and regulation. It includes floodplain management; recreation sites and trails that used to be with the Ministry of Tourism; archaeology and heritage conservation policy and permitting.

It is a massive increase in the responsibilities of the ministry, and yet clearly, even compared to the much smaller ministry that existed before, a reduction in the budget. So there is no question that what was going missing already…. There's even going to be more problems.

I guess just to take one part of it and to use as a supplement to the question that was asked before: could the minister please tell us under whose authority water stewardship responsibilities will fall in the new ministry and what the projected water stewardship budget will be under their authority? So who has that authority, please.

[1455]

Hon. S. Thomson: First of all, I want to be clear that in terms of…. It is a complex ministry, and we brought many new responsibilities into the ministry. But just to be clear, many of the budget reductions were previously there, and when the new responsibilities came over, they came over with intact and existing budgets.
[ Page 7054 ]

For example, on the specific question that the member opposite asked in terms of the water stewardship, the previous budget was $3.4 million. In the budget this year it's $3.35 million. That division and process came over intact when it was moved out from Natural Resource Operations and over into the new ministry. The responsibility for that now sits in the resource stewardship division within the ministry.

N. Macdonald: Just to be clear, the responsibility, then — does it sit with the chief forester?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yeah. Just to confirm, as I said, the responsibility falls under the resource stewardship division. That division is under the responsibility of the assistant deputy minister. The assistant deputy minister is Jim Snetsinger, who is also the chief forester.

N. Macdonald: I have two questions, then, for clarification. First, this is under the forestry resource stewardship. Can the minister confirm that the budget, then, for the forest resource stewardship is in the current estimates and explain the 19 percent decline in this year's estimated budget expenditure and that of the last fiscal year? And can the minister confirm that the current forest resource stewardship budget then includes water stewardship? I understand that's what the minister just said. Did I understand that correctly?

[1500]

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, the forest resource stewardship funding that you see in the resource summary — the $91.679 million — is for the forest research component of our responsibilities. The water stewardship funding that I referenced of $3.4 million is within the $91.979 million that's in provincial operations.

The responsibility for the management of that branch and its funding falls under a structure within the ministry under the ADM responsibilities, under what we call the resource stewardship branch that manages both the forestry resource stewardship and components of the provincial operations.

So there is no reduction in the dollars for the forest resource side of it other than the reference, obviously, to the previous year. But within the existing year we have not taken forest resource stewardship dollars to fund other parts of the ministry.

N. Macdonald: Just to understand, if I go back and look at the Ministry of Environment's budget from last year, the net water stewardship budget was $15.1 million. I just want to understand how that squares. I realize there may be a couple of different numbers that we are looking at, but the minister was talking about a figure closer to $3 million. Yet when I go back to the Ministry of Environment's budget, the net water stewardship budget there was $15.1 million. Could the minister explain how that works?

[1505]

Hon. S. Thomson: We're really starting to drill down into some of the detail, which may not be quite so apparent in looking at the resource summaries. Just to confirm, a good majority of the previous funding that was in the Ministry of Environment came into the new ministry.

I think you referenced the $15.1 million. That's probably a correct reference, although I think that would need to be canvassed with the Ministry of Environment. Some responsibilities were left within the Ministry of Environment, so there will still be a component of funding in the Ministry of Environment for that area.

The majority came over to our ministry — $3.4 million that I mentioned in the provincial operations with the balance — and the greatest majority of that is within regional operations, in the $117.748 million that is in regional operations. Those are primarily staff that came over on the water management stewardship side of things that are all integrated now into the overall regional operations, so they won't show specifically as water management.

They're part of the integrated ministry and integrated responsibilities in delivering the natural resource operation structure on the land, so they will be part of that overall regional operation. Those are staff and people out in the regions around the province. They're now working within our ministry that were previously part of MOE, and so that budget component is in regional operations. There was some left in MOE, but the budgets that came across from MOE in the restructuring were, as I mentioned, essentially intact when they came across.

N. Macdonald: As I said, there are sort of two lenses we're going to look at. One of them is the responsibility under the act to make sure that we're getting full value for the resource. While we're talking about the ministry, the water stewardship budget, let's maybe divert a little and talk about the funds that come from water rentals.

Could the minister indicate to us how many funds the ministry expects to collect this year in water rental rates, where this funding source is reflected in the estimates and whether the projected estimates reflect any consideration on the part of the government around the level of water rental rates that major industrial consumers of water pay for access to Crown water resources?

Just to note, the example that I read — and maybe the minister can correct me if he has a different example — is under the current industrial water rental rates. The Crown receives the equivalent of about $2.50 for each Olympic swimming pool's worth of water allocated for certain industrial uses.
[ Page 7055 ]

So the question then is: where would I find those revenue pieces in the budget? And I guess a comment on the appropriateness for that level.

[1510]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm for the member opposite, the anticipated revenue for water licences and rentals is approximately $360 million. I was just asking staff, and we can confirm for you where you might find that number specifically in the estimates. We're not sure if it is identified specifically or whether it's combined with some other revenue numbers for the ministry, so we'll get that information for you and, hopefully, answer that part of it in a few minutes.

N. Macdonald: The government has repeatedly asserted that a radical decline in forest stewardship budgets over the past decade has been in response to dramatically reduced forest revenues, and that's the case again this year.

Would the minister then agree that in light of continued low stumpage revenues, declining forest stewardship budgets and dramatic increases in forest stewardship responsibilities, the ability of the ministry to fulfil its purpose and function as set out in the Ministry of Forests and Range Act has therefore been compromised to the detriment of the public interest?

Hon. S. Thomson: No, I would not agree with the assertion made by the member opposite that our decline in revenues or our current situation in revenues from stumpage will compromise our ability to do the important work of the ministry. I think it points back again to the reason that the integrated process was put in place: to provide that integrated decision-making to find those efficiencies.

The revenue, as you will see from the resource summary, is projected to increase over the next few years. We faced very difficult budget circumstances in order to meet the province's fiscal plan. We are working with it.

That is why we've set up the ministry as it is: to make sure that we can have that integrated process, to make sure we can shift resources where they are needed to focus on the priorities where required. So I'm confident that we will be able to continue to deliver the service that is required for the province within our existing budget.

N. Macdonald: I'll return to the questions related to forest stewardship at a later point. But what I'd like to do next is highlight why the revenues as projected in the current estimates, in my view, show a failure on the government's part to assert its legally mandated financial interests, thereby failing to protect the public's interest in a publicly owned resource.

My first question on that topic is as follows. British Columbia currently sets, as a minimum timber-cutting or stumpage charge, a price of 25 cents per cubic metre of timber cut. The 25 cents per cubic metre of timber cut…. Just to give the public an idea, a cubic metre is a telephone pole, so this is a substantial amount of public wood for 25 cents.

[1515]

Can the minister tell me what percentage of all trees harvested on public forest lands in the fiscal year 2010-2011 commanded the lowest stumpage charge? This is the number of trees that paid — not the total revenues but the total volume.

Hon. S. Thomson: We're just looking for the information. To the member opposite: in order to make sure that we provide you with an accurate figure, I'd prefer to have staff do some work here to provide you that accurate figure in terms of the percentage. I'm advised that we should be able to provide that within an hour, so we'll undertake to try to provide you that figure before we finish this afternoon. I want to make sure that it is an accurate figure and not an estimate.

N. Macdonald: Thank you, Minister. Maybe this figure, then, is something that the minister has with him. In terms of that minimum stumpage, how much does the minimum stumpage represent in terms of total revenues collected, rather than volume? Does the minister have that information?

Hon. S. Thomson: We will provide the response to that question at the same time as we provide the response to the first one to make sure that we have the figure accurate for the member opposite.

N. Macdonald: Thank you for getting that information. In the meantime, maybe we can just ballpark here. The assertion that I've had from people who I assume would be knowledgable would be that in the range of 60 to 75 percent in terms of volume was at minimum stumpage. Is that a ballpark figure that the minister would say would tend to be accurate?

[1520]

Hon. S. Thomson: We're just reviewing some estimate information here. This is simply an estimate, but my response would be that the member opposite is…. I would not say that he's out of the ballpark, but we will get the accurate figures. I would much prefer to provide you the accurate figures. But as I said, I don't think he is out of the ballpark on this one.

N. Macdonald: I appreciate the minister getting the actual numbers. But for the audience, for the people who would be watching, if we were anywhere close to 60 to 75 percent of the volume, is that a stumpage of 25 cents? People can picture the amount that's being paid for the volume that's coming off the public lands.
[ Page 7056 ]

Could the minister, then — and maybe he will have to get this as well — tell members here what the average, all told, stumpage payments were in the past fiscal year? What was the average, all told, stumpage payment in the past fiscal year?

Hon. S. Thomson: For '10-11 the revenue was $222 million, and the forecast for '11-12 is $293 million.

N. Macdonald: The minister will have volume as well. Could the minister tell me the average stumpage payment as compared to volume? So what is the average that the government is getting for the wood that is coming off public land?

[1525]

Hon. S. Thomson: For '10-11 the volume was 57.5 million cubic metres, and the estimate for '11-12 is 59 million cubic metres.

N. Macdonald: I mean, we can do the math just to see the amount that we're getting for the resource.

Basically, the point that I laid out at the beginning was that there is a legal obligation to get as much value as possible. As I see it, and I understand that the minister would disagree, there is a crisis in forest stewardship. In the past the link has been made to the lack of revenue that is coming from the resource there, for there's neglect in terms of stewardship.

Let's just stick with the revenue piece. I think that the public understands that even if it's between 60 or 75 percent of the resource that's coming off, it's coming off at a fairly minimal charge. It's coming off the public lands. As I say, the point that we're making is that that impacts the budget that's available for the proper stewardship of the land.

Maybe keeping with the theme of the revenue side, could the minister tell the members here what the revenue losses were in the B.C. Timber Sales program in 2010-2011 and what the minister projects the revenues to be in the B.C. Timber Sales program for the current fiscal year?

[1530]

Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite asked for the projected revenue loss for 2011-12, and the projected losses are $5.1 million for a net revenue for 2011-12. For 2010-11 that number was $15.7 million.

But I think the important point to make here is the fact that we know the industry has come through a very difficult time. The stumpage revenues reflect the market. They reflect the quality of the wood. They reflect operating costs. As the member opposite well knows, we've been harvesting very, very significant amounts of mountain pine beetle wood. That is poorer quality, but that's also a stewardship function.

The member opposite has pointed to forest stewardship as one of his themes. That's one of the objectives on the stewardship side of it, by harvesting these very, very significant impacts from mountain pine beetle. That is obviously going to have a reflection on stumpage rates as the market improves. We expect that stumpage revenue to increase.

N. Macdonald: Just to connect the revenues, though, to stewardship. I think most would expect that the B.C. Timber Sales program, set up to try to set fair prices for stumpages and to demonstrate that it's market-driven, not lose money.

I think many would say that the minister's answers demonstrate that the revenue side of the equation is flawed and that the 25-cent minimum stumpage charge essentially ensures that the government has been and will for the foreseeable future be unable to meet its obligations under the Ministry of Forests and Range Act to protect the public's financial interests as they pertain to the public forest.

Can the minister please tell the House if there has been any consideration or if he has any plans to review the minimum stumpage charges? I think, just for people to understand…. People see a truckload of logs. That can bring as little and, I think, commonly does bring as little as $8.75 to government coffers. So a full truckload of wood off public land, the people of B.C. sell for as little as $8.75. Here in Victoria that's like three cups of coffee. That's an incredibly small amount of revenue for the resource.

Has the minister had any of those discussions? Is there any contemplation about the level that we charge as a minimum stumpage?

[1535]

Hon. S. Thomson: To answer the member opposite's question, no, we don't have plans to review that minimum stumpage rate. We think it reflects the low quality, the higher operating costs in many areas. I think what the member opposite fails to recognize is the jobs, the indirect revenue, the taxes, the activity that is generated from that harvesting.

We do look forward in BCTS to returning it to profitability as the industry returns to profitability. Our current projections show for 2012-2013 a $7.8 million revenue from BCTS and out to 2013 a $14.7 million or $15 million revenue for BCTS. But at this point we don't have plans to review the minimum stumpage level.

N. Macdonald: Under the act, the ministry has a responsibility to get as much revenue as possible. I think it would be debatable in terms of whether the minister's actions are appropriate or not. But I think most British Columbians would agree that the amount the people of British Columbia are getting for the resource is re-
[ Page 7057 ]
markably low; $8.75 for a full truckload of logs seems an incredibly low value for what is a valuable product. And that minimum stumpage could be applied to as much as 75 percent of what is harvested in British Columbia, I think most would find remarkable.

It also ties into the next phase, which is one that I think most British Columbians find really disturbing. It's the lack of stewardship dollars. The case has been made that the lack of funds that are coming from forestry means that we cannot make the investments in stewardship. That link has been made several times.

The Ministry of Forests lost money. That's unprecedented. There are times when it used to account for $1 billion to $2 billion coming into coffers. I think in an unprecedented time we have seen periods where the ministry has been in deficit, and the structure that was set up to get fair market value, B.C. Timber Sales, is in deficit too.

[1540]

Let's move to the stewardship part, because it isn't just that the financial interests of the citizens of British Columbia, I would say, are being compromised. The government is also failing to properly cover the costs of stewardship in the publicly owned lands that the government is responsible for on the public's behalf.

Would the minister confirm what the budget is for the core business described as forest resource stewardship? Further, will the minister please tell members here: what are the core forest resource stewardship responsibilities? What responsibilities may have been removed or transferred in the recent cabinet reorganizations, and what core responsibilities have been added?

I realize there is a series of questions there, but I hope that it's something that the minister will be able to answer. If you would like me to break them up, I could break them for you — or repeat them, if you need that.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm for the member, the forest resource stewardship subvote, which is $91.67 million…. Included within that, it provides for forest stewardship activities, including the development of legislation, policies and practices that support sustainable forest management; land-based investments; timber supply planning and determination; tree improvement; silviculture; forest genetics and growth- and yield-related research; forest health; forest inventory; and the monitoring of the effectiveness of forest practices.

That's the description in the subvote, but I wanted to just provide a little bit more clarity for the member opposite to show him what we have undertaken within the resource structure of the ministry under, as I was referring to earlier, the new resource stewardship division, which is under the responsibility of the assistant deputy minister and the chief forester.

Because we realize it's a key function of the ministry, traditional forestry-related stewardship is coupled with the larger system resource management, which means improved coordination of research, a focus on resource management objectives, and the alignment of water management and stewardship.

[1545]

The former forest practices investment branch transfers intact. However, it's been renamed the resource practices branch, to project a longer-term objective of a broader approach to resource stewardship. The tree improvement and forest analysis inventory branches of the former forest stewardship division transfer intact, along with the same branch names.

As we're fully implementing this new resource stewardship division, there will be additional budget dollars that flow under the management of that overall stewardship division that aren't reflected in that $91 million in the subvote but that will come from the other regional and provincial operations subvotes, just like the example I gave previously around the funding directly for water stewardship, of the $3.35 million that is coming across in addition to that overall subvote.

Looking strictly at the numbers, it's $91.6 million as outlined in the estimates and the subvote. But to be clear, we are providing a broader division focused on resource stewardship within the new integrated model. There will be additional dollars that come with some of those responsibilities that are now part of that overall resource stewardship division.

N. Macdonald: Thank you for that answer.

Maybe I missed it, but were there some things moved out as well? The minister mentioned a number of things that were moved in. Are there any things, just for my understanding, that were moved out?

Hon. S. Thomson: No, I am advised that there was nothing moved out. It brought in additional resource stewardship responsibilities, but we didn't move any forest resource stewardship responsibilities out.

N. Macdonald: When I was looking at documents…. The minister has perhaps talked about things that I didn't see clearly. Could the minister confirm or clarify that other than growth and yield research, I didn't find mention of research as a function of the core business area of the forest resource stewardship, although the minister seems to be alluding to that. I don't know if I missed it in the documents. Could the minister clarify about the research component?

Hon. S. Thomson: What has been moved from the research side into there is forest genetics. The silviculture research has been moved under the research practices branch and growth and yield research. That's a total of about 40 staff functions that have been moved in under the resource stewardship branch.

[1550]
[ Page 7058 ]

N. Macdonald: Can the minister tell members here what the budget, then, for growth and yield research is specifically?

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm advised that the budget for research for the three programs that I mentioned within the new resource stewardship branch is $3 million. That is in terms of an actual allocation between the components. Those plans are still being developed. So within that resource stewardship branch: $3 million.

There are also research staff and people working on the research programming specifically outside of the branch. They're in some of the provincial and regional operations that contribute to the research work. We would need to do some work to be able to give you that total or that figure.

N. Macdonald: Okay. It sounds like this is information that, I think, quite reasonably will come later. But in terms of the information that my co-critic and I would be interested in, it would be if you could provide us with a budget breakdown of all the ministry research staff by total salary expenditures and total operating or discretionary operating funds — if that's possible and there are no privacy implications or anything — just so that we really understand exactly what is being spent on the various components of research.

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm advised that we can undertake that work and provide it to you.

N. Macdonald: Just to understand the $3 million figure that the minister has provided…. Is the minister telling us that the ministry's total planned expenditures on forest research across all the core businesses are $3 million?

[1555]

Could he provide a comparative figure with fiscal year 2010-2011? Or if I've misunderstood…. I guess what I'm interested in is that comparison — what the ministry's total planned expenditures on forest research are this year across all core businesses, and that comparison with what took place in fiscal year 2010-2011.

[J. van Dongen in the chair.]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to advise — no, that is not the total budget that's available for the research responsibilities. There are significant research functions out in provincial and regional operations that are linked into the resource stewardship branch there. I think the best way to leave this is to say that we will undertake to provide you that full figure of the research functions within the ministry and other areas where those research functions are undertaken and the comparison to the previous fiscal year.

N. Macdonald: I thank the minister for the answer.

Just to clearly explain the interest…. I think the minister knows where I would be going with this, and I'm sure the minister will have a different view of the conclusions that I reach. In talking to forest professionals and people that are in these communities, what they're contending is that that research element of the ministry, which has long and quite correctly been regarded as one of the very well known, has been dismantled.

The question that people have — and I'm sure the same thing has been said to you as has been said to me — is that you have the effects of climate change here in British Columbia, clear for anyone to see. It's most dramatically, as the minister has toured around, seen in the Cariboo. But it's really not just the pine beetle; it's a whole host of pests and diseases that are linked to climate change. The conclusion is that other than the Arctic, British Columbia is likely the jurisdiction that has been most dramatically impacted to date with climate change.

The assertion that I would make is that in terms of the ministry's key responsibilities as laid out in the act to "manage, protect and conserve" forest resources on the public's behalf, if it turns out that we are dismantling the world-renowned research department, how does that square with meeting the government's statutory required functions, particularly in light of the really daunting challenges posed by the implications of climate change to forest stewardship?

[1600]

Hon. S. Thomson: I think what I want to make clear to the member opposite is that the research priorities and functions have not been dismantled. Obviously, we're challenged in terms of dollars, but the research functions are still in place.

We have over 75 to 80 researchers within the ministry that are undertaking that very important work. There are ten research functions still within the Ministry of Environment that help support that research work, and that's part of working on an integrated approach within ministries, across the natural resource ministries, through the structure with our natural resource management board that we have of deputies and up through the environment and land use committee of cabinet.

We're also developing very important relationships in terms of work with institutions — the work at UBC in forest research, and other organizations and agencies that are contributing to the dialogue on forest research.

Quite clearly, while there is not a specific research branch — and that's what people seem to have focused on, the fact that there isn't a specific branch — we have that research capacity still within the overall organization — as I said, 75 to 80 researchers. We have resources available within the resource stewardship branch and the resources within provincial and regional operations in the functions within the ministry.
[ Page 7059 ]

The overall plan is still being worked on in terms of the total dollars and budget towards that. As I said, we will undertake to provide you that broader picture in terms of those resources and a comparison to the previous fiscal year.

N. Macdonald: This is a topic that we can come back to once we get the numbers, and I thank the minister for providing that. But the minister would agree that research is absolutely imperative, that as we go through what we know will be a period of change, we need to understand those changes. The minister would agree that research is a key part of properly looking after the public resource.

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, I agree. It's part of the foundation of the work we do. It's part of building the knowledge. It's part of making informed decisions on the land base.

That's why I said that the research function has not been dismantled within our responsibilities. Significant resources remain for those research responsibilities. It just doesn't show up specifically as a research branch, and that has been the focus of some of the inquiries. But quite clearly, there is significant research capacity within the ministry, and in developing the other relationships with institutions and other people in the field, we will continue to do the necessary research in order to make those informed decisions.

I do agree with the member opposite that it's a very important part of being able to make those informed decisions.

N. Macdonald: Thank you, Minister. We'll look at the numbers, and we'll possibly return to that.

I'd like to move on to another key ministry stewardship responsibility which is absolutely critical to sound resource planning and sustainable forest management, and that responsibility is forest inventory. Prior to the election of this government, prior to 2001, the conducting and maintenance of periodic forest inventory was the statutory responsibility of the chief forester, as the minister knows. That is no longer the case and hasn't been for quite a period of time.

This government has wilfully cut back on inventory funding, knowing full well that it could no longer be held accountable for such actions by the public because of legislative changes they've made. But these changes fly in the face of the government's obligation under the act to manage forests in the public interest.

[1605]

The marked decline in forest inventory budgets was publicly noted as a concern by the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals in 2007. Can the minister please confirm for members here what the current budget allocation is for forest inventory activities?

Hon. S. Thomson: The budget for forest inventory work for 2011-2012 is $6.1 million. That's not including salaries. If you include the salaries for the staff that undertake that function, the total number would be $7.5 million.

N. Macdonald: Now just to understand, because we're likely talking about apples and oranges…. I was reading in the Vancouver Province, and the minister, on April 22, used a figure of $5.45 million. What's the difference between the figures that were there, or did the Province have inaccurate figures? I'm just saying that on April 22, 2011, the minister was quoted as using the figure of $5.45 million. There's not a vast discrepancy, but I wonder just what the differences on the two figures are.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm — and I appreciate being reminded of the number that you referenced — the $5.45 million is specifically a number for the site productivity. It is just a component of the overall inventory work. There are two additional components, which are for EBM and visual. When you add those on, it comes out to the $6.1 million. So $5.45 million was a specific component of the program that I referenced.

If, in the midst of the interview, I'd had the chance to fully look at the breakdown, I probably would have used a more accurate figure. But $6.1 million is an accurate figure.

N. Macdonald: I mean, it's absolutely reasonable. I'm just trying to get my head around numbers. Part of the case that I'll build is that I'll be comparing this number with another number, and the danger is always that we might be talking about two different things.

So whichever figure, the figure is nevertheless well below the level that prompted the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals to write to the minister — this was four years ago — and voice substantive concerns about what they described as the dismal state of the province's forest inventory and its ramifications for sound management of the public's forests.

[1610]

Just for context, can the minister provide a comparison between what was being spent historically…? Let's just take a period from the 1990s. If we look at 1996-97, when I looked it up I saw a figure of $31 million being spent on inventory. Whether we compare it to $6.1 million or $5.45 million, when I look at that and also look at what the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals are saying, it certainly leads to a conclusion that we're under-resourcing this very important part of forest stewardship.

So maybe the minister can explain. Are those valid comparisons, and if not, then what needs to be considered when I look at what was spent in 1996-97 on forest inventory and what is being spent in the past year and projected to be spent this year?
[ Page 7060 ]

Hon. S. Thomson: Yeah, I think the member opposite does note that there were higher levels of resources to forest inventory in years past. But I think it's important to note, firstly, that's when inventories were being established. Technologies were being developed. It was done in a different way and involved many more staff poring over air photos, doing the inventory that way.

We now have new technologies with satellite imagery, and we're now working from a base that was already completed. We are now working through updates and applying those new technologies.

So the point is that the inventory work has been done. It's been prioritized in the most important areas as we take those resources that we currently have, which I mentioned, towards implementing the new technologies and the new system.

The inventory work is very, very important work. But to compare the current dollars and resources strictly to those numbers in the past is not an accurate comparison, because we are working from a base that exists. We're updating. We're applying new technologies, and we're prioritizing, making sure that we do the inventories in those areas where we need them most.

N. Macdonald: There are always difficulties and challenges with comparing figures from over a decade ago, and I acknowledge that. I mean, part of it would be that this number — $31 million in 1996-97 — is very different from what the same would cost now — right? So it sort of cuts both ways.

[1615]

I mean, there's no question that…. My colleague from Cowichan Valley was just reminding me of a meeting we had with the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals. The first thing they said was that they were onto this topic, and the minister will have heard many of the same concerns.

I mean, there's no question that the inventory budget is far below the levels that we had in 1996-97. Even if we take the figure of $6.1 million, comparing it to $31 million, there's no question that we're also well below levels that prompted the association representing forest professionals, both with the provincial Forest Service and with industry, to warn four years ago.

It's not just in private conversations they're saying that. Four years ago there were letters to the ministry talking about the significant and growing shortfall in the gathering of critical baseline information, without which it is — I think the minister would agree — impossible to properly manage, protect and conserve our forests. As I've done repeatedly, I just remind the ministry and the minister that it is the responsibility of this ministry, you know, to do those things.

My question to the minister is this. There have been public statements — and I think I'm accurate in saying that the minister has talked about this, too — that nearly all of the province's forests are independently certified as sustainably managed. I guess the question that was raised with me is: can this claim be made with any certainty in the face of declining forest inventory efforts and budgets? Is that an accurate claim that can be made with these certifications without the data that needs to be collected?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just before I comment on your points about certification, I just wanted to provide some information for the member opposite in terms of the inventory.

He may assert that the budget is down and that the resources aren't available for doing the inventory work in comparison to previous years. Just to be clear, with the new vegetation resources inventory standard — and I just want to read these points into the record to make sure that the member opposite is aware of them — 58 percent, or 11.2 million hectares, in the timber harvest land base is inventoried to the new standard.

The remaining areas are being prioritized, and those with significant impacts to timber supply are reinventoried first. We're making sure that we focus the resources on those important areas, particularly those areas that have been impacted by the mountain pine beetle.

[1620]

Of the 42 percent, or the 8.5 million hectares, that are not to the new standard, about 6 percent of that area would not be able to be done to that new standard because of inaccessibility of the location and prohibitive costs in doing it.

Thirty percent will not be done until the mountain pine beetle has finished, so it makes sense in those areas to not go in and apply that new standard until the mountain pine beetle is finished. Fifteen percent of that area already has good inventory and does not need updating to the new standard right away, and approximately 40 percent will have inventories brought up to the standard within the next five years. We anticipate completing the inventory of the remaining 9 percent by 2018.

There is work continuing. A very significant portion of it has been inventoried. The resources are being applied to the most important areas.

In terms of the certification, as you know, 53 million hectares certified. It's more about practices and sustainability. It's certified by third party, and the companies operating understand the importance of maintaining those standards for that certification, because that is their access into the marketplace. The market that they're operating in demands that or looks at that very closely.

In terms of ensuring that we have to have the inventory to ensure that certification, while it's an important part of it, it's not the only part that supports that certification.

N. Macdonald: Not to suggest that it would be the only part, but as the minister has said, it's an important part.
[ Page 7061 ]

The minister had spoken about, and previous ministers have talked about, technological advances. There's no question that these technological advancements do clearly help forest professionals. Nevertheless, I think that for most British Columbians it's beyond comprehension that such advances can make up nearly $17 million difference between what is allocated for inventory work this year and what was spent annually on average during the previous decade.

I mean, I did choose $31 million as sort of the high from the previous decade, but nevertheless, the average, I think, is in the neighbourhood of $22.5 million. Clearly, there's a pattern of higher spending and a difference of about $17 million.

Could the minister identify, since he's talking about technology, what specific technology could possibly account for a budgetary decline of this magnitude? Can he assert that the inventory services provided the public today at $5.45 million or $6.1 million, whichever figure we use…? Is he seriously saying that they are equal to or better than those services provided annually a decade ago at an average of $22.3 million — bearing in mind that the $22.3 million, as I've already pointed out, is not even prorated to 2011 dollars and would actually buy us an awful lot more in terms of service?

[1625]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, technology is a very, very important part of the new inventory work. Technology contributes significantly to being able to do much more with more targeted resources and with less resources in comparison to previous years. I think the numbers that I read into the record in terms of the work that is being done show that we have a very active inventory program. We're continuing to pursue and update those priority areas.

Obviously now with satellite imagery, low-level aerial flying and the GPS technology, we're able to do a lot more with resources. So I think that comparing current resources to those previous years when we were implementing the systems, developing the technology, implementing that technology and looking at a completely different way of doing it is not a fair comparison.

As I said, the work is underway. Would we like to have all of the inventory work completely done and up to date and in some of those areas I talked about where we've got work to do, done right away and in this year? Certainly. I think that would be ideal. But obviously, with resources across the ministry, we have to work within the budget and the fiscal framework in which we're operating. We want to make sure that we put those resources into those high-priority areas in terms of doing the inventories and updating them.

We're going to continue to focus on those areas, just as I noted on the record. But I think doing a comparison of current dollars to those dollars when it was different technology…. We were doing the overall inventories. We're now operating from a base, and we're updating those bases with new technology. The resources we have still provide a significant level of inventory work. We're going to continue to focus those resources on doing that in those high-priority areas, and over time we'll complete that inventory work that's necessary.

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

N. Macdonald: For the minister, we've been going for two hours. I think usually we take a break, and certainly, I'd make that offer — if you'd like to take a ten-minute break. Okay? Five minutes?

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Okay. So maybe, Mr. Chair, if we could recess for five minutes.

The Chair: I think we can recess for five minutes. We'll all reconvene by the clock at 20 minutes to five.

The committee recessed from 4:28 p.m. to 4:36 p.m.

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

N. Macdonald: I've just been talking to some of the people that were here, because we had been talking about this issue. They were talking about the satellite technology in the 1980s. They were saying that the B.C. Forest Service pioneered much of that work. So just kudos, again, to a forest service that has always led the world on many of these issues.

Just to come back to the point that we were talking about, which is around inventory and what we hear anecdotally from forest professionals and the deep concern that they have that we're not keeping up with inventory…. Even, as I said before, given the technology that's available, to think that we could make up for an average of $17 million less being spent…. I understood the minister's argument around what this represents, but I would draw the minister's attention to this. It's the conclusions reached in the ministry's flagship publication, which is the State of British Columbia's Forests.

The most recent version of that report was published only last year, at the tail end of the year. It raised substantive concerns about the declining reliability and timeliness about forest inventories. So when the public looks, they see a decline from 22.5 million on average during the '90s for inventory. We look this year at….

Whether it's 5.45 million or 6.1 million, it's still a remarkable decline. We see forest professionals writing to the ministry four years ago, talking about the declines in inventory. The minister says it's an important part of cer-
[ Page 7062 ]
tification. It just looks to the public, I am sure, as if there is a major problem here with our forest inventories.

The two previous iterations of the same report consistently highlighted similar concerns about the adequacy of the forest inventory. So those concerns were, as I say, outlined by forest professionals within the minister's own department. It strikes me that it goes to the heart of the matter at hand, which is whether or not the province is meeting its statutory obligations.

Just going back to how I began: the obligations the ministry has to conserve, manage and protect the public forest and the public interest. On the subject of inventories, the report notes the following: "Complete and up-to-date forest inventories support informed forest management decisions. The adage 'You can't manage what you don't measure' applies to the practice of sustainable forest management."

The map on page 232 of the same report clearly raises questions about our knowledge of our forest inventory and, therefore, our ability to manage our forest sustainably. The report shows that the majority of forest management units have not been surveyed in 15 or more years and that fully three-quarters of all units have not been surveyed to current inventory standards.

Can the minister please tell the House, then, how long it will take, on the basis of current budget allocations, before we complete this essential work?

[1640]

Hon. S. Thomson: I want to just reiterate the points that I made earlier around the current status of the inventory work and to respond, because I want to make it clear. As I said earlier, 58 percent of the 11.2 million hectares of the timber harvest land base has been inventoried to the new standard.

Of the remaining 42 percent, or about 8.5 million hectares, 40 percent of that 42 percent that is left would be inventoried up to that new standard within the next five years, and the remaining portion, about 9 percent of that, by 2018. So we're talking about completing the balance on the 40 percent of that 42 percent within the next five years.

We pointed out that there was a significant component, about 30 percent of that, that is in mountain pine beetle territory. That will not have the new VRI applied to it until after the mountain pine beetle is finished, and 15 percent of that area is already viewed to have good inventory on it and doesn't need updating.

The point that I made earlier was that we're focusing the resources that we have on the high-priority areas, continuing the work. As I said, it is important work to do. So 58 percent of the 11.2 million has been inventoried to that new standard. Clearly, there is good inventory work being done.

As I said earlier, would we like to have it all done much faster? Obviously, we probably would, but we are working within a fiscal framework that means we have to prioritize those resources, put them to the highest-priority areas in terms of updating this inventory.

Again, I wanted to make the point that, I think, comparing the current work to a number sometime in the past when we were developing the inventories, getting the bases in place, is not directly a fair comparison.

While I'm up, too, I just wanted to respond to a couple of the earlier pieces of information that the member opposite was asking about when we were talking about the stumpage rates.

Staff have provided me with the figure that you were looking for. Just to confirm: for '10-11 the average billed stumpage rate was $3.79 per cubic metre. The percent volume on minimum was 59.4 percent. That was another discussion we had. You wanted confirmation. I mentioned that I thought the member opposite was in the ballpark. In terms of the ballpark, it was in the bottom end of your ballpark figure.

N. Macdonald: Thanks, Minister, for that information. We might return to that discussion later on. But just to continue with the inventory.

What people are telling me — and I realize that it's an assertion that we will debate — is that there's deep concern that not only do we have an inventory that's out of date and, therefore, in need of substantial increases in funding but that our inventory efforts are inadequate to the task at hand and that we are not, at present, fully accounting for the status of insufficiently reforested — or not satisfactorily restocked, which I'll refer to as NSR — forest land in our provincial inventory efforts.

[1645]

I would say that by not having a handle on such lands, this challenges the whole notion of whether or not B.C. forests are sustainably managed, which it is the mandate of this ministry to do. Therefore, it also raises questions, as we've been talking, about independent certification. I think it also raises questions about the validity of those, as the minister recognizes. The base inventory information is a key part of that.

I think it also casts into question whether or not our forests are storing as much carbon as we think they are and throws into question the opportunities for climate change mitigation through forestry operations. This also raises questions about the adequacy, and lack thereof, of the reforestation efforts.

My questions to the minister, then, are twofold. First, can the minister tell us where in the current estimates the funds are for assessing the status of forest lands that may have been successfully planted in years past but that now, due to failing forest health, are in need of replanting or restoration? How much funds are in place to do this work?

[1650]
[ Page 7063 ]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, the ongoing inventory work around NSR land is part of the inventory process, so when we're out updating and redoing the inventories, that is checked. Where we find the high-risk areas, then there's $280,000 of the $6.1 million in the inventory dollars that we've been talking about previously that is specifically dedicated towards assessing those higher-risk areas.

N. Macdonald: Thank you, Minister. Maybe we'll finish, then, with the questions on forest inventory and proceed to some questions on the related subject of reforestation.

First, before this government came to power in 2001, the chief forester of the province was legally required to draw up reforestation plans on all public lands that had been disturbed by forest fires, windstorms, diseases and insects. This is, of course, as the minister knows, no longer a legal requirement. The government changed that requirement.

The rescinding of this statutory requirement allowed this government to cut reforestation budgets by 90 percent in 2002. It then initiated the Forests for Tomorrow program in 2005.

At that time, the expectation as outlined in the provincial budget was that the provincial reforestation funding would increase over time to approximately $80 million per year by 2010. That did not happen. I think last year the Forests for Tomorrow program was funded to the tune of approximately $40 million.

Can the minister tell members what the estimated expenditure under the program will be in the current fiscal year?

[1655]

Hon. S. Thomson: To advise the member opposite, I think the important point is to refer back to the throne speech commitment where the government committed to plant over 60 million trees over the next four years in the Forests for Tomorrow program. Just to confirm, we're still committed to planting those 60 million seedlings over four years.

That was starting in 2008-2009. Forty million seedlings have been planted since 2008-09, 14 million seedlings will be planted in 2011, and 14 million seedlings are going to be planted in 2012.

The expenditure or the funding within the Forests for Tomorrow program is just over $54 million — $54.12 million. That includes the forest health and fertilization as part of that, but there's $54.12 million in the Forests for Tomorrow program — meeting that commitment that was made in the throne speech to plant those 60 million seedlings over that time period.

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

N. Macdonald: Just to be clear, the $54.2 million refers to this upcoming fiscal year, and it refers to tree planting. So when I referenced $40 million from this previous year, we're talking about the same thing — an increase of $14 million in this upcoming year. We're not adding anything new. We're talking about apples to apples here.

Just to reference, the commitment back in 2005 was very clearly to get up to 80 million a year. There's that shortfall there. Could the minister just confirm that the $54 million that we're talking about…? We're talking about the same thing that was represented by the budget of $40 million last year?

[1700]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, I did make the point that the $54 million included the forest health and fertilization components in the Forests for Tomorrow program. The comparison of the $40 million that you were referencing to the current fiscal year would be $34 million, and that's based on the number of trees that we have in the nursery, the number of trees available for replanting in the next fiscal year. The direct comparison would be $40 million to the $34 million.

To make a more important point, the overall Forests for Tomorrow program, including the forest health and the fertilization and all of that part of it, is a very significant part of the reforestation program. So $54 million is being invested in that program, as I pointed out, meeting the commitment to plant the 60 million seedlings over that four-year period. We will achieve that target as laid out in the throne speech in terms of planting a total number of 60 million seedlings over that four-year period.

N. Macdonald: Just to come back, then, in 2002 the budget was cut on reforestation by 90 percent. Then a program was introduced in 2005, and it was to be increased. There was a clear commitment there to increase it to $80 million. Last year it was $40 million, and this year for the same type of activity it will be $34 million. I think that most would be concerned around that reforestation effort. Certainly, as the minister goes to the same meetings that I do, these concerns would have been expressed to the minister as they were to me and, I think, many other MLAs.

Can the minister provide an estimate of approximately how many hectares of NSR land — and the term, of course, for those watching, is not sufficiently restocked lands — will be planted as a result of those expenditures?

[1705]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to talk about the NSR land…. I think the member opposite asked how much is being reforested specifically from the Forests for Tomorrow
[ Page 7064 ]
program. I just wanted to back up and talk a little bit about the NSR land.

[1710]

We know that there's about 715,000 hectares of currently identified NSR land. The primary focus of the work is to survey those lands. We're finding that much of it is restocking naturally and doesn't require reforestation, so the focus of our efforts in terms of the reforestation program is primarily in mountain pine beetle land and fire land. That's where the focus of the Forests for Tomorrow and the replanting initiatives is taking place.

We're currently expending about $3 million a year in surveying and assessing the NSR land. Where we find that it is not sufficiently restocked, it's put into the program and identified, and the priority areas are put into the program for reforestation. But what we're finding is that much of it is restocking naturally as we get out and properly assess it.

N. Macdonald: Thank you, Minister. I'm just going to stick with this. Some of the questions I think you may have answered, but I'm going to ask them again just to make sure it's the same number that I was looking at, just to be absolutely clear that we're talking about the same things. I thank you for the answer.

Based on the premise, the satisfactory restocking of forest lands and the knowledge of what lands are in need of restocking strikes at the heart of sustainable management of public forest lands in the public interest. I think the minister touched on this point about trying to identify those clearly, but I'll probably ask another question about it anyway.

In any case, the mountain pine beetle outbreak has clearly increased the area of NSR lands in the province, as the minister has talked about. The forest professionals will attest to the fact that only with intensive ground work and samplings can we get a true handle on the extent of the NSR lands. Furthermore, staff scientists in the minister's ministry as well as academic researchers are increasingly noting problems with failed tree plantations or post-free-growing stands.

The question to the minister — and if he's already answered, I apologize, and he can just restate the number: what funds in the current estimates are allocated to doing additional NSR surveys to better reflect the true extent of the insufficiently reforested lands in the public's forest?

[1715]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, I think I said $3 million. I just wanted to correct that. It's $2 million. That's the work that is being done specifically to survey the NSR lands and, as I talked about, to make sure that those are surveyed properly and then put back into the process for reforestation.

Also, I think it's important to talk about the fact that…. Sometimes there's a little bit of confusion, particularly from the public and from the scientists and everything like that, around what is NSR land and what is not NSR land. Many people equate a lot of the mountain pine beetle land to be NSR land when in fact it's not NSR land until it has actually been surveyed and declared that way.

We're spending an additional $2 million or so within the ministry budget to survey and work through those lands. What we're finding, and the information the scientists are providing to us, is that at least 75 percent of that land, when you go through that, would not fit the category of NSR land because it is regenerating naturally, restocking itself, and so it wouldn't fall into the category specifically of NSR land. So $2 million specifically for NSR, about $2 million continuing to survey and assess the mountain pine beetle lands.

N. Macdonald: Thank you, Mr. Minister. In February 2011 the ministry was on the public record stating that the area of public forest land that it estimated could be economically replanted and for which the forest industry bore no legal reforestation requirements was 715,000 hectares.

According to the ministry's own documents, between fiscal years 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 the ministry had planted approximately 27,000 hectares. Based on that rate of publicly funded reforestation effort, it would, by my calculations, take 132 years for the provincial government to fund the restocking of the currently estimated 715,000 hectares of NSR area.

The minister may have explained things slightly differently in his previous answer, but I guess that the question still sits with the minister. Does the minister believe that that sort of performance would be consistent with the Ministry of Forests and Range Act?

[1720]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to explain, the figure that you've referenced, the 715,000 hectares of NSR land…. Just so that it's understood and clear, about 480,000 hectares of that land is what we call current NSR. It's a rolling inventory, and that is land that is currently held by licensees who have an obligation to reforest that land. As you know, after you log, it takes a couple years for all of that to happen. So it gets carried on a rolling inventory within that total NSR — not the obligation of the province to reforest. The biggest portion of that 715,000 hectares is current licensee obligations for reforestation.

On the balance, that would leave about 230,000 or so hectares left; 150,000 of that is what we were talking about earlier. That's the land that is currently being surveyed. That's where the work is being done with the program in terms of the $2 million and work that we're talking about in terms of assessing that.
[ Page 7065 ]

Where it is determined to continue to be NSR land, it's then put into the inventory for the Forests for Tomorrow program. Then there are about 80,000 hectares that are part of the mountain pine beetle land that is continuing to be assessed as well.

I just want to make the point, because I think you were doing your calculation that said it would take that many years to do that. The greatest portion of that, over 480,000 hectares, is what we call current NSR land, that current rolling inventory which is the responsibility of licensees to reforest.

N. Macdonald: Just to be absolutely clear — and I think the minister was fairly clear — when I looked at these numbers my understanding was that the 715,000 that was identified was that for which industry bore no legal reforestation at all.

So what you're saying is that a good portion of that falls under the legal obligations of the companies and has not been taken on in any way by the government signing off on them as free to grow or anything like that. What you're saying is that that portion is in no way the obligation of the government to deal with. Is that what the minister is saying?

[1725]

Hon. S. Thomson: That's correct, although a portion of that is held by B.C. Timber Sales, and they would have that obligation under B.C. Timber Sales. That would be a portion of that 480,000.

N. Macdonald: Let's switch, then, to just one quick question on compliance and enforcement efforts, and then I think after that we'll start to switch into fire management, if that's fine. So on the compliance and enforcement side of the equation, can the minister provide a figure for total compliance and enforcement efforts? Under which core businesses would I find that?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, the budget for the compliance and enforcement provision is under "Provincial operations." It's $58 million.

N. Macdonald: What we'll do, then…. On the topics we've covered, you've provided some information, and we might revisit them tomorrow, if that's fine with the minister. I know that you have to manage staff. We had some questions on the revenue pieces that we might come back to, but it would be very quick. And we might come back to some of the NSR issues as well, but it would be fairly quick.

With that, we can just turn to the fire management. I see that staff is available for that.

We recently learned that the provincial government has provided $25 million to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, which administers a program that individual communities can access to obtain funds. That allows these communities to look at their community wildfire plans, which they should have completed. The plans will direct them to clear brush and remove hazardous fuels from surrounding forests, which reduces the risks of firestorms damaging and destroying homes, properties and businesses in the communities. As we know, most of these forests are Crown lands.

Can the minister tell the members here whether the $25 million is covered in this year's ministry estimates or whether it's covered elsewhere in the government's estimates?

[1730]

Hon. S. Thomson: To confirm, that was $25 million to UBCM for the strategic wildfire management program. That funding was to be provided to them to run that program for two years. That was the condition on which it was provided to them. It came out of last fiscal year and out of provincial contingencies, so it's not reflected in the current year's ministry budget.

N. Macdonald: Just to be clear, the program is going to operate in the same ways with the original $50 million? It's exactly the same program — just additional funds to keep that going? Is that the idea?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm for the member opposite, it is to fund the program as it was being managed before — so the same criteria and conditions on the program for local government and First Nations to access the program as the previous program.

N. Macdonald: Just on the same subject of fire management, can the minister confirm that the current estimate for direct fire costs is $62.9 million and that the actual cost is likely going to be much higher, based on the fact that in the past ten years the province has spent about $1.5 billion in direct forest fire fighting costs?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, to confirm, that number is correct as the member opposite has stated. The important point to recognize, and this has always been the case with the fire management budget, is that the ministry has access to contingencies for whatever is required in order to combat and to fight the fires as required. So the direct fire budget is the number that you referenced, but as the member opposite knows, we do have, as I said, that direct access to contingencies to address whatever is required.

I think the important point, and why we do it that way, is to make sure that there are core resources there to do it. But by not overestimating and by not putting in a large number that may not be required, depending on the way that the season goes, it leaves those dollars available for the other critical services within government and within other ministries. But we know we do
[ Page 7066 ]
have access to the contingencies to address whatever fire management issues come at us for the season.

[1735]

We're well prepared for the season. The training is in place. As we've seen lately in the press, we've had a little slower start to things, but this is clearly weather-dependent.

We're very pleased today that we were able to assist the situation in Alberta with being able to provide resources from British Columbia to assist that very challenging situation they have there. The first deployment of firefighters, over 120, went today to Alberta. We'll be ready to respond, if there are further requests, depending on how the situation evolves there.

Our fire management branch is recognized as world leaders in terms of their skills and expertise. We're pleased, and I was pleased, to see those resources be able to be provided to our neighbours.

Again, you're correct on the direct fire vote that has been established.

N. Macdonald: It certainly wouldn't be my intention to criticize the way that you've explained it. I mean, it makes complete sense. Certainly, I think all members' thoughts are with the people in Slave Lake. I think the people are proud that British Columbia is contributing to help communities like Slave Lake.

It does show, if that's needed, just how quickly situations can evolve. I know that we have members here from Kelowna and from Cranbrook and from other communities that have had to deal with, in recent history, these types of emergencies.

I think that when you look at the sums, what the Filmon report talked about is that, as much as possible, you can deal with these issues most effectively and most cost-effectively if you plan for them. I think there are many examples of planning that came out of the Filmon report where we saw it was an investment that paid off very, very effectively.

One of the more difficult pieces, and a piece that I have spent quite a bit of time in past years dealing with, is how do we effectively do the fuel management work. The minister has talked about, in response to the Filmon report, a $75 million program with the UBCM. To date there are people that are talking about just 2 percent of the work being done.

Now, I realize that figure is probably a slight misrepresentation of the actual need, but it does point to, nevertheless, still a lot of work to be done. Then we have the problem of ongoing work, and I think there's also recognition that this is Crown land. The ministry has continued to do work in terms of trying to think through how to deal with that. I guess the question is: since the debate we had last year with your predecessor, what is the ministry thinking in terms of how to manage that fuel load in the interface area?

I would draw the minister's attention to a recent article by Mr. Grey, where he's talking about perimeter forests and some ideas about giving the perimeter forests to local communities to manage in some ways, if it works for that community. I would also say that's an idea that I heard, not laid out in any way, from the previous parliamentary secretary for silviculture. The member for Nechako Lakes mused about it. I thought it was an intriguing idea.

I guess the question is…. We recognize the cost of doing the fuel management. There's recognition that it needs to be done. Has the minister or the ministry thought of cost-effective ways to, over the long term, deal with that interface fuel issue?

[1740]

Hon. S. Thomson: I appreciate this discussion because I think it is a very important area. Just to confirm, with the program that has been in place, we've treated over 43,000 hectares. The new funding will contribute additionally to that.

I think it's also important to recognize that in addition to those hectares that are specifically accounted for in the program, additional work has been done and continues to be done, particularly by our fire management staff and people in the program. During the down times and the slower times when they're not specifically focused on firefighting, when they get those opportunities, they work with local communities to help to do additional work above and beyond what would be specifically in the program.

As the member referenced, there is ongoing work being done internally around looking at some other tools that could potentially assist — something like small direct awards. Where there is not interest in specific areas by the companies to do that, could we do something with small awards that would allow that?

I think we have to be very careful in that area because we have to make sure that we don't create for ourselves any challenges with respect to softwood lumber. Proper price has to be paid for any timber harvested, so that would have to be worked through. But I think there's some continued work that we can do in that area.

The other one is to continue to keep a focus, as we have been doing, on the development of the bioenergy industry and full utilization of waste — where we can provide those opportunities for supporting that industry, to be able to go in and take that waste and help to contribute to those opportunities. I think there is continued work that can be done in that area.

Obviously, it's very important when you see some of the situations that can and have developed. But I think to point out…. We are contributing significant resources through the programming. The resources that we contribute leverage funding from the local government in terms of their support and participation in these programs.

[1745]
[ Page 7067 ]

Also, in the previous program we had federal government participation in the program as well, under…. Once a new minister has been appointed federally, we'll be initiating discussions with the federal government to see if we can leverage the provincial investment that has been made in the ongoing program.

N. Macdonald: Just one more question. I think that the minister clearly understands the challenges. I mean, what people will say is that with just 2 percent done, to get everything done would take over 300 years. So I know that's not a correct representation of the reality out there. But clearly, this is going to be a costly exercise that needs to be continuously thought through so that it's done in the most cost-effective way and so that the protection of communities will be something where we can feel confident that the work has been done.

Maybe just to wrap it up on this topic, does the minister think that the rate is acceptable? It sounds like the minister is thinking of as many new ideas as possible, including trying to figure out how to get cutblocks that are going to achieve what we need to achieve in areas. And does the government recognize or agree with Filmon that the annual firefighting savings that could be achieved if more was done with this precautionary sort of work…? What is the minister thinking in those lines?

I guess that's where we'll basically wrap it up and then turn to a different topic.

Hon. S. Thomson: We certainly agree that this is an important area to work at in looking at what a variety of options may be. Some of the ones that I talked about previously — to think that we can just simply find all the resources to do this immediately is, I think, not realistic. We have to find those other options and those other tools.

It's interesting to note that even when we first started the program with the funding, you know, it took a little while for local governments to come on side and agree that this was work that had to be done. Eventually they saw the importance of it. That's why we provided the additional funding, and we had a lineup of local governments that wanted to participate.

I think that the other important point in this — and the thing that I've really noticed, particularly in talking to some of the communities — is the work that private land owners and homeowners are taking to support these efforts, as well, when they're in those interface areas. They're doing a lot of this cleanup work.

In fact, when I was in West Kelowna when we did the announcement of the $25 million program for UBCM, I met some landowners who have taken it upon themselves to go out and do a lot of the work, even beyond the edge of their own property — just looking at the benefits of doing that. So we're getting lots of cooperation and support from those individual private home owners and land owners as well.

Again, this is something that takes…. No one specific strategy is going to address this. We need to look at a number of tools and a number of possibilities. It's something that our ministry will continue to keep a focus on.

[1750]

N. Macdonald: Certainly, on behalf of the opposition, I would join you, Minister, in just thanking the people that are responsible for doing this important work. We often don't really think about them until it's in the midst of an emergency. I know it's a tremendous amount of preparation that goes into doing that job safely, and certainly our appreciation for the work that they do…. I hope that this summer will be one that's safe not only for our communities but those who do the work.

We're going to change to a different topic now. Basically, what we've been talking about here is, I suppose, something that you would recognize but that I feel strongly about — that the public lands owned by British Columbia are our most valuable asset far and away. I heard a figure of a trillion dollars. Even if it was half that, it's just an incredibly valuable asset. The responsibility that the ministry has to make sure that we get full value for that asset and to make sure that there's proper stewardship — these are important things.

We'll come back and revisit a few of the things that we've talked about today, but I'd like to turn it over now to my colleague from the Cowichan Valley. The questions he has are around the topic of raw log exports. If the minister needs to get different staff…. Thank you, and I'll turn it over to the member for Cowichan Valley.

B. Routley: Thank you, Chair, and to Norm — we appreciate the work that you've done — and to the minister and his staff.

While they're coming, I have a few words to say. I want to start out by saying that it is somewhat ironic that about ten years ago I was representing forest workers, back in 2000-2001, when they had closed the Youbou sawmill. I started out my career in the forest industry working in it back in 1970.

In 2001 and in that period we were parading around outside the Legislature about raw log exports. It is indeed ironic that here I am inside the Legislature all these years later and that that's certainly the main theme and topic I'm going to focus on.

I should add that when I represented forest workers, almost 60 percent of the loggers that I represented worked on private forest land, on the land base that is now controlled by TimberWest and Island Timberlands, so I'm very familiar with the point of view.

I can tell you without question that at every convention I went to in all of my years in the forest industry,
[ Page 7068 ]
log exports were raised by both sawmill workers and loggers. People spoke passionately about it, because everyone recognizes it as an export of not only manufacturing jobs from British Columbia but all of the spinoff and tertiary jobs that are attached to the manufacture of timber here in British Columbia.

When you look at the record, more than 70 mills have closed since 2001, and thousands of B.C. mill and value-added manufacturing plant workers have been laid off. The government has a responsibility to act in the public interest for all of the people of B.C.

B.C. communities and forest workers should also benefit from the management of our vast public forest land base. This government has failed to act in the public interest in a number of ways.

One clear example was by not providing any public consultation or even considering any public input on important decisions like the removal of private forest portion of the tree farm licences. This was certainly done without any consideration of the public interest and, I could add, of the workers' interest — the forest workers who worked on those lands.

[1755]

B.C. forests are currently being liquidated at unsustainable levels at bargain basement prices with 25 cents for a telephone-pole-sized log or 25 cents a cubic metre.

Economist Russ Taylor is pointing to the near-term problem of the falling annual allowable cut, which is a direct result of the unsustainable harvesting of mountain pine beetle wood in the interior of B.C. While we all know that it's unsustainable, we also understand that the goal was to try and get value from that timber while it was possible to do so.

I'm not suggesting that that wasn't also a laudable goal, but it's still a fact that it was unsustainable, and we have to adjust the cut in the province of British Columbia as a result of the catastrophic event that is attached to the mountain pine beetle.

This same economist is warning us that the AAC in the pine beetle region will have to come down a minimum of 25 percent and possibly as high as 35 percent in the coming years, which he believes could lead to the closure of about 20 mills, or even more manufacturing operations could be impacted. Ironically, these mills could soon be forced to close as a result of the lack of logs to run many of these B.C. mills and manufacturing plants.

Meanwhile the government has ramped up the export of B.C. raw logs, which has more than doubled since 1998, especially from our public forest land. At the same time B.C. mills have been closed, and thousands of B.C. forest workers and their families are underemployed or unemployed.

According to B.C. statistics, for every job in the timber-harvesting industry, we might enjoy another five in manufacturing in sawmills, pulp mills and value-added plants. But that's only if we process these logs here in British Columbia. If we export the logs, we will continue to export the jobs.

I believe this budget will continue the tragic failure of this B.C. government to act in the public interest, and with that preamble, I'd like to begin my questions.

My first question is: what is the projected cost in this budget to manage the process of permitting logs as deemed surplus to the manufacturing needs of British Columbia?

Hon. S. Thomson: We don't have an exact figure, because there's not a specific budget item for it. There are three staff that manage the program, and there are a modest amount of expenses for the timber export advisory committee. So our estimate for the total management of that would be less than $300,000.

[1800]

B. Routley: Could the minister explain who has the responsibility from this B.C. government in order to sign off the permits to export logs deemed surplus to B.C. manufacturing needs? Who has the ultimate responsibility?

Hon. S. Thomson: The approval for the exemptions are provided by the regional executive director in the regions.

B. Routley: But you would agree….

The Chair: Excuse me, Member. Through the Chair, please — just a reminder.

B. Routley: Again, through the Chair, I'm sure you would agree with me that ultimately the responsibility is yours.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. S. Thomson: The responsibility, ultimately, is with the minister. It is delegated to the regional executive directors, and that has been the case for many, many years — where that responsibility to provide those exemptions has been delegated to those regional executive directors.

B. Routley: Thank you for that answer.

Going back to the previous answer about the $300,000, roughly, for the three staff and the modest amount of money available for the committee that oversees the issue of log exports. That $300,000 — does that come directly out of the public purse? In other words, ordinary British Columbians have to pay the fee. I mean, if you go hunting, you buy the licence. If you go fishing, you buy the licence. If you export logs and you get a permit….
[ Page 7069 ]

Apparently, the people that are exporting logs and making huge profits exporting the raw logs from the province of British Columbia don't even pay. Well, now I'm assuming your answer, but I'm assuming the correct answer will inevitably be that it comes out of the public purse. Am I wrong about that?

[1805]

Hon. S. Thomson: No, you're not correct. There is an export fee that is applied, and those costs are recovered.

B. Routley: I assume that's the 15 percent export fee that applies only to Crown timber. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: The fee applies to provincial Crown lands and provincial private lands. That's where the recovery is. That's where our jurisdiction applies. So the export fee that you mentioned applies to those exports that are generated from Crown lands or provincial private lands.

B. Routley: As I understand it, the majority of the log exports actually come from the federal lands. At least over a longer period of time, the average volume of logs exported has come off of the federally regulated lands. Yet we've got the oversight responsibility to sign off permits. I assume you're telling me that they pay no costs at all. So the people that are not even paying a fee to the province of British Columbia, the largest timber firms — and I assume that would be TimberWest and Island Timberlands — are not paying any kind of fee, of whatever kind, to the province of British Columbia? Is that correct?

[1810]

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, the member opposite is correct that a majority or a good percentage of the exports does come from the federal lands, and that's the federal jurisdiction. There is a permit fee on that. That goes to the federal government. That, again, is their jurisdiction. The cost to the province in terms of any involvement in the management on that permit side of it is minimal.

B. Routley: It's interesting that you find it's minimal, but I think the people of B.C. would expect that the government of British Columbia would try to collect some revenue from this service that's provided by the province of British Columbia. I know that the federal government is involved as well.

Could the minister tell us whether the…? I know he's new to the role. Has the province of British Columbia suggested to the federal government that they also collect this 15 percent fee that's being collected by the province of British Columbia — on behalf of the people of the province, obviously — from our Crown land…? But the private land base that's regulated by the federal government — has the B.C. government suggested that there should be a fee on those lands and those exports as well and, obviously, that there should be some revenue-sharing with the province of British Columbia?

I mean, I'm sure that you'd agree with me that that would be prudent in light of the fact that you're managing the forests of British Columbia on behalf of all of the people of B.C.

[1815]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to respond to the question: no, I've not had that opportunity to have that discussion with the federal minister, in fact, since coming into this role. They've had the election process at the federal level. But it certainly is something that, once there's a new federal minister in place, we're quite prepared to at least have that discussion. I expect that it is a very complex discussion, because it gets into federal jurisdiction, federal trade issues. There are all sorts of potential legal ramifications. But certainly we're prepared to at least have that discussion.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:16 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2011: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175