2011 Legislative Session: Fourth 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)

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 33, Number 7

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2012

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Yap: In the gallery today is a young man who is a rising star in British Columbia. He's a resident of Victoria and a member of the Tsimshian First Nation. Currently he's an intern in the aboriginal youth internship program with the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation, and then he'll be moving on to a private sector phase of the internship. Would the members of the House please provide a warm welcome to Solomon Reece, who is with us in the gallery.

B. Simpson: There are two young men in the gallery today that I'd like to introduce.

Stephen Harrison is a new addition to my staff, down in the basement there. Stephen has an MA in the history of electoral reform and is still working with Fair Vote Canada and Fair Voting British Columbia as a member of the executive of the greater Victoria chapter. He's done research work for a cross-government research branch, and he joins me in the position of my legislative assistant, outreach communications.

The reason that Stephen is joining my staff is because I'm losing a staff member, Brian Kowalski. I say losing because somehow the allure of Newfoundland is attracting him and his partner, Evan, out there. His partner's family lives out there, and he will be taking over part of the family business.

Brian has intimated that somehow he's going to go and actually look at Newfoundland soil and see if it's capable of growing something. So I'm sure he'll stay in touch with the Agriculture critic and learn some lessons there.

I want to welcome them to the gallery and send a big thanks to Brian Kowalski, who has been in this building since July 2005.

D. Black: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a young woman from New Westminster. Her name is Ashley Fehr. She's an activist, in the best sense of the word, in her community and, as a matter of fact, is a member of my riding executive. I would like to ask the House to please give her a very warm welcome.

Tributes

PAT SOMERTON

G. Hogg: Members of this House and the citizens of this province are blessed to have a great legislative library. It provides a wonderful service from research to reference, and that service is the product of a wonderful, dedicated staff.

Tomorrow marks the last day of work for a very special reference librarian, one whose singular fault, I understand, is that she is a fan of the Saskatchewan Roughriders. She has provided exemplary service, knowledge and expertise to this House for 25 years. I ask that we express our appreciation and extend our very best wishes to Pat Somerton.

Introductions by Members

C. Trevena: In the precincts today for meetings with the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Environment is Noba Anderson. She's the director of Cortes Island, and she's here to talk to the ministers about how we can protect some very special old-growth stands on Cortes Island, which she's been representing for two terms now. I hope the House will make her very welcome.

S. Fraser: There's a contingent in the gallery today from the Corcan-Meadowood Residents Association. They represent community members north of Qualicum Beach who are working on highway access issues for safety and for convenience.

[1340]

We have a meeting with the Minister of Transportation today. I just wanted to inform everyone here that it has been moved from 3:30 to three. I just found out on my BlackBerry. Hopefully, that will work out okay.

Will this House make the representatives from the Corcan-Meadowood Residents Association very, very welcome.

Tributes

SMITHERS STEELHEADS AND
HAZELTON BULLDOGS HOCKEY TEAMS

D. Donaldson: I bring good hockey news from Stikine. The Smithers Steelheads of the Central Interior Hockey League recently won the senior men's double-A Coy Cup, defeating Williams Lake and Kitimat. Not to be outdone, the Hazelton Bulldog peewees are the tier 4 provincial champions and won six straight games in Fort Nelson with only four defencemen, nine forwards, two goalies. From a town of 350 and a catchment area of 1,500 they beat teams like Whitehorse, Langley and Kelowna. Would the members of the Legislature please join me in congratulating the Smithers Steelheads and the Hazelton Bulldogs.
[ Page 10568 ]

Introductions by Members

L. Reid: I'd ask the House to please join me in welcoming back to this place Jonathan Barry. He's a fabulous ministerial assistant. I had the absolute pleasure of lunching with him, his wife Zaina and their brand-new little son — who is probably not Ukrainian, but he and I played the spoons together at lunch. It was a thing of beauty. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

B. Stewart: It gives me great pleasure to introduce and welcome two constituents from Summerland, B.C., Mr. Joe Schmuck and Ms. Pat Vander Wal. Would the House please make them welcome.

Tributes

CRANBROOK ICE HOCKEY TEAM

B. Bennett: I just wanted to stand in the House and congratulate the Cranbrook Ice bantam team, a double-A team that plays in an Alberta league. About five minutes ago they just won the Alberta provincial championship for double-A bantam. Congratulations to the team and particularly to Garreth Osmar, who happens to be related to my CA.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General's report 12, March 2012, Follow-up Report: Updates on the Implementation of Recommendations from Recent Reports.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

FUNDRAISING WALK BY
JANINE ANNETT

C. Trevena: Janine Annett is a teenager with a mission. On Tuesday morning she laces up her boots and starts the trek from Port Hardy to Victoria. The grade 9 student from Campbell River is walking the 265-kilometre route over a month. It's not just a personal challenge, although she's in no doubt about how hard it will be; it's a challenge to other young people and to all of us.

Janine attended We Day last autumn, where she was inspired to turn her lifelong commitment to fight poverty into action. After that came her idea of A Walk for a Wish, through which she's going to try to engage other young people around problems of child poverty both here in B.C. and internationally. She wants to show young people what they can do, how they can get empowered, what a difference they can and should make in the world in which they live.

Janine will be stopping at schools along the way to talk about what she's doing and what the problems are here at home and overseas. She's also set herself the task of trying to raise $10,000 — a penny for every step she takes — to help fund the building of a school in rural India through the organization Free the Children.

She's got the support from her family and from her community, and campgrounds along the route have offered her a free spot for each night as she passes through. So on Tuesday morning she'll be addressing a class at Port Hardy Secondary School. Then she'll start the walk down Highway 19.

I'll be honoured to walk with her for a while, and I hope other MLAs and individuals come to join her along what could be a lonely route for a teen, but as Janine herself says: "A Walk for a Wish is about taking action. It's about youth being the leaders of today and tomorrow, one step at a time."

AUTISM AWARENESS EVENTS

L. Reid: I'm very pleased to stand today and recognize and celebrate April as Autism Awareness Month in British Columbia and April 2 as World Autism Awareness Day. Autism spectrum disorder affects about one in every 110 children and youth in our province. Every year in April the B.C. government, families, service providers and municipalities recognize and honour people who are living with autism spectrum disorder and their families.

[1345]

One of the biggest awareness events of the year is the annual autism awareness walk on April 1, hosted by the Canucks Autism Network. This year the walk and family festival will be held at the Jack Poole Plaza at the Vancouver Convention Centre. Everyone is encouraged to come out and join in this family-friendly day of activities, entertainment and a special lighting of the cauldron.

On April 2, World Autism Day, B.C. Place will join several other iconic buildings around the world — including the Empire State Building, the Sydney Opera House and the CN Tower — in being bathed in blue light in support of families around the world living with autism. This display will show the entire world that British Columbians care deeply about finding better treatments for autism and, one day, a cure.

Later in the month, on April 13 and 14, an organization called ACT, Autism Community Training, will host the eighth annual Focus on Research autism conference, involving top researchers from across Canada and the United States. Many more community events will be held throughout British Columbia in April to show support and raise awareness of this issue.

British Columbia is committed to an integrated, coordinated range of services, interventions and supports for children, youth and adults with autism spectrum disorder and their families. Our province is the only one in
[ Page 10569 ]
Canada that has a no-wait policy for families to receive autism funding for services once their children receive a confirmed diagnosis. With this funding, families are able to choose the best type of intervention for their children.

Several B.C. government ministries work with many valued agencies and organizations to provide lifelong services, interventions and supports to children and youth with autism, and their families. Would the House please join me in celebrating the upcoming Autism Awareness Month and World Autism Awareness Day.

SUPPORT FOR EDUCATION

R. Austin: "Education is for improving the lives of others and for leaving your community and the world a better place than you found it." So said the child's-rights activist Marian Edelman.

We are rightly proud in British Columbia of our education system and all those who choose to dedicate their lives to this common purpose. The recent challenges notwithstanding, we can also be proud that over many years we have developed a strong curriculum and one of the most qualified group of teachers anywhere in the world — people who spend many hours outside of the classroom preparing their day's work to present in front of our kids, assessing their students on a regular basis and, of course, volunteering countless hours to ensure that our children have access to a variety of sporting and other activities that enrich their school experience.

They are joined by many others — principals, vice-principals, as well as hundreds of educational assistants who support this mission. But it is not the sole responsibility of our educators to teach our children. By giving positive messages to our kids about education and its importance, we can create the excitement and curiosity that is essential for learning. Supporting our kids in completing home assignments and showing interest in what they do at school every day encourages them. Even the nutritional choices that parents make play an important role in our kids' ability to learn.

One does not have to be a parent to support our kids' education. Indeed, grandparents have influence, as do aunts, uncles and anyone who has a child in their life with whom they have a relationship. If as a society we really value education as a public good and we want to put into practice the notion that it takes a village to raise a child, then it is all of our responsibility to support our teachers in this very challenging process.

The Irish poet William Butler Yeats once noted: "Education is not the filling of a bucket, but the lighting of a fire." As we approach Education Week, let's each of us take a moment to think of ways in which we can assist to light that fire.

MULTICULTURAL AND FIRST NATIONS
HEALTH INITIATIVE

D. Hayer: An event of significant importance to the health of the South Asian community and First Nations communities throughout British Columbia occurred in Surrey last Sunday. Our Minister of Health, accompanied by many doctors and other expert health care professionals, announced a grant of half a million dollars to provide information on cardiovascular and diabetic health to multicultural and aboriginal families.

The service, called the interCultural Online Health Network, or iCON, has been established by the University of British Columbia's Faculty of Medicine to assist multicultural and First Nations communities, patients and caregivers across B.C. in optimal chronic disease prevention and management.

They had a panel of health experts at this forum to examine common cardiovascular disease risk factors, symptoms, treatments and strategies for self-management. Over 1,200 persons attended, including seniors like Gurdial Singh Dhaliwal, and they asked questions to health experts about medications, healthy nutrition, healthy foods and healthy lifestyles.

[1350]

I would like to thank all those who joined our Minister of Health at this forum, including the health experts Dr. Ross MacGillivray, vice-dean, academic affairs, UBC Faculty of Medicine; Dr. Kendall Ho, director of eHealth strategy office; Dr. Gulzar Cheema, a former member of the House and prominent physician; Dr. Sajal Jain; Gurdip Kaily; Dr. Jeff Sommers; Prabhdeep Mann; Priti Suri, Karol Ghuman; Dr. Arun Garg, a prominent physician; Jay Bains; Charan Gill; and Satbir Cheema.

I would also like to congratulate everyone who attended and all of the volunteers, including the students who made that information session very successful and all of the sponsors who provided support and funding. I appreciated it. I talked to many of the seniors who attended. They were really happy to hear the information that was provided to them.

BELLA BELLA COMMUNITY SCHOOL
HUNGER STRIKE

G. Coons: Next week the students of Bella Bella Community School, with the help of staff and community members, will hold a 48-hour hunger strike to protest the proposed Enbridge pipeline and associated oil tankers. Coinciding with the joint review panel hearings, people from across the country will be joining the students in their silent expression of their democratic voices from April 1 to April 3.

Fred Schaub, principal of the school, says: "This hunger strike is one of the ways for students to make their voices heard within a democratic system. I'm proud to live in a country where we can do something like this."

Leading up to the event, school staff ensured that students were well iinformed about all sides of the issue, about the economic value of the project for B.C. and
[ Page 10570 ]
Canada as well as its certain and potential environmental impacts. This event is an educational opportunity for aboriginal youth to find their voices and express themselves in appropriate ways.

Korin Humchitt, a grade 11 student, articulates: "We have the responsibility inherited from our ancestors to take care of the ocean and protect it for future generations." The community school is a true gem of First Nation schools with a well-below-2-percent dropout rate and a yearly Dogwood graduation rate of between 75 and 85 percent.

Students are looking for leadership from their provincial and federal governments. While being branded as radicals funded by U.S. money did hurt somewhat, the students are still hoping for our political leaders, especially in British Columbia, to uphold democracy and listen to the voices of the people.

Violet Lindberg, learning resource room manager says: "This hunger strike symbolizes what we as a community will have to go through when there's an oil spill. I eat food from this ocean seven days a week. People simply don't realize how much we rely on these waters." Angel Dixon, a grade 10 student, declares: "We are saying no. There's too much at risk — the land, the waters, the animals. This is my home."

On April 1, I will be in Bella Bella at the joint review panel hearings, joining students in their 48-hour hunger strike.

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION

G. Hogg: Some statistics: one out of every 602 children is a victim of some sort of abuse, 80 percent of those abused children are abused by their parents, and 78 percent of all abuse cases are cases of neglect.

The vast majority of children get the love and care that they need. They grow up in a safe, secure and caring environment. Yet these statistics remind us, remind everyone, that we must be aware and must support each other to support families in crisis. We must support our own children, our neighbours' children — indeed, all children. We must all share in the responsibility of developing safe, secure and caring communities.

April 4 is Child Abuse Prevention Day in British Columbia, a day to remember that we each have a vital role and responsibility, a responsibility that lasts 365 days a year, a responsibility to do what we can to keep children safe and healthy and to remember that we all have an obligation to report suspected abuse.

The 24-hour toll-free help line for children is 310-1234. By working together, we raise awareness and share information on how to recognize, prevent and report signs of abuse. By doing that, we can all make a difference. We can help a child. We can help many children to achieve healthy and fulfilling lives.

On Child Abuse Prevention Day may British Columbians recognize the role that we all share in ensuring that all children have an opportunity to thrive. Together we can change those statistics.

Oral Questions

DELAYS IN COURT PROCEEDINGS
AND TRANSLATION SERVICES
FOR CHILD ABUSE CASE

C. Trevena: Today B.C.'s Representative for Children and Youth issued a horrifying report that shows an outright and frightening failure in our justice system.

[1355]

The report examines how there could be a stay of proceedings in a case of a father charged with 13 counts related to sexual and physical abuse of his daughter and how such a case could be thrown out of court because of delays in the justice system.

In this case, insufficient priority was given to getting recordings of evidence translated into English for the prosecution. I'd like to ask the Minister of Justice to acknowledge that the court system does not put families first and to accept that priority should be placed on cases of alleged child abuse.

Hon. S. Bond: The report released today by the Representative for Children and Youth outlines what was a tragic and unacceptable circumstance in British Columbia. It is one that…. I have met and discussed with the child and youth rep the next steps that need to be taken. But clearly, there needed to be more leadership demonstrated. There needed to be a higher priority placed on ensuring that appropriate translation and transcription services were in place. That is an obligation. It is an expectation. Those obligations were not met, and it was unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: It isn't just this one case. It's great that the minister has met with the representative to talk about it, but it isn't this one case. Our justice system has been starved of resources. We hear about it time and time again. This is what happens when resources aren't provided, and it's getting worse. Stays of proceedings nearly doubled last year over the year before. This case was dismissed simply because statements weren't translated.

The representative says in the report: "Allowing budgetary considerations to outweigh the plight of the vulnerable children involved in this case is shocking, unacceptable and should never happen again."

To the Justice Minister, will she make sure that the budget pressures brought on by the B.C. Liberals' misplaced priorities do not result in allegations of child abuse going unprosecuted?
[ Page 10571 ]

Hon. S. Bond: As I said to the member opposite, no one on either side of this House could possibly be pleased or even accept that the circumstances that took place — which were tragic, completely unacceptable and preventable — should take place in British Columbia. I have, as I said, met with the child and youth rep. I have also met with representatives of the Crown. I have contacted police agencies in British Columbia to point out that the circumstances that led to this stay were not acceptable.

We have taken all of the recommendations that the child and youth rep has presented. We have outlined an action plan. In fact, after the stay took place in 2010, the Crown put in place a comprehensive policy that would begin to deal with the issues related to ensuring, first of all, that there is leadership on files, that would see Crown conduct the case with a sense of ownership.

In fact, we have also looked at a flagging system so that cases like this do not occur in this province. I've had the opportunity to discuss with the child and youth rep what took place after the stay and what we will be doing in terms of the outline of action that we have laid out as a result of her report.

M. Karagianis: This is just such a desperate failure of the justice system for an immigrant family that was new to Canada. The representative noted in her report that when informed of the stay of prosecution, the family "questioned whether or not the outcome was the result of someone in the justice system having been bribed."

Now, we know that that did not happen, but the representative called it "a telling commentary on their experiences within the Canadian justice system." I would like to know how things could have gone so wrong under the B.C. Liberal watch that immigrants no longer have faith in the system of justice here in British Columbia.

Hon. S. Bond: Translation and transcription take place across British Columbia by police agencies regularly. It is part of their obligation when they actually build evidence, when they are dealing with cases.

[1400]

The question of whether or not resources should have been provided — they should have been. It was a decision by an individual because this was a very, very unique language.

That's not an excuse. It shouldn't have happened. In fact, I have made contact, as I said to the member previously, with police agencies in this province to remind them of the obligation that exists. It is part of operational budgets, the same way that taking fingerprints would be.

It is unacceptable what happened. There will be changes. In fact, as I said previously, Crown put a comprehensive policy in place to look at the flagging of these cases immediately after the stay occurred. There's still work to be done. I believe that there can actually be an enhanced process, and I discussed that with the child and youth rep.

The fact of the matter is: it shouldn't have happened. It did. We're going to make sure that we work together to ascertain what we can do so that this does not happen again.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: In the reasons for judgment, the judge said: "It is very disturbing that the value of the complainants' sexual, physical and emotional integrity is less than the cost of translation and transcription."

It comes down to a complete failure by the B.C. Liberals in managing the B.C. justice system. Will the minister admit that the plan to starve the justice system has been an utter failure, and will the minister take steps to rectify that now in this province?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I'll repeat for the member opposite: there is no excuse for what happened. I have already spoken to the police agency involved. Clearly, they indicate as well that a decision should have been made to provide for the services that are obligated of the police in terms of the evidentiary work that's required.

We have already issued an action plan. The work began immediately after the stay occurred in 2010. It is unacceptable what happened. In fact, we've had discussions with Crown, with police. We've outlined the actions that will be taken. From our perspective, this shouldn't have happened.

As I've said and will continue to say, I'm going to work extremely hard to ensure that this does not happen again in British Columbia. It is unacceptable, and it should not have happened.

L. Krog: The Crown approved 13 charges in this case: five counts of assault, three counts of uttering threats, one count of assault with a weapon, one count of touching a young person for a sexual purpose, one count of sexual assault, one count of incest and one count of public mischief. Not only did the victims in this case see no form of justice; the accused never had his day in court. The judge said: "Regardless of what happens today in this courtroom, there is a tragedy."

What is the Justice Minister going to do to prevent more tragedies from slipping through the deep cracks in B.C.'s justice system?

Hon. S. Bond: The list the member cited is horrific. There should have been an appropriate way to deal with this stay. No stay is acceptable — I've said that repeatedly in this House — and what could be more egregious than a stay that involves the sexual exploitation of a child? None.

The fact of the matter is that if we could turn back the hands of time, we would. We can't. My job is to ensure that, moving forward in British Columbia, there is in place a protocol between Crown and police agencies to
[ Page 10572 ]
ensure that files of this nature are appropriately flagged, that they are appropriately dealt with and that the obligations of police agencies regarding transcription and translation are met. That is exactly what I intend to do.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Well, no one understands and accepts that this happened because of some singular incident. This happened because this government turned off the taps to the justice system, reduced it to a trickle. This is one of many cases, one of many stays.

[1405]

The representative said in her special report that while she "recognizes that no component of the justice system has access to unlimited funding, she cannot imagine any approach to prioritizing funds that would not make this case a top priority within the criminal justice system." The representative quite rightly pointed out that this is a matter of priorities.

The opposition has been asking this government to make justice a priority. Clearly, it hasn't been. Will the Minister of Justice today admit that this government's priorities are out of whack with what British Columbians need, and commit to make the necessary changes?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, justice in British Columbia is a priority for this government. While the member opposite would like to characterize the solution as a simplistic one, it is not that simple. Clearly, in my discussions with the police agency involved, the approval for the translation should have been given. It is an obligation. It is a requirement, and it takes place every day in British Columbia in police agencies.

But to be fair, this case, I am advised, is rare. I am very grateful for that. It involved a dialect that was virtually unspoken in British Columbia. That's not an excuse, and neither should it be used as one, but it is the fact.

We have ensured, in our discussion both with Crown and with the police, that there is a protocol in place that would require a systemic approach to this. We need to make sure that cases like this are appropriately flagged, and that work will be done.

In addition to that, the child and youth rep has asked that we begin to report on these types of cases with their outcomes. I completely agree with her recommendation. She's asked that that be done by June of 2013. That work has already started, and we will meet all of the requirements and recommendations that the child and youth rep has presented.

TIMELINE FOR MISSING WOMEN INQUIRY

J. Kwan: This morning we heard from families of missing and murdered women and their legal counsel, Cameron Ward, calling on the Premier to extend adequate time for the Missing Women Inquiry so that the commission can fulfil its mandate. The family members were dismayed that the Attorney General was quick to reject their requests before she even heard what the families had to say.

I quote Lori-Ann Ellis, who lost her sister-in-law Cara Ellis: "Our loved ones were victimized by a serial killer in life and victimized by a failed police investigation after death. Let them not be further victimized by a failed public inquiry that does nothing to prevent a similar tragedy from reoccurring."

Will the Attorney General respect the voices of the families and grant the additional time that they're requesting?

Hon. S. Bond: This government did, and will continue to, respect the voices of the families and missing women in British Columbia. That's why we created the commission of inquiry in the first place. We have already had a request to extend the inquiry, and in fact have granted a six-month extension.

What happened to these families was, I'm sure, tragic. The pain is unbearable. But I think, actually, the government shares the same goal as the families of the missing and murdered women.

We want to get to the bottom of what happened with police conduct. We want to receive those recommendations in a timely way so that we can make changes in British Columbia that will prevent that from happening again.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The minister says she wants to get to the bottom of this, and so, too, do the families. That is why they want to have an extension — so that the commission can do its work.

The Attorney General should know that there are only 16 hearing days left. There are 31 witnesses still to be heard, and police testimonies are still not complete.

[1410]

The commission has taken drastic steps already to fast-track the inquiry by moving it into a panel format, imposing time limitations and refusing crucial additional witnesses. Lillian Beaudoin, who lost her sister Diane Rock, said that the families fought for ten years to have a public inquiry and have attended the inquiry every single day. She said: "This inquiry has been called to investigate the most significant serial murder in Canadian history. Yet it's facing a rapidly approaching deadline…with much work left yet to be done." "To refuse this commission the time and resources it needs to complete its work would be to show that nothing has changed."

Will the Attorney General please honour the lives of the women who went missing and were murdered and grant that extension so that the work can be completed by the inquiry?
[ Page 10573 ]

Hon. S. Bond: The government does honour the voices of the families of missing and murdered women. When asked to extend the commission inquiry once, we agreed to that extension. It means that there will have been a year and a half that we could take the opportunity to hear.

The primary consideration is making sure that families' voices are heard. In fact, that's why we provided the resources for legal counsel for those families, as the member opposite would know.

The commissioner recently added two lawyers that will be dealing specifically with the voices of aboriginal people in British Columbia. This government is concerned. We're concerned that we actually have the opportunity to receive recommendations that are critical in ensuring this kind of tragic circumstance is not repeated in our province.

FERRY FARES

G. Coons: When the Liberals privatized B.C. Ferries in 2003, they promised stable fares. Since that time, fares have shot up frequently and dramatically. We have seen ballooning debt, loss of revenue, skyrocketing fares and a significant drop in ridership. Fares are set to rise by more than 4 percent on April 1. Sadly, it's no April Fool's joke.

To the Minister of Transportation, how can he have missed what thousands of British Columbians have been saying for years? How can he possibly be missing all of the financial signs, and when will he step in and ensure that ferries are sustainably and reasonably priced?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We actually implemented Bill 14, which capped the rate increase that's going to take place on April 1 of this year at 4.15 percent. We had a good discussion in this chamber based on that bill. The original increases were far greater than that — up to 8.23 percent. It was clear that the sustainability and the affordability of B.C. Ferries was something that had to be looked at.

I do want to point out to the member, if he's implying that since, as he has said, fares just began increasing…. I will encourage the member to go back to 1991 and look at the increases between 1991 and 2001, and between 2001 and today.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: He'll get a reflection in the mirror that looks very similar, Member.

We’re doing our work. Commissioner Macatee went out. He engaged close to 2,000 people in doing a review of B.C. Ferries. So 31 recommendations in that report, and we're going through them.

I committed to the people of this province that we're going to find a solution. We're going to work with B.C. Ferries, we're going to work with the public, and we're going to find a solution to this issue so that we continue to have not only a world-class ferry system but an affordable one and a sustainable one.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: Nine years of B.C. Liberal mismanagement of our ferry services, and that's all we get from the minister. That's outrageous. The ferry commissioner's review was completed, and this minister just sat on his hands on it. It was released nearly three months ago, and it stated: "Current ferry fares and the proposed increases have reached the tipping point of affordability and are imposing significant hardship on ferry-dependent communities."

[1415]

I have lost count of how many times this minister has said he's read the report and then he's re-read it again. In that time the fares have gone up in the guise of a fuel surcharge. Now they're going up again on April 1. How can the minister possibly justify ignoring the review, continue sitting on his hands, while allowing fares to shoot up even further?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: To the member, I find his method of questioning somewhat entertaining. It's unfortunate that he takes it that way.

This is a serious issue, one that isn't new. It didn't begin in 2001 or 2003, Member. Have a look. It went back to 1991.

We have a world-class ferry system, one we're going to work to solve the issues that we have. But there are a number of issues we have. It isn't just fare increases and asking the government: "Put more money in, and that will solve everything."

It's a three-legged stool. We have to ensure that B.C. Ferries is run as effectively and efficiently as possible. We have to ensure that we have the proper service fee in place. But also, I'll tell the member today and all members of this Legislature in this province that it does not make sense to run ferries at 20 percent capacity running back and forth. No business can operate that way. It can't continue.

We have to engage the public, have a good, frank discussion about what options are out there, because I can tell the member that we are not going to continue to run ferries at 21 percent capacity and have the rest of British Columbians subsidize that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.
[ Page 10574 ]

CACHE CREEK
TRAIL PROJECT FUNDING

H. Lali: The community of Cache Creek applied for a trails grant under the community recreation program, which is a great idea that promotes active and healthy lifestyles for the community. Almost three weeks ago ministry officials assured municipal staff in Cache Creek that the community had indeed met the criteria and that the application was forwarded on to the next level for funding approval.

Mayor John Ranta is very, very disappointed that his community has been overlooked by the Liberal government. So will the Minister of Community Development please explain to Mayor Ranta why Cache Creek was bypassed for funding approval?

Hon. I. Chong: To the member, I think he will know that when the Premier made the commitment last September at UBCM to provide $30 million for community recreation infrastructure, it was good news indeed for the entire province.

The member will know, as all MLAs in this House will know, that whenever there is an infrastructure program, I have never seen where there are less dollars asked for than the moneys are there for. We are always oversubscribed, sometimes four or five times the amount that is available.

This particular instance was no different. We received some 219 applications asking for some $110 million worth of projects. It does take time to ensure that we look at these projects, which are very good ones throughout the entire province.

I was pleased to say that we were able to fund almost half of those. Ninety-eight projects throughout the entire province, amounting to some $70 million worth of projects — 458 jobs directly, 251 indirectly. I think it was a very great announcement. I'm pleased that we were able to find the funding for that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Lali: The rejection letter from the ministry states that funds are awarded based on the merits of applications, a project's ability to address the selection criteria and if projects are family-friendly. Cache Creek met all of the criteria, and Mayor Ranta is rightly concerned when he says the distribution of the $1.6 million within the regional district was unfair.

Mayor Ranta says that all….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

H. Lali: I'll quote Mayor Ranta. He says: "All the successful grants have gone to ridings that have Liberal MLAs, and we have" — and he names myself — "an NDP MLA. I would hope that the grants approval process of the province isn't determined by who your representative is." This community trail is a very worthy project, and Mayor Ranta deserves an answer.

[1420]

Will the minister please explain why Cache Creek's healthy-living, family-friendly trails project, which would have taken people out of their cars, was rejected even when the project met all the criteria? Why did Cache Creek not receive its share of the funding going into the Thompson-Nicola regional district?

Hon. I. Chong: I find it rather absurd that the member should make a comment such as he just has when, in fact, if he were to take a look at the list of the 98 projects that were approved, they are throughout the entire province.

I can tell the member, for example, that here in the capital region there were three projects approved in the riding of the member for Juan de Fuca. There was a project approved for the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads and, I think, for the member for Nelson-Creston. I think there were four projects in the area of Nelson-Creston. Even Victoria….

With respect, I know that all mayors who make applications believe that their projects meet every single one of the criteria. But as I indicated, 219 applications, and we were able to fund 98 projects. I think that is an incredible success rate for this wonderful program.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS COMPLAINT
PROCESS AND GOVERNMENT HANDLING
OF CORRESPONDENCE

M. Mungall: Yesterday I met with students who shared their concerns about education quality at an Eminata school. They told us they are afraid to formally register their complaints because they can't trust that their information will stay within the ministry. After seeing what's already happened, where an e-mail meant for the minister wound up in the hands of Eminata, who can blame them?

Will the Minister of Advanced Education come clean by telling this House what excuse her ministerial assistant gave her for passing on that e-mail so that we can start getting to the bottom and ensuring that students are protected and so is our international educational brand?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: To the member opposite: welcome to the conversation. I will tell you that back in
[ Page 10575 ]
September this government announced new regulations, and legislation will be introduced to strengthen and enhance our quality assurance framework for both the public and the private post-secondary sector.

We want to ensure that those students that are coming from other countries to British Columbia, and our own domestic students, are receiving the best education and experience possible. But I'll tell you that what the member opposite is doing is misleading the students.

Mr. Speaker: Member, be careful of your choice of words that you're saying, please.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Okay. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

The member opposite informed the students yesterday, incorrectly, that the avenue for their complaints was through PCTIA. That is not correct. I'd like to set it straight for the record that the avenue for complaints for the students that are attending the degree-granting private institutions is through the ministry.

We have not received any formal complaints, but I would ask the member opposite to come to my office with the students that are affected, and we will take care of the complaints.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Mungall: I don't know if question period is the appropriate place to start debating where the students need to be putting in their complaints. The PCTIA executive director tells me one thing; the minister here is claiming something else. At the end of the day, regardless of where it goes at the entry point, it does end up with the minister. She is the one responsible for regulating private post-secondary institutions.

[1425]

She is failing to answer for important questions around that regulatory responsibility that she has. I'm hoping — maybe somewhere in the briefing notes where she's reading from — that the reason for passing on that e-mail is somewhere in those briefing notes. It is also very unfortunate that these institutions are under a cloud and that this minister is under a cloud at a time…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Mungall: …when the Liberals are supposed to be planning a way to ensure that we have increased international students in our province.

Mr. Speaker: Pose the question please, Member.

M. Mungall: And yet things are under a cloud.

Mr. Speaker: Question please, Member.

M. Mungall: Mr. Speaker, these students are fearful for their education.

Mr. Speaker: Question please, Member. Pose the question.

M. Mungall: So the minister has the opportunity today to shed light on what happened with that e-mail. Will she tell this House what her ministerial assistant said when she asked him why he passed on the e-mail to the member for Burnaby-Lougheed?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Though she has been canvassing the House for the last several days, I'd ask the member opposite to just refer to Hansard.

[End of question period.]

Motions Without Notice

SUPPORT FOR AVEOS
AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE WORKERS

Hon. R. Coleman: By leave, I move:

[Be it resolved that this House supports the efforts of 350 skilled air-frame maintenance workers laid off by Aveos Fleet Performance Inc. (AVEOS), to be accorded the same job-protection as their counterparts in the operation and overhaul centres in Mississauga, Winnipeg and Montreal; and further, that if the federal government amends the Air Canada Public Participation Act, this House supports the addition of Greater Vancouver to the Act.]

Leave granted.

Hon. P. Bell: I know that both sides of the House support this motion, and it's very important from the perspective of something that is all near and dear to all of our respective hearts. Many of us rely on aircraft each and every day to get back and forth from our ridings, from our individual regions of the province. Safety is something that none of us can ever accept to be less than the absolute best.

Aveos has been in place for a number of years. It resulted as a result of the changes in Air Canada, and there was an act brought forward in 1988 to protect the interests of the different components of the aircraft maintenance industry across Canada as it related to the dominance of Air Canada as the national carrier.

At that time Vancouver was missed as part of the primary operation centres because it was before the Canadian–Air Canada merger. That, of course, has changed the dynamic. Vancouver is now the third-largest population centre in terms of the number of employees for Aveos, and we think it's important to include them in the sort of protection that was provided in the 1988 Air
[ Page 10576 ]
Canada Public Participation Act.

There are hearings going on in Ottawa right now under the auspices of the federal Minister of Transportation. The transportation committee of the House of Commons has been meeting and hearing from Air Canada in terms of their interests around this specific issue, but it is one that we think is absolutely critical to resolve for safety but also for the well-being of the 356 aircraft maintenance workers that we met with the other day.

Christopher Hiscock is the president of this particular union and represented all of his members extremely well, both to the Leader of the Opposition and to myself earlier on in the week. He explained to us the importance of us participating in a collaborative affair and passing a motion of this nature, and we're pleased to do that.

I can also report back to the House that I had a very good phone call with the federal Minister of Transport yesterday, Denis Lebel, and Minister Lebel expressed to me his concern to see this issue resolved quickly. He also suggested that if the federal government was to amend this act, he would certainly consider including greater Vancouver as one of the areas that would be seen as a protected area underneath the act.

[1430]

I think, on behalf of all the members certainly on this side of the House, but I believe on all sides of the House, we want the members of this particular organization, Aveos — all the union members, Christopher Hiscock and his entire team — to know that this House stands behind him and that we would like to see this issue resolved swiftly and see these maintenance workers back at work here in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: I want to thank the minister for accepting the invitation from the Leader of the Opposition to put forward a bipartisan resolution for this House to urge the Prime Minister and the federal government to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act to ensure that British Columbian workers at Aveos are afforded the same protection as their counterparts in Mississauga, Winnipeg and Montreal.

This is a resolution that is urgent and, I would say, of utmost importance, because on March 20, 2012, as members in this House know, Aveos Fleet Performance Inc. filed for bankruptcy protection in Canada and moved swiftly to liquidate their assets.

At a meeting on Tuesday with the opposition leader, the Finance critic, the critic for Labour and myself, a worker recounted his experience that day. He told us the manager that day called everyone back from their lunch — at their lunch break, at around 12:45 that afternoon. They were informed, right then and there, that Aveos was shutting down and that they had to leave their worksite by 1:40 that same afternoon.

In all, 356 workers in the Metro Vancouver area lost their jobs that day. You can imagine the enormous impact of this to the workers and to their families; to the travelling public, as the minister has mentioned earlier; to members in this House who rely on Air Canada to get back home to their communities and to come to the capital to do their work; to the B.C. aircraft maintenance industry; and to B.C.'s overall economy.

The workers and their families felt the devastation of this decision immediately. In the long term the future of this industry will be greatly compromised if this issue is not addressed. In the words of one worker: "If this is where it's at, aviation is dead in B.C."

On Tuesday, as noted by members of this House and by the minister, Chris Hiscock, the president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, along with Jim Sinclair, the Federation of Labour president, and 57 Aveos workers came to the B.C. Legislature, to the people's house, to ask for their provincial representatives to do everything possible to support their effort to save these jobs and the future of this industry.

They wanted us to work together, to work with them to find a solution to keep these highly skilled jobs in B.C. I am very pleased that the minister has moved swiftly in bringing the resolution forward today before this House.

All too often, as we all know, this chamber is focused on partisan politics. Today we are making it about protecting high-quality jobs in British Columbia's aviation maintenance sector. Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba already have action plans in place to fight for their workers at Aveos, and it is in B.C.'s strategic best interest to follow that lead.

In B.C. the Air Canada Public Participation Act does not cover the workers here. This is because, as the minister said, the act was created in 1988. B.C. did not have the heavy maintenance facilities here at that time.

When amendments were tabled on June 2 of 2011, the act was meant to include workers in British Columbia. Unfortunately, at that time the parliament was dissolved and there was a general election. Before the bill had a chance to go through all the stages and to completion, it was dropped off the floor.

B.C. workers at Aveos should not be penalized by this. That's why it is so important that we in this House — every single member in this House — unite our voices to urge the federal government to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and add Metro Vancouver to the act.

[1435]

I'm glad to hear from the minister that the federal government, the minister, is indeed considering that. This is so that the Aveos workers in B.C. will be afforded the same protection as their counterparts in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba — nothing more. It is imperative that the federal government knows that in B.C. all of us, all members in this House, are speaking with one voice in support of the Aveos workers.
[ Page 10577 ]

As indicated by the Leader of the Official Opposition on Tuesday, when we sought cooperation from the government on this matter, the NDP caucus will join with all members of this House to support every effort to fight for these workers, their jobs and this industry.

The stories and the experiences the 55 workers shared with us at the meeting were moving and compelling. They are men and women who are extremely passionate about their profession, and collectively they have an incredible wealth of knowledge, expertise and skills.

Those 55 workers alone have over 1,000 years of heavy-aircraft maintenance experience. In the words of Chris Hiscock: "If this group represented a single entity, it would have been fixing airplanes 63 years before the Battle of Hastings in 1066. That represents 1/5 of what is at stake in our struggle to maintain the 356 jobs and this industry in Vancouver, British Columbia."

These members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers are proud of the service they deliver, and they wear their Canadian pride on their sleeves. The Canadian brand has a proven track record in this industry, and the aircraft they maintain are the safest in the world.

Without a doubt, the B.C. aviation profession should mean something to all of us, something worth fighting for. I know that the minister knows this. That's why we're here with this resolution, speaking in support of it. That's why we're engaging in this debate.

I know that the minister has also met with the workers and heard their stories as well. Let us, beyond this resolution today, explore further non-partisan cooperation measures that could be taken to protect these jobs. We would like to meet jointly with the Liberal government, and independent counterparts as well, so we can work with the workers together in moving forward with a united front to press B.C.'s case forward.

Let's stand shoulder to shoulder in support of Aveos workers in B.C. and across the nation to protect these jobs and let them stay in Canada. The NDP caucus is proud to support this resolution, and let's work together to get the job done.

B. Simpson: I just want to say a few words on this motion. All too often, when members introduce guests prior to question period, there's a sense of asking for forgiveness for what is about to occur, as question period is often an embarrassment for us and an embarrassment to the guests we invite here. But on Tuesday…. I have to give credit to the Leader of the Opposition for taking that opportunity to ask some constructive questions of the minister.

Unfortunately, at that time the minister wasn't able to commit because he was still doing his due diligence. I sat and I looked at the Aveos workers. They were sitting in the gallery, and you could sense that palpable disappointment, that they didn't feel as though the House had come together at that point, that it was going to be a work in progress.

So I'm just standing to actually congratulate both the government, through the minister, and the opposition, through critics and others, because I understand that it was also a collaborative effort at the level of working on the language of the motion and making sure that we are united in this House on this issue.

I think it's important for British Columbians to understand the importance of what's occurring here on both fronts — the fact that we are taking a stand as individual elected members of this Legislature to say to our federal counterparts: "This is an issue that must be addressed to support these jobs and these workers." But it's also an example of what is possible in this House when we decide that an issue is of a magnitude that it has got to get beyond the partisanship.

I join with the critic in saying that I hope we will continue to put pressure on the federal government to do this, and I challenge each individual MLA to weigh in on this, to educate their own constituents about why this is important and to mount a provincial and provincewide effort to make sure the federal government includes the greater Vancouver area, if the bill is going to come forward.

[1440]

My thanks to both the minister and to the opposition leader and critic for bringing this motion forward, and I'm thrilled to be able to support it today.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is:

"Be it resolved that this House supports the efforts of 350 skilled air-frame maintenance workers, laid off by Aveos Fleet Performance, Inc. (AVEOS), to be accorded the same job-protection as their counterparts in the operational and overhaul centres in Mississauga, Winnipeg and Montreal; and further, that if the federal government amends the Air Canada Public Participation Act, this House supports the addition of Greater Vancouver to the Act."

It's signed by the hon. Rich Coleman, Government House Leader.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the motion was carried unanimously.

Orders of the Day

Hon. I. Chong: In Section A in Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call continued budget estimates debate for the Ministry of Environment, and if that should conclude, the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation. In this House, I call second reading of Bill 28, intituled the Criminal Asset Management Act, and following that, second reading of Bill 25, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2012.
[ Page 10578 ]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 28 — CRIMINAL ASSET
MANAGEMENT ACT

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 28, the Criminal Asset Management Act, now be read a second time.

Well, perhaps this afternoon we can continue on in the spirit of unanimity that we have seen.

This bill will establish a comprehensive and transparent regime for management of assets retained, restrained, seized and forfeited under the Criminal Code or other federal acts to improve effectiveness of criminal forfeiture in our province. The bill also contains consequential amendments to the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The Criminal Code of Canada provides clear authority for the province to receive assets from criminal proceedings through restraint or management orders that allow for the control of assets or through forfeiture orders that transfer the ownership to the provincial government. The province, however, has not had specific legislation that would provide for the management and disposal of assets obtained through criminal proceedings.

The proposed legislation will establish an explicit legislative authority to manage and dispose of assets forfeited to the government in criminal proceedings and will provide the necessary financial management mechanism to operate the criminal asset management program.

Under the new legislation the director of criminal asset management will make decisions about managing and disposing of property and paying associated administrative costs. This will allow our provincial prosecutors to pursue criminal forfeiture cases much more effectively. The legislation will also prohibit persons from obstructing the director or other provincial officials engaging and managing criminal forfeitures.

The legislation sets out a scheme for compensating victims of criminal and quasi-criminal activities, where assets related to those activities have been forfeited to the province. The director will be able to use proceeds obtained from criminal forfeiture to fund crime prevention and remediation in British Columbia's communities.

Finally, the new legislation, with the consequential amendments, will enhance the province's tools for dealing with crime by removing the financial incentives to engage in criminal activities and benefit the victims and communities.

[1445]

K. Corrigan: Perhaps the spirit of unanimity is going to continue on, at least for the next little while, because it is my expectation that the official opposition will be supporting Bill 28, the Criminal Asset Management Act — subject, of course, to anything that I learn as we go through this bill, particularly when we're in the committee stage. For the most part I believe that the official opposition is going to be supportive of the provisions of the act and the provisions therein of Bill 28.

I won't speak for too long, but my understanding is that the basic principle of this bill is that proceeds of crime in British Columbia will be directed to a new criminal asset management fund. These are the essentials — that proceeds of crime will be directed to a new criminal asset management fund, that that fund will be managed by a new position, by a new director, and that, of course, that director will receive the funds and then will manage, preserve, dispose or otherwise deal with the property, as the legislation says, in any manner that the director considers appropriate.

I did say that I think we will be supporting this bill, and I expect that we will, although I do have some concerns and questions that I will be putting to the minister when we get to the committee stage and can talk about the bill and ask questions about the bill on a clause-by-clause basis.

One of the concerns that I have, as I do often with regard to acts or legislation that is brought to this House, is that there are times when legislation provides for directors — and actually, specifically directors in a few cases — to have very wide-ranging powers. That is one of the concerns that I have. It will be a subject of questions when we get to the committee stage. I do have a concern that there are very wide-ranging powers that the new director responsible for the criminal asset management fund is going to have.

I would just give one example of the powers that this new director is going to have in dealing with the proceeds of crime. For example — and this is much wider than is possible under existing legislation — the director will be able to do anything that the director considers advisable for the ongoing management of the property before its final disposition, including, for example, making improvements or repairs to the property to maintain its economic value.

I guess in this case what we're talking about with that power for the director is that the director could…. The proceeds of crime could be a house, for example, that is determined to be proceeds of crime, and that house could, it seems to me, under this act, be upgraded, renovated, rented out and eventually sold under the management of the director.

I do not fundamentally have a problem with that kind of management. I think the intention of the act is for government to use the resources, which come to it through the Criminal Asset Management Act, from the proceeds of crime, in the way that most effectively benefits the taxpayers of British Columbia. In the case that I just cited, perhaps the house could be upgraded, maybe rented out
[ Page 10579 ]
and then sold, if there was going to be a sale, at a time that was under the management of the director.

But as I said earlier, this is a very wide-ranging power. While I appreciate the importance of appropriate management and good management of what eventually will become taxpayers' dollars, at the end of the day, these properties will be turned into taxpayers' dollars. There is a lot of power that is going to the director in order to do it.

I think what we need to do is to make sure that oversight is in place, that there is proper oversight and that there is proper accountability for that very responsible role the director is going to have. The director will also be able to destroy property that has little or no value. I will certainly have questions about that process when we get to the committee stage of this bill.

[1450]

The reason why I mention that is that I took a look at the comparable provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada. That is the federal statute which contains comparable provisions to this provincial statute to deal with the federal disposition of proceeds of crime.

I notice that when you compare — as an example, that specific section about the specific provision for the ability of the director, provincially or federally, to destroy property that has little or no value — in the bill we have before us, there is simply a provision that the director can do that. Then there are further provisions about what would happen if there was any intrinsic value — but basically, destroy the property if it doesn't have a lot of value.

If you compare the provincial scheme, where you just destroy it, the federal scheme says that before a person appointed to manage property destroys property that has little or no value, he or she shall apply to a court for a destruction order. And before making a destruction order in relation to any property, a court shall require notice — in accordance with a further section — to be given to and may hear any person who, in the opinion of the court, appears to have a valid interest in the property.

Then once the notice has been given and if they don't hear from that individual after a reasonable amount of time, according to the opinion of the court, the court may order that the property be destroyed if it's satisfied that the property has little or no value, whether financial or other.

I could see the case where the director would make the decision that the property had little or no value, and that would quite possibly be true to the director. On the other hand, if it was something that had value, perhaps, to an individual, that the rest of us might not see — it might be a memento or something that means something to somebody — in the case of this bill, the protection is not there, of it going to a court.

While I recognize that this is a more streamlined way to do things, I think it's always important for us to consider the importance of protecting rights, protecting property, protecting interests and protecting process in cases like this. It's a small comparison. I know that this is a more streamlined and economically constrained way to do things, but I do make that point on that particular section, and there are others as well where the processes that are in this bill are not as careful, I think, about the outcome.

One of the things — having, for example, the requirement that we go to court before property that has been seized as proceeds of crime…. I think one of the important things about that is that having the requirement to go to court not only protects the individuals who might be affected, but it also protects the integrity of the system. It takes me to a more general comment.

I believe we have in this province an overall endeavour, and a worthy endeavour, by government to try to streamline our processes in order to, I think, No. 1, save money — fair enough — and No. 2, there are efforts to be more efficient in order to take the pressure off of our courts.

We know that over the last while we have dealt with changes in civil forfeiture wherein if somebody perhaps does not get charged with a crime but if it is believed that there are still proceeds of crime, an item — like we've talked about, a Hummer — can be forfeited by somebody. As long as they don't challenge that forfeiture, then there are no court proceedings.

[1455]

Whereas in the past it was required that we go to court in order to establish that forfeiture, now there is an onus on the individual to challenge it, and if they don't, then there are no court proceedings.

It is my guess — and I'll ask the minister this later when we get to committee stage — my supposition, that the director that will be appointed in the case of Bill 28 to deal with the proceeds of crime will likely be the same director as the civil forfeiture director, which deals also with proceeds of crime but done through an administrative and non-criminal process.

I think we have to be very careful when we're making these decisions — that we're going to try to streamline our processes, when we're trying to avoid court — that we ensure we are protecting the rights of individuals.

It kind of reminds me of when I was a school trustee in the district of Burnaby. The lens that we always looked through when we were making decisions — for example, on the school calendar…. There was talk among many districts at one point of saving money by going to a shorter school year, shortening the day, cutting off some days, cutting off a week.

We never decided to do that in the district of Burnaby at that time. We didn't think it was a good idea. The test we always had was that the primary goal to look at was not whether or not we save money — that was an important thing — but always: was this also in the best interests of student achievement?

I think we need to look at the justice system through the same lens, through the same eyes, and say that when
[ Page 10580 ]
we are making decisions about changing our justice system, the administration of justice, we have to do the same thing.

Yes, we want to save money and be effective and efficient in the tax dollars we use, but we've always got to look through it with the protective lens of saying that we also want to make sure we protect the integrity of the justice system and that we always make sure the rights of individuals are being protected. While we want to save money, we also want to maintain the integrity of the justice system.

It's similar, as well — the attempts to try to save money. We see it in a whole bunch of different areas in this province. I just happened to go into the Ministry of Environment estimates this morning, and there was a great deal of discussion about the impact of the cuts in terms of, in this case, environmental assessments, apparently to save money. That would be my understanding — that there had been cuts to environmental assessments in the province, and the problems were being seen throughout the province.

I think it's a similar thing with this bill and other bills with regard to the justice system. Yes, we can increase efficiencies. We can streamline things. Maybe not efficiencies — I don't know. Certainly, we can streamline things, but we always have to do it through the lens that we make sure we continue to meet our obligations to do things in an appropriate way and to maintain the integrity of the justice system.

What is going to happen with this act is that the principle, which I talked about earlier…. There are going to be changes in that there will be a director now who will be managing the proceeds of crime. Certainly, the powers the director will have in order to manage those proceeds of crime, while they are wide-ranging, are in the best interest, I think, of the taxpayers of the province, to have a lot more flexibility and a lot more tools in order to maintain that property.

So rather than simply disposing of the property, as was essentially my understanding of the existing legislative framework, instead of simply selling those properties, which may not be the advantageous thing, may not be the right thing to do…. You may not want to sell a property immediately. You may want to maintain it. You may want to rent out a house. You may want to use the property for something else. Ultimately, I think that part of it is probably a good idea.

[1500]

There are other parts to this act that are important as well. For example, the fund itself that is going to be used is going to be changed. Essentially, it is still going to be one of the special accounts under the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act. So we will still have a special account. And the account that is going to be changed…. We now are going to have a new special account, a criminal asset account.

What we are going to have is a new account which is going to be replacing the forfeited crime proceeds fund, which is one of the special accounts under the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act. These are accounts in the general fund of the consolidated revenue fund, where the authorization to expend money from the account is located in an act other than a supply act.

Some of the other special accounts have been the farm income assurance fund, the first citizens fund, the forest stand management fund, the habitat conservation fund, the physical fitness and amateur sport fund and then the forfeited crime proceeds fund.

Here's the difference with this act. The fund is going to be…. The name will be changed. I think it reflects the fact that there will be more active management of this fund. The name is going to be changed, but more than the name is going to change. How the fund can be dealt with, what can happen from the proceeds of that fund and how it can be paid out are going to change as well.

Presently, under the forfeited crime proceeds fund, the minister — in this case it previously was the Minister of Finance — would have been able to pay out of that fund. The Minister of Finance would pay proceeds of crime out. "The minister may, for the purpose of facilitating the administration of criminal justice and law enforcement in British Columbia and with the approval of the Minister of Finance, pay amounts out of the special account in any way the minister considers appropriate."

That's how it presently works. Proceeds of crime go into this special account, and then the minister can pay out of it, in the minister's opinion — so that's the Minister of Finance — "for the purpose of facilitating the administration of criminal justice and law enforcement in British Columbia" and could pay out amounts that the minister considered was appropriate.

What is going to be changed in this act is that there is going to be a difference. Of course, it will be going, instead of to the Minister of Finance…. Although the Minister of Finance will still oversee the fund, the director will be the one that will make decisions about payments out. Now it will be the director responsible for making decisions about payments out of that fund.

Again, a wide latitude, and I will have questions when we do get to the committee stage of this bill. It's important to know what the criteria will be for the payments out. The general criteria mentioned in the legislation are, first of all: "A person may apply, in accordance with the regulations, for compensation from the fund as an eligible victim." Now the fund will be used to pay victims if they are eligible.

One of the unfortunate things about this legislation, and so many pieces of legislation that come before us, is that much of the important information is contained in many details. They're not even details. They are important pieces of the puzzle.

[1505]

We do not know what exactly is going to be eligible and what the framework is going to be in terms of deciding what is eligibility under this act, because it's contained in regulations. So we're not sure who is going to be eligible for payments under this act.

However, the director "may pay to an eligible victim an amount in the circumstances and subject to the conditions and limitations that the director considers appropriate." It's going to be, it seems, subject to whatever regulation there is.

It seems to me that the director, again, is going to have a very wide-ranging authority and discretion in deciding who gets what under this act, and I do have some concerns. The director is not a judge. A director is an administrator, and there will be very wide-ranging discretion in this position and a lack of accountability.

I'm not talking about any particular person. I'm just talking about the framework and where the accountability is in the framework itself. I'm certainly not suggesting anything inappropriate ever will happen.

It's very interesting. I happened to speak this morning to one of my colleagues about this bill. That person mentioned that they had previously been working in Florida, had done some work in Florida, and had, through their work, come into contact with a forfeiture scheme in the United States.

The comments that my colleague, one of the members, made were that there were widespread abuses, in this case in Florida. She said that what was happening in Florida was that those responsible for distribution under the civil forfeiture in Florida were seen and had been found, for example, going out and sailing on boats and driving cars, and so on, that had been forfeited.

I am in no way suggesting and do not believe that anything like that would happen in British Columbia. But what we must always keep in mind when we're bringing in this kind of legislation is that we have the appropriate transparency and accountability in place to ensure there is no chance that we could ever go down that road.

It is another concern that I have. It's a concern that I will certainly talk to or ask questions of the minister on, when we do get to that section when we are in the committee stage. I think it's something that we have to pay heed to and have to be concerned about when we're creating, as I said, such widespread powers.

I do think it's interesting and probably a step in the right direction — others may not feel the same way — to have a more specific set of criteria and a specific place where the fund will be going to. I think that it is appropriate that proceeds of crimes should go to victims of crime, at least a portion thereof. I think that's probably a step in the right direction, although I certainly will have questions about that.

I think, overall, it's a bill that I can support. Of course, there are provisions that ensure that the amount the director pays out is never more than that which goes into it, which makes sense. So we're never going to have a negative balance in it. That makes perfect sense.

With that, by way of summary, I believe that the official opposition will be supporting this bill. I think that the main piece of it — the fact that there will be a director who will be managing the fund for the proceeds of crime — is one that we can support, although we will certainly have questions about it.

[1510]

There are more flexible tools in order to be able to manage the assets that come in as proceeds of crime. I think, overall, that makes sense. I think we do have to watch for and be concerned about the amount of power and discretion that there will be in that office and talk about and ask questions about accountability and transparency and where we're going to see that money accounted for. That's also something, perhaps, we can ask about in estimates.

I think the decision that we are going to use the proceeds of crime for victim assistance is good. I think it's unfortunate that we don't know the details. It's going to be in later regulations, so we don't know the details, and we won't be able to talk about that in this House.

Apart from that, I think that overall the bill makes sense, and I'm looking forward to further questions and discussion when we get to the next stage of the bill, which will be in committee.

With that, I have completed my remarks and will take my seat.

R. Sultan: I'm pleased to speak in support of Bill 28. This bill will expand the asset forfeiture powers of our society to recapture the gains, when confronted with illicit, illegal activity. The proceeds from such forfeiture, even under existing statutes, can be significant. Last year over $11 million funded from illegal activity was seized and will eventually be sold. This $11 million was about double the value of assets seized in 2010, and one might hope that in 2012 we'll see another doubling of the value of forfeited assets, which would push the dollar recovery into the range of $20 million.

What is seized? Well, for starters, there are houses. So think twice before you look the other way when those agricultural operators plan to set up shop in the living room of your rented bungalow. Then there are the mobile assets up for grabs — Hummers, BMWs and Ferarris, not to mention the occasional helicopter. All of these are real examples. We've seized them and sold them all.

What happens to all of the money? Well, I'm pleased to report it's spent on good things. For example, this year the forfeiture program funded the Children of the Streets Society, delivering provincial prevention, education, early intervention programs and other activities to prevent the sexual exploitation of children.

As another example, the Haida discovery program teaches Haida culture in Prince Rupert in the context of crime and violence prevention.
[ Page 10582 ]

A third example. The Coquitlam RCMP video procurement, this equipment to be used in investigating and recording offenders for later use as evidence and crime prevention.

I would acknowledge the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, suggesting that particularly as the dollar sums begin to become even more significant…. I would hope that the policies governing the disbursal of these assets could be discussed and debated in this House, because the sums may in fact become quite significant unless we have a sudden elimination of crime, which I suppose is always a possibility.

This legislation facilitates the seizing of property acquired through illicit activity, and it has compellingly positive purposes. One expects that any legislation which penalizes those who engage in profitable but illegal activity would be universally acclaimed, but unfortunately, in this Legislature, I'm sad to report, that has not always been the case in the past.

[1515]

While it appears the opposition has had a sudden conversion on the road to Damascus in the last few hours, I would recall that the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast is on record in Hansard as saying…. I remember vividly because it was in comments on some complaints I rendered about a grow op blowing out the front of a house in British Properties, which he thought might actually discourage employment in his riding. The quote: "It worries me that this bill suggests that revenue from the proceeds of this bill will be funding our criminal justice system." That's what the member said.

I can't resist pointing out the inconsistency that members' views have in the context of question period today. The member for Burnaby–Deer Lake said, and I quote from her Hansard remarks as recently as last May: "I would love to be standing here discussing bills and policies and programs instead of Bill 6…." That's the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act. In other words, last May discussing forfeiture of illicit assets was such a bore.

During question period today the distinguished member for Nanaimo, my friend, asserted — I believe I got it straight: "The government must make justice a priority." He implied that the government did not.

I would ask members opposite if they support their colleagues who obviously in the past have had such little enthusiasm for stripping away the assets of those who break the law and putting the proceeds from their ill-gotten activities to work to improve the justice system to compensate the victims of crime and other good social purposes.

One might have little problem in believing from the historical record that they had no problem turning a blind eye to illegal activity, at least on the Sunshine Coast. They had little problem turning a blind eye to all of those Maseratis zipping around Burnaby and would defer any suppression of illegal activity generally. Taking it from their speeches, they are clearly not making justice a priority.

This government makes justice a priority so that the Children of the Street Society, the Haida discovery program and the Coquitlam RCMP video project are all properly funded. We're glad to have some recent adherence. If this was an evangelistic gathering, we'd say: "Hallelujah, they've seen the light." We're glad to have the support of members opposite for Bill 28, however recent that conversion may be.

L. Krog: I'm delighted to rise in debate today and to follow the distinguished member for West Vancouver–Capilano. He's one of the few members in the chamber who probably, actually, on occasion gets to see a Maserati whipping by. He can probably give you the definition and description of numerous types of Rolls-Royces, because in my constituency there aren't a lot of people who own those kinds of vehicles.

The suggestion that the official opposition is somehow in favour of crime invites a response. I'm sure the member for West Vancouver–Capilano wasn't going to suggest for a moment that the New Democratic Party supported crime. But he did. He made that suggestion.

I suppose he's coming from — I don't know — some ivory-towered location in the province where he thinks no crime exists. I mean, murder doesn't happen in West Vancouver. We don't see any wealthy individuals who've profited from crime living in West Vancouver. We don't see any cars being driven on the streets of West Vancouver that might be the results of criminal activity. I'm sure the member lives in an innocent paradise over there on the other side of the Lions Gate Bridge.

I hate to disappoint the member, but indeed I think we're all satisfied that there is crime in West Vancouver, that some very wealthy criminals live in West Vancouver and that they will continue to profit from their crimes because — and I say this quite candidly — in this province our justice system is in trouble. Many people who have been the subject of prosecutions are indeed walking the streets today because we couldn't prosecute them in a timely way.

[1520]

I find the remarks of the member for West Vancouver–Capilano on the Criminal Asset Management Act somewhat amusing and interesting, given the fact that it's his government that has been in power for 11 years, responsible for the criminal justice system, and has brought us to such a wonderful point in its operation and success that we see more criminals walking the streets today as a result of judicial stays than at any time, probably, in British Columbia's history.

Notwithstanding the threat of the Criminal Asset Management Act being proposed, and of similar statutes that relate to the proceeds-of-crime legislation, we have not seen a reduction in the number of judicial stays. We
[ Page 10583 ]
have seen an increase, and we have seen a significant increase, of course, in the number of cases that, likewise, face the possibility of being stayed on a judicial basis because they are past that 18-month range.

I am delighted that the member from West Vancouver has chosen to speak out on the Criminal Asset Management Act today. I always enjoy what he has to say. He represents the intelligence of the Liberal benches, the highest level of intelligence, and always brings a tone to this debate which is always appreciated, notwithstanding that he is often patently wrong.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Oh, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson is back on NCHS. I'd like him to come over here and check my pockets and see if he can find any stolen charitable funds. I would, with great respect, suggest to the member that he might wish to take his place in the debate later this afternoon. He'll have that opportunity. He will have the opportunity to bellow and raise issues from the past, because we all know that given the Liberal present, the past looks pretty palatable.

When you've got a justice system in crisis and one of your best responses to that crisis is to bring forward the Criminal Asset Management Act in the hopes of somehow persuading the public that you're seriously interested in defeating crime, it tells you that you have a government in no small amount of political trouble.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Now, I hear the member will not be quiet, and I'm always flattered that he wishes to make comment about what I have to say in this chamber. I'm delighted that he wishes to respond, and I know he'll take that opportunity. I trust he has a prepared speech in which he will no doubt spend most of the time talking about the '90s because, as I suggested earlier, it's so much more interesting to be a Liberal living in the '90s than a Liberal in 2012.

I mean, when you see them leaving the ship as it sinks in the….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, can I draw you back to the content of the bill.

L. Krog: Yes, thank you, hon. Speaker.

I want to come back to the content of the bill, because this represents the Liberal approach to dealing with criminal issues. We're going to have the Criminal Asset Management Act, and that's a fine thing. This is a good thing. This is a very good thing. The only trouble is that in order to deal with it, you've really got to ensure that it's the proceeds of crime. That means you have to fund the justice system appropriately. That means you have to ensure that you have enough police available to actually find the criminals. It means you have to have judges available to hear the cases in a timely way so they're not dismissed.

All of that, all of the work, all of the benefit that might flow from this statute — this proposed bill, I should say; it's not a statute yet — will be dependent upon how well we manage the justice system. With the greatest respect to my friends opposite, I'm not sure that we can actually say that is the case.

Let's get down to some of the basics of the bill, because there's a big philosophical issue contained within this legislation. The member for West Vancouver–Capilano touched on it. I'm going to suggest, quite politely, that it's a dangerous road to go down. What he was driving at, I think, in some of his remarks — if I heard him correctly, and I know he'll take an opportunity to correct me if I'm wrong — was that we should be taking the proceeds of criminal activity and using it to support the justice system. And it may not be a bad idea. I think that's what the member was suggesting, and he's nodding sagely.

The problem with that approach — and it suggests there may be opportunities in this bill for moneys to be used for that purpose later — is that when you're talking about specific taxation, I can tell this House a little story. You know, it's always good to admit what may have been political mistakes.

[1525]

We'll go back to the '90s. Oh, the place has gone silent. They're all desperately waiting for what I'm going to say now. Now they're interested.

A previous government brought in a tax on legal services, on the assumption and presumption and on the justification that it would be used to fund legal aid. Not a bad thing, arguably. The problem is that when government stopped doing it, then people became upset by that. Indeed, there are 10,000-plus lawyers in this province who are very upset by that proposition, because we know today that the money generated from the tax on legal services would more than fund the legal aid system that we had in place in this province before this government destroyed it.

What this bill and what the member was suggesting is that we should be using those moneys to support the justice system. My point — I think it's becoming fairly clear, I would trust, to the members opposite — is that that may not be a wise philosophical approach for taxation.

It leads to the next question, which is: are we going to tax the sick to pay for health care? Are we going to tax only people who drive cars, to pay for the transportation system? Are we going to tax only those who are involved in the mining industry, to deal with, well, for instance, the construction of roads to mining operations? That may be a reasonable proposition. I don't know. I would suggest not, however.

That is one of the problems: to suggest that we're levying specific taxations to do specific things. Ultimately,
[ Page 10584 ]
it limits the ability of government to do the right thing.

What the Criminal Asset Management Act is really all about is setting up a process whereby we will have a director of criminal asset management designated under section 2 who will have the ability to manage the proceeds of crime, which means "any property, benefit or advantage that (a) falls within the definition of 'proceeds of crime' in section 462.3 of the Criminal Code, or (b) is obtained or derived, directly or indirectly, as a result of an act or omission that, in the jurisdiction in which the act or omission occurs, constitutes an offence."

I don't have a problem with that. What is interesting is that the next definition contained in the act talks about an eligible victim: eligible victim means "a person who (a) suffered pecuniary loss as a direct result of a criminal or quasi-criminal activity that resulted in forfeiture, to which this Act applies, of property, (b) did not engage, directly or indirectly, in the commission of the criminal or quasi-criminal activity, and (c) meets the criteria prescribed under this Act." What that means is that if you're an eligible victim, someone who has suffered a pecuniary loss, then you'll be eligible to make application.

I think what that section means is that if you are out-of-pocket, if you've lost property, if someone has picked your wallet clean, then you would be an eligible victim. But what does that say about this government's attitudes about people, about human rights versus property?

Interjection.

L. Krog: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson says "very positive." Well, it leads me to contrast this legislation with an existing statute, the Criminal Injury Compensation Act. This is relevant — very relevant for this debate. The criminal….

Interjection.

L. Krog: I really wish the member would take the time to listen to what I'm about to say. I'm about to make a point that actually, I think, is valid.

Under the Criminal Injury Compensation Act there was a right to compensation established if you could prove that you were a victim, and a "'victim' means a person injured or killed in the circumstances set out in section 2 (2)."

[1530]

Now, section 2(4) provided that:

"Subject to subsections (4.1) and (4.2), compensation may be awarded for any of the following: (a) expenses actually and reasonably incurred or to be incurred as a result of a victim's injury or death; (b) pecuniary loss or damage incurred by the victim as a result of total or partial disability affecting the victim's capacity for work; (c) pecuniary loss or damages incurred by immediate family members as a result of the victim's death; (d) maintenance of a child born as a result of rape; (e) other pecuniary loss or damages resulting from the victim's injury and any expense that, in the board's opinion, it is reasonable to incur; (f) non-pecuniary loss or damage for pain, suffering, mental or emotional trauma, humiliation or inconvenience."

With great respect, I think (f) is a really good thing. I think it's a really good thing that victims of crime should be compensated for pain and suffering, mental or emotional trauma, humiliation or inconvenience — a very good thing.

Interjection.

L. Krog: I see the member for West Vancouver–Capilano clapping as well.

Unfortunately, this government, with its whopping majority, passed subsection (4.1): "Despite any provision of this Act, compensation referred to in subsection (4) (f) may not be awarded under this Act in respect of an application received by the board on or after April 16, 2002." Happy anniversary, British Columbia. Happy anniversary.

It is now nearly a full decade since this government in its wisdom said: "If you get injured in a crime and you've suffered personal injury, if you have pain that lasts you the rest of your life, you will not get compensation." So here we are, ten years down the road, and we have a bill in front of us that says: "We're going to take the proceeds of crime, but are we going to give you a nickel for your pain and suffering? No. We will give you money if you are an eligible victim, and you are only an eligible victim if you suffered pecuniary loss."

In other words, if they take a hundred bucks out of your wallet, you get it back. Isn't that grand? If they take away your ability to enjoy life, if you are rendered a quadriplegic as a result of an assault, if you suffer a brain injury, if you suffer something as simple as a broken arm, you will not get one red cent under the Criminal Asset Management Act — not one red cent.

I come back to my point about values. We're prepared to make money and property and compensation for it a priority over human suffering. That's what this act says. That is the philosophical basis of this legislation. We'll compensate you for property, but we won't compensate you for pain.

The act is quite specific. It's very clear about what the money may be granted for, and it is only for that pecuniary loss. So my point, I think, is obvious. Money trumps people when it comes to this government's approach to this kind of legislation.

Indeed, notwithstanding the criticisms of some members of this House, including members in our own caucus, I have no problem taking money from people who get it through criminal activity — no problem at all. I've had enough experience in our justice system to understand that sometimes, although you may not be able to convict a person of a criminal offence, they got their gains through criminal activity, behaviour that is absolutely unacceptable by society.

That may be through fraud, deception, harassment,
[ Page 10585 ]
through the exploitation of people for sexual purposes. There is a range of ways in which money is taken from people wrongfully that offends the standards of humanity by which we should govern our behaviour day in and day out.

[1535]

I have no problem with legislation that deals with that, but the message that is being sent by this particular legislation is that money and property are more important than humanity.

That is where I have to say that I'm surprised the government didn't consider what it did with the repeal of section 2(4)(f) back in 2002. This would have been an opportunity. Just as I have admitted here today that perhaps it wasn't the smartest thing to put a tax on legal services, it would have been an opportunity for this government to step forward and say, on the proceeds of crime: "You know what? Maybe we should give money to victims in British Columbia who are actually suffering as a result of that crime." Not just a pecuniary loss, not just a loss on which you can put a firm dollar value, but on their suffering, on their pain, on the emotional trauma that they received.

If you will, hon. Speaker, to use the language that has been repealed: "for pain, suffering, mental or emotional trauma, humiliation or inconvenience." Now, that would be a good use under the Criminal Asset Management Act. That's something that I think every member of this House would have happily supported. Indeed, if the government had proposed it as part of this legislation, I suspect they would have stood up and crowed about what bright idea it was. But of course, it's coming from the opposition, so it's not quite as palatable.

Indeed, I know, and it may be reflective of my tone, that things have gone rather quiet now. The members on the other side don't seem to be screaming as much or bellowing as much or raising their voices as much or indicating any interest in what I have to say, hon. Speaker. I don't know whether I'm failing to strike a nerve or whether I've just struck them dumb, or maybe the dulcet tones here today are lulling them off to some sleep in which they can hopefully, perchance, dream of days when they were popular instead of dropping in the polls like a stone in a small pool.

One of the other issues that is raised by this legislation, which has been canvassed brilliantly by the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, is the issue of the authority of the director. Now, the director, under the act, has significant power and authority. The director is responsible for "taking possession and control of, and managing or otherwise dealing with, property that is the subject of a management order obtained by the minister under section 83.13, 462.331 or 490.81 of the Criminal Code," administering the property, etc. — a very responsible position.

I think it will be interesting, during the course of second reading debate, to determine exactly what sort of person and what sort of qualifications the minister will be looking at when it comes to hiring that person because, again, notwithstanding the significant burdens that have been placed upon the Minister of Justice and Attorney General…. I'm not for a moment suggesting that she's not up to it, hon. Speaker. She has a great deal on her plate. She has one of the biggest ministries in government now.

Under section 2 it is her decision to "designate as Director of Criminal Asset Management a person who is appointed under the Public Service Act." In other words, it will be her decision. So I think it's important to know exactly what we're looking at. Are we looking at an ex-judge, an ex–police officer? Are we looking at an experienced lawyer? Are we looking at a business manager? Are we looking at someone who ran a bailiff service?

Are we looking at someone, you know, who ran a dairy farm in the Fraser Valley? Are we looking at someone who drives a Maserati in West Vancouver? Are we looking at someone who drives a Rolls-Royce in West Vancouver? Are we looking at someone who manages a store in Nanaimo? It will be very interesting to see exactly who we're talking about, who will be designated, because they'll have a very responsible position.

Their position, however, carries with it not just responsibility; it carries with it significant authority and power. Indeed, I would suggest without some exaggeration that within the confines of the legislation as it's proposed, the director will have much of the authority of a judge. It will be interesting to see what they propose to pay the director.

[1540]

I don't think I noticed in the act exactly what they were suggesting in terms of payment for the director, but I suspect that it will be a fairly responsible position, and certainly, in the experience of the last few years, this government has had no trouble increasing the pay of senior public servants to what some in British Columbia regard as stratospheric levels.

That person, the new director, will be the person who will decide what you get and how the property is managed, because the director has the power, without limiting the generality of subsection (1), which gives them the right to "preserve, manage, dispose of or otherwise deal with any property described in section 3 (1) (c) or (d) in any manner that the director considers appropriate." So that's pretty broad — "in any manner…the director considers appropriate."

Not even a provincial court judge, or a Supreme Court judge in this province, gets quite that kind of leeway when it comes to the power to dispose of a matter in any way they think it is appropriate. There is often at least some case law to restrain their behaviour or their views, or some statutory limitations.

But the director in this case can "take possession and control of, and preserve or manage, the property for the
[ Page 10586 ]
length of time and on the terms that the director considers appropriate."

So we can lock up the Maserati until it's an antique car, in theory, and sell it, or block it up long enough to at least become a classic automobile, or crush it. Or we can do whatever we wish with it. Or we can dispose of it "at the price and on the terms that the director considers appropriate." Or we can "do anything the director considers advisable for the ongoing management or operation of the property before its final disposition" or "dispose of perishable or rapidly depreciating property."

I guess that means that the grapes may get crushed but the wine that is the result of the grapes…. You can probably keep those for a while. Or you can "destroy property that has little or no value."

The point of all of this money is that it's going to be held. Now, a person may apply, in accordance with the regulations, for compensation from the fund as an eligible victim. We know what an eligible victim is, and we know that that will simply be money only — in other words, to recompense you for what you may have lost but not for anything you may have suffered as a result of the crime.

It's kind of amusing when you think about it. If you get rolled in the street, and they take your $100, and you're in hospital for six months, you'll get your $100 back, but you won't get anything for the pain and suffering that you will incur while you spend six months in a hospital bed.

Although I suppose one of the things the government might wish to consider is perhaps using the proceeds of crime to pay the hospital costs of the victims, at least, and save the taxpayer the burden. That's one way to look at it, I suppose.

But the payment to the eligible victim is a pretty broad discretion, again. It says: "Subject to this Act and the regulations and on receipt of an application under section 7, the director may pay to an eligible victim an amount in the circumstances and subject to the conditions and limitations that the director considers appropriate."

Again, that's pretty broad, and it's "may." So in other words, even if you're determined to be an eligible victim, even though you may have every right in the world to the money or some money, the director doesn't have to pay it to you. It simply says the director "may."

Then sub 8(2): "Despite subsection (1), the director may not pay to an eligible victim of a criminal or quasi-criminal activity a total amount that exceeds the sum of (a) any money forfeited as a result of the activity, and (b) the net proceeds, as determined by the regulations, resulting from the disposition of any property forfeited as a result of the activity."

So the director is going to get to decide whether or not you get paid, how you get paid, and have complete discretion in doing so. The director is going to have complete discretion when it comes to the disposition of the property, with respect to its preservation, with respect to its management. It's a pretty freewheeling position.

It's a pretty freewheeling position — the kind of power that historically you used to give to heads of major corporations, like John Davison Rockefeller or Conrad Black in his heyday, who seemed to be fairly free with corporate money.

[1545]

Is that a good thing? I do note with interest that in section 9, even if you determine that you're going to get compensation, the director can do the following. They can pay an eligible victim "in one or more installments." I guess that's the layaway plan. Interesting proposition.

You had your money taken, and there are proceeds available, and the director — I don't know, because there are cash flow problems in the director's bank account — gets to decide when and if you get your money. Or the director can, under sub 9(b), "prorate payments, in accordance with the regulations, among eligible victims or a category of eligible victims."

So it's like a kids' game. Now you see it; now you don't. It was in your wallet. It got taken. The director gets it. Maybe you get it back; maybe you don't. Maybe you get it all today. Maybe you get some of it today and some of it tomorrow. Maybe you get it paid pro rata amongst a group of people. These are very significant powers.

I'm going to come back to one of my other favourite hobbyhorses now. Much of what is set out in this bill is fairly general in nature and comes back to regulation. So again, we get to debate the bill in this chamber, and we get to argue about the bill, but the regulations that will really determine how this pony is going to make it around the track are going to be determined in the confines of the west annex, in the cabinet chamber, as usual.

Again, it's symbolic of a government that really isn't too fond of transparency, that really isn't too fond of public scrutiny, that really doesn't like to be terribly accountable for its decisions. We see it with bill after bill, and nothing's different today.

To sum up, this bill is going to get our support, but let us not pretend for a moment that there aren't flaws in this. Let us not pretend for a moment that it doesn't send a signal to British Columbians about the attitude of this government about people and human suffering versus money.

When they had an opportunity with legislation like this to look after the victims of crime in a real and meaningful and tangible way, they chose instead to simply give you back the money that someone took, but never considered for one moment the possibility that maybe the right thing to do with the proceeds of crime would be to compensate victims' suffering, to compensate them, in the words of the statute, "for pain, suffering, mental or emotional trauma, humiliation or inconvenience" because that isn't important to this government.
[ Page 10587 ]

N. Letnick: It's indeed my pleasure to stand amongst my colleagues to support Bill 28, the Criminal Asset Management Act. Unlike the previous speaker, I'll try to stick mostly to the act and not bring in a whole bunch of new topics.

I do have to mention that the fight against crime is a priority of this government — the insurance that we have a strong criminal justice system. Every day in the House over the last few weeks in question period, there has been question after question. The Solicitor General has spoken very eloquently about our activities on this side of the House to make sure that we have a strong criminal justice system in the province.

Just a couple of points. Since I've been here over the last three years, the government has appointed Geoff Cowper, an eminent jurist, to look at our system and come up with some recommendations to make sure that we have one of the best systems in the country, to make sure that even though we are under limited resources, like any government would be, that the resources are going the furthest.

In addition to that, it's this government that after many, many years of review finally came in with the Family Law Act. The Family Law Act is going to help to make sure that we have a sustainable, strong, fair, well-funded criminal justice system.

[1550]

So to make the allegations that the critic has made against our government on its stand against criminals from a bill — when, basically, the purpose of the bill is to make sure we have criminal forfeiture just as easily, I guess, as civil forfeiture — is something that I think was a little over the top.

I'll just come back to the bill and discuss the bill for a few minutes and then allow other people to discuss the bill. At some point we'll get into the committee stage, and then I hope the critic will stand up and appropriately question the minister on each section of the bill.

At the end of that day we're going to all vote in favour of it, I understand, so that's good. That's our process, and I look forward to watching that happen.

Why is the bill being proposed? How will it work? How will the proceeds be used? That's basically the context which I will be discussing over the next ten or so minutes.

I'd like to start by saying the province has infrequently pursued criminal forfeiture due to the lack of a statutory management scheme under B.C. law. That's primarily why this bill is being introduced.

As well, government currently incurs the upfront costs of managing individual assets, recovering its expenses as assets are sold. So we're trying to make sure that we have a better way of going after the assets of criminals, to make sure that they can be used to help victims and, for those dollars that are left over, to help stop further criminal activity.

The legislation will create a comprehensive criminal asset management regime and enable prosecutors to pursue criminal forfeiture more frequently by establishing a way to manage assets restrained, seized or forfeited under the Criminal Code and other criminal law statutes. The act will remove the financial incentives and instruments of the crime by improving the effectiveness of criminal forfeiture.

In turn, the proceeds from forfeitures may be available to compensate eligible victims and help communities by funding crime prevention and remediation initiatives. I'll get into what some of those funding programs are a little later in my discussion.

Civil forfeiture can be pursued after the criminal forfeiture process has been exhausted or if a decision has been made not to pursue criminal forfeiture. The Civil Forfeiture Act deters unlawful activity by taking away the instruments and proceeds of unlawful activity. Civil forfeiture processes are now in place in seven provinces.

This program has been very successful, with almost $11.3 million in assets being recovered last year alone, doubling what was recovered in the previous fiscal period. Since the program began, a number of the items seized have included a Hummer, a helicopter used to traffic drugs last year, a Ferrari and a BMW M6. As I'm reading all this, I'm thinking of all the guys out there with their midlife crises who'd probably love to have their hands on some of these toys. Luckily, it's government that got it and was able to sell it and use the money for a better, higher, more noble purpose.

The legislation complements the existing civil forfeiture program, and the new act gives government explicit legislative authority to manage and dispose of property forfeited as a result of criminal prosecution. That's the key here. It's criminal prosecution.

How will it work? Good question. Proceeds from forfeited property will be deposited into a special criminal asset management fund. Associated costs for managing and disposing of the property will be paid through this fund. So the fund will be financed by the criminal assets first.

The director will manage received assets and address associated costs and have the authority to deposit funds from the sale of forfeited assets into the criminal asset management fund. This responsibility will be added to an existing staff member's responsibilities, so there won't be any additional salary cost to taxpayers, unlike what was alluded to by the previous speaker.

Following a conviction in a breaking-and-entering case, for example, the vehicle used during the crime could be forfeited. In the instance of investment fraud bank accounts holding proceeds from crime could be pursued. Dangerous drivers causing bodily harm could also see their vehicle forfeited.

[1555]

How will it be used? Well, proceeds deposited into the criminal asset management fund may be used to compensate eligible victims. If you refer to the act itself, under
[ Page 10588 ]
section 8, "Payment to eligible victim," it says:

"(1) Subject to this Act and the regulations and on receipt of an application under section 7, the director may pay to an eligible victim an amount in the circumstances and subject to the conditions and limitations that the director considers appropriate.

"(2) Despite subsection (1), the director may not pay to an eligible victim of a criminal or quasi-criminal activity a total amount that exceeds the sum of (a) any money forfeited as a result of the activity, and (b) the net proceeds, as determined by the regulations, resulting from the disposition of any property forfeited as a result of the activity."

What we're saying here is the money to eligible victims is limited to the money that they forfeited as a result of the activity or the net proceeds after the disposition of the property in question has been taken into account. So the amount of compensation will depend on the amount of money realized from disposing of the property associated with the crime from which they suffered.

In addition to that, if there's money left over — last year there was, as I said before — proceeds will also be used to fund crime prevention and remediation initiatives. Last year 29 projects were funded through the civil forfeiture office. One-time grants are used to fund programs, such as violence prevention curriculums in six Lower Mainland schools, a rediscovery program in Prince Rupert that teaches Haida culture in the context of crime and violence prevention, and an awareness-raising campaign Kelowna that delivers an anti-gang message.

Actually, I have a few here that I'd like to read out. These were announcements that…. The Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and the member for Westside-Kelowna and myself just last week had the privilege of meeting with these recipients and seeing the smiles on their faces and how they were going to use this money. We met with the Central Okanagan Elizabeth Fry Society. They'll use their $5,000 to help communities coordinate a cross-sector response to highest-risk domestic violence cases.

We also met with the folks from the Okanagan Boys and Girls Club. They received $206,100 — quite a large sum of money. They'll use that money to introduce the Youth Empowerment Through Employment program. This is From the Street to a Job program. They feel — as we do, and that's why they got the money — that if we can reduce and prevent gang involvement, then we'll go a long way to reduce the burden on our criminal justice system and, of course, save their lives and lives of their victims.

The money is going to be used to make sure they know how to get a job, how to keep a job, how to report on time to an employer, how to give proper value to employers and how to make sure that, at the ages of 15 to 20, they're totally engaged in our workforce. That $206,000, Madam Speaker, is money well spent, I think. I'm sure you'll agree with me.

Also, we announced last week more money for the RCMP. The RCMP in Kelowna will use funding for a GPS tracking device to assist in auto theft investigations. The E division commercial crime unit will use the money for software that allows the extraction of information from mobile devices seized from drug and gang offenders. The RCMP southeast district drug services will also use $6,700 to purchase surveillance kits for 28 detachments and 20 subdetachments in all of southeast British Columbia.

The last one I'd like to highlight is the RCMP southeast division drug services, which will use $11,000 to purchase thermal imaging equipment to assist in the detection of marijuana grow ops and search and rescue efforts.

Here the money has been taken from criminals, is being used for a great purpose, being used to compensate victims where possible, and then the extra money is being used to try to reduce the amount of criminal activity in this province.

In line with legislation like the Family Law Act and in line with the review of our whole criminal justice system, which the eminent jurist is looking at, I believe that civil forfeiture will help reduce crime by taking away tools that are used in unlawful activity or the proceeds that come from unlawful activity.

The funding is provided directly to community groups. It'll make B.C. safer, and B.C.'s program is one of the most successful of its kind in the country and will be used as an example in other provinces. I fully support the bill.

[1600]

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to take my place in the debate around the Criminal Asset Management Act. I do so on a number of points that I want to address on this piece of legislation, because it will be supported by both sides of the House.

As I start my remarks, I do feel that I must, that I am compelled, to respond to some of the comments by my colleague across the way, from West Vancouver–Capilano, who expressed some surprise. He said that there was a conversion on the road to Damascus. I mean, for a start, I would like to say that I don't think anybody would want to be travelling on a road to Damascus these days. I don't think that one could possibly have a conversion. One would be diving for cover more than anything else, not having a conversion.

Be that as it may, I do wish to address some of the criticisms that the member had of members on this side of the House. I feel a need to stand up to address and defend some of my colleagues who were not able to respond to his criticisms. You know, he questions my colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast about: "Well, you're supporting this bill, yet you asked some questions."

I find it interesting that one would criticize a member for asking questions. One thing that I've always respected about the member for West Vancouver–Capilano is that he asks questions. He wants to know exactly what the section is about. What is its intent? What is its meaning?
[ Page 10589 ]

That is one of the great things about committee stage debate. You have the opportunity to ask those questions — questions that may not be popular but questions that are important to ask just the same. It's that thorough examination of the bill and the legislation that allows you, at the end, to make a proper and informed decision.

While the member may not like the questions and the government may not like the questions, at least it's important that they be asked so that you can get an answer. At the end of the day, you know, we supported the legislation, the Civil Forfeiture Act. This entire house supported the Civil Forfeiture Act, just as we are supporting this particular piece of legislation.

I think it's important that that be on the record. The same with the member for Nanaimo, who I think, again, has a sterling reputation. In fact, some of the best debates that we have seen in this House are when the member for Nanaimo engages with the Attorney General, not in an overtly partisan way but, rather, in a constructive and detailed analysis, clause by clause, of the legislation.

That's important, and that is our job, hon. Speaker. I think all of us in this House enjoy doing that and look forward to watching it when it's done properly, as we have often seen on the bills that the Attorney General has tabled and the examination by our Attorney General critic. In many ways, they are textbook cases about how to go about examining legislation. So I sometimes get surprised when those discussions are used in an attempt to sort of somehow paint the opposition as being opposed to the legislation.

[D. Black in the chair.]

I mean, after all, I could stand up in this House too — not that I would…. Well, just to illustrate an example, I could stand up in this House and ask a question. You know, in the middle of a gangland war in this province, when thuggish gangsters were shooting each other in Langley and it was on the news every single night, could one imagine a government tabling a throne speech that didn't mention public safety once?

Would most people believe that something like that could happen in the province of British Columbia? You have thuggish gangsters shooting themselves in Langley and Surrey and the West End and the Lower Mainland — it's the number one concern of people — and a throne speech is tabled, and public safety is not even mentioned.

What would that say? What would you think about the priorities of a government that did that? I know what I would think. I know what members of the public would think, and they would be rightly concerned and critical. One could say that the government is not concerned about crime. One could say that, but I will not say that. I just make the point to illustrate that asking questions about a piece of legislation does not mean you're opposed to it. It means you're doing your job.

[1605]

Another example I could give is this side of the House. As the member for Port Coquitlam and at that time the Public Safety critic, I suggested to the government, in the full spirit of constructive opposition, that we look at regulating and outlawing the use of body armour by people who weren't police officers or licensed to carry it.

Why should the police be going up against these thugs and gangsters who are shooting each other wearing the latest body armour? They were having better weapons and better protection than police were having. Why should we allow that in the province of British Columbia? We should do away with that.

So I suggested a private member's bill. Yet the government said that that was not necessary, that we did not need to look at that — that it was going too far and that it was not something that should be considered.

It was put forward in the best of intentions — constructive opposition — and it was dismissed. But several months later, after considerable public outcry, after more and more gangland killings in British Columbia and a recognition that action must be taken, the government recognized the value of the initiative put forward by the opposition, and they introduced the legislation.

They introduced the legislation so that only people who are law enforcement officers or licensed to carry body armour are allowed to have it and that people who shouldn't have it don't have it. That's the right thing to do.

This side of the House will continue to make constructive suggestions to the government and constructive propositions for the government so that we can have better public policy in the province of British Columbia, so that we can have constructive debate that leads to, I think, better laws. That's what we are trying to do in this House.

I don't want to dwell too much on issues such as a throne speech debate that didn't mention public safety or a budget that subsequently cut funding to the justice system. No, I want to dwell on the legislation that is before us — the legislation is about civil forfeiture and criminal forfeiture — and why I think it's a good thing — and some of the shortcomings that I do see in the bill that I think would be appropriate if they were addressed.

The previous speaker, who has supported the bill, has outlined many good things that the bill will accomplish — and many good projects that are funded by the forfeiture of criminal assets. But I'd like to also pick up on my colleague from Nanaimo, who outlined, I think, one of the key areas where there is a weakness in the bill, and that is around the issue of victims and pain and suffering. I think that is crucial.

One of the reasons why this is so important is that we have those in our province who would make their living or their money not through gainful employment but through criminal activity — preying on the misery and the addictions and the circumstances of others, most often manifesting itself in organized gangland activity, which we have seen too much of in this province, and
[ Page 10590 ]
we see too much in terms of violence around this province — whose sole aim is to make money and cash and cars and other expensive assets and do so with, they think, impunity — that there is not consequence.

To them, going to jail is part of the cost of doing business. You know, they go to jail for three or four years. So what? That's the cost of doing business. They still have their assets. That's the way it was.

The Civil Forfeiture Act changed that. It started off slowly, and it has built as it has become successful. We need to continue doing that. But we also need to take the opportunity to recognize that there are other types of criminals — not just the visible ones that the public sees in terms of gangland shootings, for example — who also prey on people. They prey on the elderly. They prey on the unsophisticated. They prey on those who are trying to obtain expert advice. They are small in number, but the devastation that they wreak on seniors and on families can be devastating.

[1610]

We have seen, south of the border, the Bernie Madoff case, for example, or the likes of Enron where lifetimes of work and saving for a retirement have been wiped out — in many cases overnight — because of the illegal, fraudulent white-collar crime.

That happens in this province. We have seen some high-profile cases of an individual — not in the member for West Vancouver–Capilano's riding but one here on the Island — where houses, a $20 million house, and private planes and a lifestyle of unbelievable imagination, of unbelievable excess, that most people could not even barely comprehend, are built on the defrauding of people.

The way, I think, to deal with that is through the forfeiture of their assets — every single ill-gotten penny, dime, nickel, quarter, dollar. You name it. Mind you, after the federal government's decision today to do away with the penny, that may leave them with a nickel. I would be prepared to do that.

The point is this: those assets should and must be confiscated. Nothing hits those people harder than that confiscation of that lifestyle, of those assets, of that ill-gotten gain. This side of the House fully supports those initiatives.

The thing is that it has become even more important that that be a priority given the emergence, particularly in the last decade, of technology and the ability of technology to reach people and for criminals to reach people in a way that was unimaginable 15 or 20 years ago.

I mean, it starts as something as simple as — and most people are aware of it — getting an e-mail saying: "I am the son of a Nigerian brigadier-general who was illegally imprisoned. If you would please send me your bank account details, I will deposit 25 percent of $150 million for being so kind." People are aware of those types of scams. They're pretty straightforward. They're everyday. Unfortunately, there are people who do get taken in by them.

Then there are those that are far more sophisticated, that have glossy websites, that have sophisticated tracking and information-retrieving and phishing mechanisms, that can access your personal information and personal details, that have the ability to take your identity and to really significantly impact on your life in a way that was unimaginable 15 years ago. The damage that they can do, as I've said earlier, is enormous. So when you can track them down, the best way to send that message is to confiscate that ill-gotten gain.

I think that one of the questions becomes: what happens when this takes place? What happens when we confiscate that money? That's what this legislation is, in part, about.

One of the things that I support in this legislation is the creation of an additional officer to manage these assets. I hope, in many ways, to get the best return for the province on them. For example, the confiscation of property, I think, presents a unique opportunity to maximize the benefit from the civil forfeiture and criminal asset confiscation. Many properties are in particularly prized or expensive areas.

[1615]

Many properties, with some work or some coordination, could be sold off to generate even more than may be anticipated, to create more revenue that could go into the criminal assets seizure fund. I think that the ability to do that is one of the powers that is positive in this particular piece of legislation.

Having said that, I also think that we need to have a thorough examination of exactly how those powers are exercised, what the limits are, if there are limits, and what the parameters are of exercising that power. I look forward to having that discussion during the committee stage on this particular piece of legislation.

I think we need to know what the government's thinking is in terms of the regulations and how they're going to be implemented and, more importantly, the timeline upon which they're going to be implemented so that we can have a sense of how this legislation and when this legislation is going to be implemented.

One of the things that I wouldn't want to see is that we pass a piece of legislation, it is proclaimed and given royal assent and then the main body of it, which is to be regulatory implementation, sits waiting for cabinet to implement it. Sometimes that can take a long time.

I don't think we want to wait for that. Answers that the minister can give around regulatory intent on this particular piece of legislation would be most welcome and, I think, would give the public a strong sense of confidence that this bill is the good piece of legislation that we say that it will be.

The one area that I do have concerns around — and it's the one that my colleague from Nanaimo alluded to — is the issue of pain and suffering. I mean, I think it is great that this legislation says that you may get compensation
[ Page 10591 ]
for the money that has been lost out of your wallet or the damage that was done to something, but that doesn't make up for the pain. It doesn't make up for the trauma, and it doesn't make up for the suffering, either emotionally or physically, that a victim of crime may receive.

The trauma that someone gets when realizing that their life savings, for example, have been wiped out through fraudulent white-collar crime — how do you put a dollar figure on that? It's extremely difficult. But I think that you can make an effort. I think you can go some way to trying to do that.

Or for someone who's been the victim of a savage beating or bashing that's left them unable to go to work for several months, has left them emotionally scarred or damaged — I think you can put a value on that. Perhaps not cover the entire cost, but certainly be able to say: "Yes, here's the $100 that was taken out of your wallet, but you also have the ability to receive additional compensation for the physical and emotional damage and trauma that you went through."

I think this is particularly important when one is looking at the confiscation of assets related to organized crime, because the whole structure around organized crime is to prey and to achieve that money, that ill-gotten gain, through violence, through intimidation, through threats, through the sense of power that they feel they have by the use of weapons to extract criminal profit.

[1620]

I think that money and assets confiscated — some of that should be made available. This side approves of crime prevention programs and the money from the confiscated criminal assets going to crime prevention. I think that's important. I also think we must resist the temptation whereby we can off-load what should be legitimate operating expenses of law enforcement, and that's a concern that I hope we can explore with the minister at committee stage.

Sometimes government has a temptation to shift what should be the legitimate everyday operating budgetary items — and it can apply to any ministry — onto "a special fund" that should be earmarked for, in my view, victims of crime and extraordinary crime prevention programs. I think that's something that we want to explore in committee stage.

I see some members on the government side that seem slightly puzzled. I may be mistaken, but I know, as I have said earlier, that the member for Nanaimo and the Attorney General have demonstrated a willingness to ask and to answer the questions.

Hon. S. Bond: He asks tough questions, and I think we work very hard to answer them.

M. Farnworth: He does ask tough questions, and that's as it should be.

Coming back to the bill, and not wanting to digress, lest the Chair rein me in, the bill has a lot of potential, as I've pointed out, but we just need to address some of those concerns.

I think one of the key concerns and one of the key weaknesses of the bill is around compensation paid to victims. What this bill still does, in my mind, is that it still puts other priorities ahead of those of the rights of victims. It recognizes — and no one is going to disagree with victims being compensated for the asset that was lost in the course of the criminal activity….

But I do think there's a legitimate case to be made, particularly in the case of a violent crime or a crime where a victim has suffered trauma, that they should be able to access the fund for compensation over and above that. That, to me, is one of the key areas of the bill that I think is lacking.

Finally, hon. Speaker, before I wrap up my remarks, I think it's important that we put this bill in the context of justice overall. This is a bill that I think allows us to make use of the latest advances in technology. I don't think it's a bill that should be seen as a stand-alone, final piece of legislation, but rather as a bill that is, in some cases, a work in progress.

I think this is a bill that is strong from the perspective of our jurisdiction as a province. But I think the way we can build on this particular piece of legislation is to look at some of the questions that we'll be asking in committee stage, some of the criticisms we have made around victims being able to access compensation for pain and suffering.

Also, it's something in which we can push with Ottawa, to say that there's a federal jurisdiction as well, in terms of criminal assets. The federal government can look and work with what we're doing in the case of British Columbia and other provinces to maximize the ability.

If people have assets here in British Columbia that we can go after, it's also harder when they have them outside the province, and that's where the federal government can come in. It has the ability to be more aggressive in tracking down illegal assets outside of our province.

What I would like us to do in B.C. is to send a strong message to the federal government, in terms of when we're confiscating assets at the federal level, that that money flow back into the province's crime prevention programs but, just as importantly — in fact, most importantly — to the victims of crime themselves.
[ Page 10592 ]

[1625]

I think that is key. If we do that, I think we are well on our way to having a criminal assets compensation regime that does meet the expectations of the public in sending a strong message to the criminal element that what they get illegally and through ill-gotten gain they will lose, and lose it quickly, and that the people who will benefit are not just in terms of the crime prevention programs, which are important, but also the victims of crime themselves.

With that, I look forward to what other members have to say, and I will take my seat.

D. Hayer: You know, I'm so happy to respond to this Bill 28, the Criminal Asset Management Act. I agree with some of the comments made by the member for Port Coquitlam.

I won't agree with all his comments, because of some of the comments regarding the gang violence. I remember in 1990s when two Dosanjh brothers were killed right on the streets in Vancouver. There were, I think, close to a hundred young men and women — mostly men, actually — that were killed in the gang violence. It was really sad to see. It continues even today, but it's less compared to before, because we have made quite a few changes with gang violence to make it better for the police, to be more effective.

On the other hand, I think many of the other comments made by our member for Port Coquitlam are right; they're correct. I think this government has made a lot of good changes, and there's probably a lot more work to be done. Then we probably need to work with the federal government too, because it's not the province alone that can find all the solutions. We have to work with other cities and municipalities, and we need to work with the federal government.

I know that the federal government under Prime Minister Harper has made a lot of changes where they try to protect more of the rights of the victims in society, and I am sure they will do more. We should be discussing with them to make sure that they work with us to make more changes that make our society better and safer, with the rights of victims protected.

I have long advocated for the rights of victims to take precedence over the rights of criminals. I have spoken many, many times since I was elected to this House that the rights of victims should take precedence over the rights of criminals or the rights of society. We have made some changes on that, and we will continue to make changes on that. I'm happy to see other MLAs in the opposition also supporting this bill. They also agree with this.

Bill 28, the Criminal Asset Management Act, is one more step towards achieving fairness for victims, because it helps take the profits out of crime. Our government has been a clear leader in Canada in civil forfeiture. In 2006 we became one of only two provinces that were the pioneers in the use of this forfeiture act, but today seven out of ten provinces use this Civil Forfeiture Act as a tool to combat crime.

This bill is one way to help return the confidence that British Columbians have in our justice system, but we also need, across the country, a stronger response by our courts to the criminal activities many criminals commit.

Part of our job is to make sure that we represent the views of our constituents right here in the House. I constantly try to represent those views and to make sure that all the members hear that, including our Minister of Justice and Attorney General and all of our MLAs from both sides.

For example, 30 gun charges against two Burnaby residents were recently stayed after a judge ruled police had illegally entered their suite, making four seized firearms inadmissible at their trial. Their lawyer successfully argued that the RCMP violated their Charter rights when the emergency response team entered their suite in August 2010 after a shooting outside.

The police were there to respond to a 911 call reporting shots fired and the discovery of three firearms in the bushes outside. The police entered the suite after obtaining permission from the mother of one of the residents to search the house containing the suite. The mother expressed concern about the well-being of the suite residents.

[1630]

While searching the suite, police discovered the hidden firearms. However, the judge ruled that while police "were clearly entitled to look anywhere in the suite where the injured person could be," they were not allowed to look for hidden weapons.

That is wrong. That is a misuse of the Charter of Rights. It seems that nowadays everyone tries to use the Charter of Rights to get away with criminal acts. My constituents are tired of this, and I think many British Columbians and Canadians are tired of this. We need to work together with our judiciary and everybody else to make sure the system is more fair, which reflects and represents fairly the rights of the victims and society, not just the criminals.

Our courts need to change and need to take into consideration why someone would have an unregistered gun hidden and understand that the use of those weapons could almost certainly not be for innocent purposes. Most of my constituents believe, and I believe, that our courts often don't seem to act in the best interests of the innocent victims in our society and often appear to favour the criminals. At least in this government, in our government, we're trying to make a difference for the victims.

This bill, Bill 28, the Criminal Asset Management Act, actually tries to help the victims. That is why this bill and the Civil Forfeiture Act are so important — because we can now take away some of the profits of crime by seizing assets that have been acquired through the proceeds of criminal activity.

We have been very successful at that, with almost $11.3 million in assets being recovered last year alone — I have spoken about this in the past, but I want to restate it — doubling what was recovered in the previous fiscal year. Additionally, since the program began, a number of items have been seized, including a Hummer; a helicopter used for drug trafficking last year; a Ferrari; and a BMW M6
[ Page 10593 ]
involved in a street race in 2010.

Civil forfeiture, as you know, Madam Speaker, can be pursued after a criminal forfeiture process is exhausted or after a decision has been made not to pursue criminal forfeiture. In contrast, the province has infrequently pursued criminal forfeiture due to the lack of a statutory management scheme under B.C. law.

As well, government currently incurs the upfront costs for managing individual assets, recovering its expenses as assets are sold. Bill 28 will help us manage these seizures, and this act fulfils the government's commitment to provide the authority to manage and dispose of the property forfeited following a criminal prosecution.

This legislation will create a comprehensive criminal asset management regime and enable prosecutors to pursue criminal forfeiture more frequently by establishing a way to manage assets restrained, seized or forfeited under the Criminal Code and other criminal law statutes. This act will remove the financial incentives and instruments of crime by improving the effectiveness of a criminal forfeiture.

Further to my support for the rights of the victims, I am especially pleased that some of the proceeds from forfeitures may be available to compensate eligible victims and help communities by funding crime prevention and remediation incentives.

I do want to say I think that we have to always look after the rights of the victims. Whenever we can help them, it's a good way. Then, if we can use the proceeds of crime to help them, that's a good thing to do, and we will continue to do it. If we need to do more, we will all try to work to make sure that the criminal assets are used to help the victims in our society who are affected by the crimes.

As well, it will allow us to use our justice resources more effectively under the justice reform initiative. Bill 28 complements the existing civil forfeiture program and gives government the legislative authority to manage and dispose of property forfeited as a result of criminal prosecution.

[1635]

This act also provides a financial management mechanism, under the direction of the director of criminal asset management. The proceeds from the forfeited property will be deposited into a special fund, and associated costs for managing and disposing of property will be paid through this fund.

Importantly, the responsibility of this asset management will be added to an existing staff member's responsibilities. That means we will not incur any additional salary costs to the taxpayers. That is good news, because recovery of proceeds and the assets of crime should be used to fight crime, not create additional bureaucracy and cost. The financial proceeds resulting from the sale of assets should be used to compensate eligible victims.

The amount of compensation will depend on the amount of money realized from the disposition of the property associated with the crime from which victims have suffered. The proceeds from the sale of forfeited and seized property will also be used to fund crime prevention and remediation initiatives.

This year, for example, the civil forfeiture program will fund Children of the Street Society. As some of the members have stated before, that will deliver a provincial program in prevention, education, early intervention and family support programs to prevent the sexual exploitation of children and youth.

Last year 29 projects were funded through the civil forfeiture office, a one-time grant used to fund programs such as the violence prevention curriculum in six Lower Mainland schools and in Surrey. We give some funding to Options: Services to Communities Society and also to Sophie's Place and the South Surrey child development centre in Surrey.

There is a rediscovery program in Prince Rupert that teaches Haida culture in the context of crime and violence prevention — it also receives some funding — and an awareness-raising campaign in Kelowna that delivered an anti–gang violence message also received some funding.

Additionally, civil forfeiture funds are to be given to the RCMP in Coquitlam to purchase video equipment to assist in the investigation and recording of offenders for evidence and for crime prevention purposes.

The standard of proof for civil forfeiture requires the province to prove that assets were probably used in unlawful activities. On the other hand, the criminal forfeiture is a deterrent. It generally requires that a prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime occurred and that a court determine the property was either the proceeds of crime or an offence-related property.

Under criminal forfeiture, once an individual or individuals are convicted, there are a number of scenarios where a criminal forfeiture can be pursued. For example, following a conviction in a break-and-enter case, the car or the truck used during the crime could be forfeited. In the instance of investigating fraud, the bank accounts holding proceeds from the crime could be pursued and given and used for the victims' purposes.

I am pleased that under the criminal forfeiture, dangerous drivers causing bodily harm could also see their vehicles taken away. This bill and the Civil Forfeiture Act contain innovative solutions to reduce and discourage crime in British Columbia. They complement the crime-fighting actions our government has taken since I was first elected in 2001.

Since 2001 we have put an additional 1,100 police officers on the street. I know that one of the members raised this issue. Interestingly, when I was looking at the facts, in 1990 RCMP vacancies in B.C. had increased by 575, or 11 percent of the entire police force.

Since 2001 we have returned 100 percent of net traf-
[ Page 10594 ]
fic fine revenue to the municipalities to help them fight crime. But in the 1990s the municipalities never saw a single cent of the traffic fine revenues. So our government has done quite a bit and will continue to do more.

The Civil Forfeiture Act and Bill 28, the Criminal Asset Management Act, take the profit out of crime. It's certainly a disincentive for committing criminal acts. Anything we can do to fight crime, to improve the rights of the victims or the rights of society over those rights of the criminal, is good. That is why I am speaking today in favour of this bill, and that's why I'm supporting this bill fully.

[1640]

I want to thank our minister for doing this. I think this is a good thing, and many of my constituents have told me to please thank the minister for doing this. I appreciate and my constituents appreciate everything you're doing and everything that you'll continue to do to make rights of the victims in our society more important over the future years too.

J. Kwan: I rise to speak to Bill 28, the Criminal Asset Management Act. This bill is an interesting bill in the sense that I think the government is making an attempt to address some of the issues and concerns that have been raised, particularly around having a regime of managing of assets that have been seized or forfeited under the Criminal Code and other statutes.

This, of course, refers to crimes that have taken place where someone's assets are being seized by the Crown, and you have to have a proper way of managing that set of assets. This bill attempts to do exactly that in bringing a regime forward to deal with that.

In the act, though, if you look at the bill itself, it does raise some questions in terms of the utilization of the funds that are seized, the assets that have been seized from these various criminals, if you will. Once they've been put in this trust situation, how will they utilize the resources from that?

The government, of course, proposes to put forward some of the dollars towards a crime prevention set of initiatives. Of course, we don't know what those initiatives might be. I'll be looking forward to learning from the government what those initiatives might be.

For example, I would wonder whether or not the good work that's being done right now by our various community policing offices in our community…. They do excellent work in our respective communities. Will they be able to apply to the government to acquire some of the funds that they need to support the work they do? Many of the community policing offices in our community are actually staffed by volunteers — really, by the goodwill of the people that are there.

That said, they still need some foundational support to make that happen. At the moment, for the most part, those dollars and the funds actually come from the local government, who, as we know, have limited resources as well. So I'll be curious to know whether or not that would actually go into supporting the community policing offices, as an example.

I'll give you another example. People might think that this is not a big issue or a big deal, but it is really, especially in the urban centres. We have many, many businesses who suffer from graffiti. Graffiti also has a way of breeding, I think, activities that are not welcome in neighbourhoods. Oftentimes the businesses have to put out a lot of money to clean up the graffiti, to try to upkeep the area, for example.

In those instances, would the businesses that have suffered from this criminal activity of an attack of graffiti in their shop, in their neighbourhood, be able to access some of these funds — for example, by way of compensation — to deal with the graffiti there?

Will there be a comprehensive graffiti program that could be funded by the government on this? In fact, there was a time when there was such a program, where young people were engaged, particularly the people who were caught, in the program — directing their energies and also rehoning their energies in actually doing murals, paintings of murals, in our community as a contribution back to the community.

That was a partnership. The province at the time pulled together a variety of different people that engaged young people in a proactive, positive way in addressing the issue of graffiti. It was a very successful program.

However, over the years, of course, due to lack of funding, the program had been dismantled, and it no longer exists. So for example, would there be an opportunity to bring back such a program with this fund?

I'm also wondering about eligible victims. It says in the act that an "eligible victim" means "a person who (a) suffered pecuniary loss as a direct result of a criminal or quasi-criminal activity that resulted in forfeiture, to which this Act applies, of property."

[1645]

My question, then: is it just for the purposes of compensation? Are we only looking at pecuniary loss? Is it just about money? Is this just about financial loss for a victim, or are there other issues as well?

In particular, I think about victims of sexual assault, people who suffer tremendous trauma in those kinds of activities. They may not have — the victim, that is — suffered financial loss as a result of that criminal activity, but does that mean, though, to say that they would not be eligible for compensation?

I would argue that in cases such as that, compensation should be the appropriate thing that should be put in place. The victim may very well, as a result of the trauma that they have suffered, require, for example, counselling. Would they be able to access financial support to obtain counselling to overcome the trauma that they had experienced?

Sometimes those traumas can be very, very devastat-
[ Page 10595 ]
ing. I see it quite a lot, actually, in and around my community — the traumas that people experience in terms of a variety of different criminal activities. But I have to say that sexual assaults and violent assaults are such that it would be very, very traumatic for those individuals.

I just recently heard a case about a bus driver who was assaulted by a passenger and has suffered tremendous trauma, and injuries as well. The individual was still waiting for the court decision at the time when the story broke. In that instance, I don't think the bus driver, as an example, suffered any financial loss. But most certainly, the driver suffered significant trauma in that attack and, of course, needed additional support to overcome that. Would that individual, as an example, be eligible for compensation? These are some of the questions that I'm wondering about with respect to this bill.

The bill goes on to say, on the application for compensation, that "A person may apply, in accordance with the regulations, for compensation from the fund as an eligible victim." So the "eligible victim" terminology describes that you would be a victim if you suffer financial loss. Then also, in a later section of the act…. We don't know what the regulations are that would apply to define the nature of the compensation.

I think that those are the important parts of the details that we should learn about, that would be useful and helpful for us to know and for the community to know as well. I would hope that the minister would be amenable to suggestions from the opposition side with respect to this, because I think the scope of this needs to be broadened. I cited a couple of examples of where I think recognition of compensation would be very useful for the victims.

I want to also bring up another example, in terms of victims' support and compensation. Particularly, I want to focus in on individuals who have language barriers, as an example.

In my community — and as is the case now, broader and broader, more and more across British Columbia — we have a very diverse community where people have different language needs and different language barriers. So in order to ensure that those victims with language barriers would be able to access and know about this piece of legislation and the supports that could be in place for them…. I wonder what the minister might be planning to ensure that work is done so that the language barrier is broken down. Would it be at the scene, for example, when a crime has been reported to the police? Would there be support to the police to ensure that this information is passed along to each and every victim as they come through the door so that they will know how to access the kinds of support that they need?

I want to close with this. I think it is good to begin the process of establishing a regime of managing the assets that have been seized or forfeited under the Criminal Code and other statutes. I think it's a good step in the right direction. But I also wonder about a series of these other things that could be done, and I hope that the minister is amenable and open to that.

[1650]

I hope that in the committee stage discussion the minister will be able to provide a list of crime prevention activities and the investments which the Attorney General is already providing in the province of British Columbia so that we can establish a basemark of where we're at and then, also, some evaluation of the success of those programs and then to go forward to developing and determining additional prevention activities and strategies that should be in place.

Last but not least, I wonder whether or not the government will be working with local governments on this as well. I think the local governments who face these issues on the ground in the community would have a lot to contribute and also provide some assistance to the government as they move forward with this.

Sorry. I said, "Last but not least," and this is — what? — about the third time I've said that now. I do want to add one other thing, though, in terms of trying to partner up with the federal government, as well, and see how they could support us in this regard. I do note that the federal government brought forward a very big bill — a catch-all bill, if you will — that will have serious implications for our judicial system here and costs to our provincial government's coffers.

In that regard, I would also hope that the federal government would be amenable to ensuring that there's partnership in place, in addressing some of these issues that I know a great many British Columbians care about and would want to see cooperation across all levels of government.

Deputy Speaker: The minister will close debate.

Hon. S. Bond: Once again in the House this afternoon I think we've had the opportunity to hear some very interesting reaction to what I think, first and foremost, is going to be fantastic. I think we're actually going to agree to another justice bill. We've had the pleasure of moving a number of them through the House in a unanimous way.

I know that particularly the Attorney General's critic on the other side of the House and I are very proud of the work that we did on family law. I was very appreciative of the input and the always-probing questions that he asked. It keeps both me and my staff on our toes when we get the opportunity to work in the House together.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This bill is really about the opportunity for us to send a message in British Columbia that crime doesn't pay. In fact, we have found through the civil forfeiture process that British Columbia was a leader in setting up a regime
[ Page 10596 ]
that sent that message very clearly. If you decide to participate in criminal behaviour or behave in a criminal manner in British Columbia, we're going to make sure that wherever possible and with an appropriate mechanism, we're going to seize your assets. We are, in fact, then going to dispose of those assets and use them to the benefit of communities and victims and fantastic organizations right across the province of British Columbia.

What we discovered is that we have a very successful civil forfeiture process, and we have not seen the same kind of approach or regime in place to deal with those assets on the criminal side.

So this bill will have us put in place a management process so that we can actually see the same kind of success — I'm hopeful — that we see on the civil forfeiture side. It has been very interesting and energizing to listen to the input — lots of questions about how we compensate victims in British Columbia and what sorts of organizations…. Will this also be able to help benefit crime prevention? The member that just spoke most recently talked about community policing — extremely successful in the province of British Columbia.

So I think that there are lots of things that we can talk about as we move to committee stage. I appreciated the input of members on both sides of the House on this bill.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 28.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 28 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 28, Criminal Asset Management Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Polak: I call second reading debate on Bill 25, intituled the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2012.

BILL 25 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. S. Bond: Mr. Speaker. I move that Bill 25, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2012, now be read a second time.

[1655]

Bill 25 amends a number of statutes. Amendments to the Assessment Act will provide clear authority for B.C. Assessment to accept for assessment and taxation purposes aggregate averaged actual unit-use data in relation to strata or leasehold accommodation properties.

[D. Black in the chair.]

I have already got the attention of the Attorney General's critic. He was very pleased that I could actually express that in one sentence. He's now taken me completely off track here.

These minor amendments, I might point out to him, continue current administrative practices. The Environmental Management Act amendments authorize the cancellation of permits by regulation. The Ministry of Environment has been moving toward a regulations-based system since 2004 to standardize the requirements and provide greater certainty to industry. Stakeholders will be consulted on a sector-by-sector basis.

There are various amendments to the Local Government Act that support regional districts in providing open and transparent government and clarify accountability tools. These amendments will enable regional districts to directly engage with communities by allowing them to seek opinions on matters affecting their regions. These amendments address requests from the Union of B.C. Municipalities and provide for greater harmonization between the regional district and municipal rules.

The amendments to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act, Insurance for Crops Act and the Farm Income Insurance Act will remove the requirement for orders-in-council to be created for agreements between the province of British Columbia, the government of Canada and other provinces, and will validate past agreements for which orders were not made.

Minor amendments to the New Relationship Trust Act will lengthen and stagger the terms of office for new relationships trust directors from a two-year term to a three-year term. The NRT board requested this change to allow more continuity in management of the new relationship fund. This fund was created in 2006 with an initial $100 million contribution to help First Nations enhance their governance, leadership, institutional and human resources capacity to address social, cultural, economic needs and priorities.

The bill also makes amendments to the Park Act, which are intended to streamline some of the statutory requirements regarding the processes that are used to set park permit fees as well as some of the administrative procedures for issuing park use permits.

They also correct an error in the act by clarifying the authorities for enlarging, consolidating or modifying the boundary of a park or conservancy. These clarifications are aimed at having consistent language in the various provisions of the act. In addition, the amendments ensure that an existing regulatory authority to waive park use permit fees is correctly supported in the act.

As well, new authorities in the Park Act are also proposed so that administrative reporting requirements for park facility operators can be set out in regulation.

Finally, this bill also contains a number of housekeeping and consequential amendments.
[ Page 10597 ]

I await eagerly any comments that the members opposite might have on this large and very varied number of amendments contained in this miscellaneous bill.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast seeks leave.

Tributes

POLLY VAUGHAN

N. Simons: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for leave. I guess it's an introduction.

I just want to bring to the House's attention that this is the last day with Hansard for Polly Vaughan. I call her "the organist" up there in the perch. She's on to go to work, I believe, for the seniors representative, in the office looking after issues around seniors.

You know, on behalf of all of the members of this House, we thank everyone in Hansard, and today, on your special last day in the House, the House will wish you all the best in your future endeavours. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Hon. M. de Jong: Make sure Hansard reflects wild applause.

L. Krog: I concur with the member from Abbotsford who was the former Attorney General for his recommendations to reflect wild applause.

While I'm on my feet, hon. Speaker, I think it only fair to follow what was spoken by one of the members earlier that it is Pat Somerton's last day as well.

[1700]

So two very dedicated public servants are leaving the work they've completed in the old stone pile, as I call it sometimes, and their efforts have been much appreciated.

Debate Continued

L. Krog: Now, hon. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for her kind remarks about what probing questions may follow with respect to Bill 25. This is nothing that I get to rant and rave about today. From what I can read, there's nothing terribly exciting, and the fact that the Attorney General could actually make a humorous remark, I thought, was really quite impressive, given the nature of the legislation.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

It is an example, however, of what often occurs in this chamber that sometimes the media doesn't seem to appreciate, nor the public understand. Much of what we do in this chamber is, in fact, fairly pedestrian on occasion. It is simply doing the work that is necessary to ensure that fairness works for British Columbians, that statutes and governments get to operate in accordance with the law, and that changes are made, however small, that would hopefully benefit the public interest.

I know there are a couple of other members who wish to speak, in particular on some of the amendments that relate to their specific critic roles. As I have mentioned before, the Attorney General enjoys a rather large burden around the cabinet table, being both the Minister of Justice and Attorney General and responsible for what used to be the Solicitor General's ministry, so she gets the pleasure and honour of introducing these bills which cover, often, so many particular ministries — in this case, from Agriculture to Community, Sport and Cultural Development, local government and the Ministry of Environment.

None of these appear to be contentious on the face of it, but that is the wonder of committee stage of any bill. It's the opportunity to start asking questions, and every once in a while you find that you can't get an answer from the government's side. You somehow think you've struck gold, and eventually you get the answer you want, but it's sometimes less than satisfying because it turns out that you might actually agree with it. I would suspect that much of what is contained in this bill is utterly non-contentious.

There may be some disagreements around changes that are being made, for instance — and I know the member for Saanich South will wish to speak to this — with respect to the Farm Income Insurance Act, the Insurance for Crops Act and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act, which authorize the minister to enter into agreements without the involvement of a Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

I'm sure we're going to hear during committee stage, or perhaps the Minister of Agriculture himself may wish to speak to the bill and advise the House, why those particular changes are indeed in the public interest.

At the end of the day, that's what everything that occurs in this chamber should be about: the public interest. Public interest is based on transparency. It should be based on good faith, and it should be based on the premise that the public has a full right to understand and see justice being done and ensure that the widest possible input is made available. So shifting it from cabinet to the minister only, may or may not be a positive step forward.

The environmental amendments cover a range of things with respect to the authority to cancel permits by regulation, providing definitional changes, which on the face of it may in fact be inconsequential. But just every once in a while, there's a little change — a word here, a word there — that actually can have significance, great significance, for public policy. I suspect the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows will have a great deal to ask when it comes to committee stage around those particular sections of the bill.
[ Page 10598 ]

I'm conscious of the fact that time is running out today, that the Lieutenant-Governor is expected later in the day, and so I want to give that opportunity to my colleagues to raise the issues that they have been diligently working on. I'll take my place, assure the Attorney General that committee stage will be fun, I'm sure, but probably not a great deal of second reading debate on this bill.

L. Popham: As I rise today to contemplate the implications of Bill 25, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2012, I contemplate the implications of the amendments to the agricultural areas.

[1705]

While going through some of the details and some of the acts that it will affect, such as the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act, the Farm Income Insurance Act and the Insurance for Crops Act, I take a look at the implications of moving the decision-making power from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, otherwise known as the cabinet, over to the power of the Minister of Agriculture.

I think that in a perfect world that may be a good idea — having a Minister of Agriculture who is passionate about agriculture for all the right reasons, putting the public trust, the best interests of agriculture, forward. That may be a fine move.

Having the decision-making powers within cabinet, or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, I think maybe would bring a balanced approach to some of the decisions that have to be made around these acts. I know that, for example, with something like the agricultural land reserve and the Land Commission — decisions that are made around that — the cabinet may be split on something like that. A discussion could be had and a decision could be made that has the full interest of British Columbia.

When you look at something like that, moving into the power of one minister without any accountability, really, to any other part of government, that worries me. If the minister doesn't have the best interests at heart, decisions could be made in a way that could harm agriculture.

The idea of making the Agriculture Minister have more power could translate also into the Ministry of Agriculture being maybe thought of as a more important ministry. That is something that might be a good idea.

The idea of having one person making the decisions has never really appealed to me as far as agriculture goes. That's why, when I was first elected, I requested that the standing committee on agriculture be added to the standing committees order list.

That would be a place where things could be discussed and input could be given to somebody who was going to be making decisions around the Ministry of Agriculture. In this case, it would be the minister alone. I think that input would be very important for the minister to have to make sure that all stakeholders were involved in that decision-making.

Obviously, I don't see a lot of glaring problems with the way the legislation is written. It would be great to be asking questions in committee stage so that I could get to the bottom of some of the implications of this. Having that passed through this House, in conjunction with maybe the suggestion of a standing committee on agriculture, I think would make me feel more comfortable.

The idea that the Minister of Agriculture would be accountable and disclose information easily and be transparent is also something that is really important when power moves into the realm of one person. Going through estimates debate over the last week, I found it difficult to even get the information of how many full-time employees worked for the Minister of Agriculture. As far as my confidence in accountability and disclosure, that would worry me — when we're moving power that way.

Those are the concerns that I have. I'm always a passionate voice for agriculture. I'm always looking out for the best interest of agriculture. I'm always wanting that ministry to have a level of support that makes sure we're growing agriculture in this province in a strong way, growing the domestic economy. I'm not sure how these amendments affect the ministry as a whole, but those are things that I'll be discovering in committee stage.

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to rise on second reading of Bill 25, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2012. As has been mentioned, there are a number of areas that are covered in the bill, but as deputy critic for the environment, I wanted to focus on those that have relevance to the environment.

[1710]

I wanted to start my comments with regard to section 11, which is re the Environmental Management Act. Section 11 adds a new 129.1 that reads: "No compensation is payable and no legal proceeding for damages lies or may be commenced or maintained against the government or the minister in respect of the cancellation of a permit or approval by regulation."

I was kind of wondering if that was like the son of Boss amendment, because it reminded me quite a bit of the problem the government ran into earlier this year with the Boss Power proposal and the permitting process that they were in with regard to developing a uranium mine in the province in the southern Interior.

Interjection.

M. Sather: The member is asking me whether I'm in favour of the mines or not. Actually, I was very torn by the discussion around Boss Power, because I'm not, to answer the member's question, in favour. I'm very happy that this province has a moratorium on uranium mining.

It did come to some difficulty whereby in the end the
[ Page 10599 ]
government decided to short-circuit, I guess you could say, the process. Unfortunately, the legal proceedings were not done up to par, and it ended up in a settlement with the company, costing taxpayers some $30 million or thereabouts. You know, this is not about mining permits; this is about the Environmental Management Act.

It does look like a very sweeping section that says basically the government can't be held liable for cancelling a permit or approval by regulation. I wonder how that's going to turn out for the government in practice — whether that will be held to be legal, whether it will be challenged. It probably won't be until somebody runs into a bind, into a problem that involves the kind of thing we saw with the Boss Power agreement.

K. Krueger: You just don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you?

M. Sather: The member says I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. Well, he may get his chance. I know he's a very learned member of this House, and he may get his chance at some point — in fact, maybe following me or at least….

Interjection.

M. Sather: "No," the member says, "not a chance." Okay, I take it back.

All right, to the bill at second reading, looking at section 16 of the bill, which is amendments and changes to the Park Act. There is a fair bit in here about the Park Act. "Section 20 (1) to (4)" — of the Park Act — "is repealed and the following" sections are added to it.

If we look at subsection (3), for example, it says: "The minister may require that, before a public competition is held in respect of the issuance of a permit or a decision is made whether to issue a permit, the public be provided with an opportunity to review details and provide comments to the minister in respect of the proposed permit."

This is about public consultation, which of course is always important in a democracy. The thing, though, about that subsection is that it's discretionary upon the minister. It says he "may require" — or he may not. A lack of opportunity for the public to respond. We're talking about parks here, so a park-use permit. You know, a lot of them are routine and don't cause a great deal of concern amongst the public, but there are some that do, particularly if we're talking about resource use permits.

[1715]

Resource use is mentioned in the bill. That's something that certainly at committee stage I'll want to know more about. What is the range of permits that we're looking at with regard to this legislation? We saw the government indulge a few years ago in an endeavour, an initiative to expand resorts in parks. That certainly did cause a great deal of consternation — not only among my constituents.

We have in Golden Ears Park the most used park in the province. So that caused a great deal of concern, and in fact at this point the government hasn't proceeded with that initiative insofar as I'm aware. Hopefully, they're not going to, but that would be something to ask the minister, I think, in committee stage — about what kind of permitting we're looking at with regard to these amendments.

Now, also looking at that same section…. Sorry, (3.1) is the next one. It says: "If the minister requires public consultation under subsection (3), the minister must publish in the prescribed manner details respecting the proposed permit, the period during which the minister will accept comments from the public and the address to which those comments should be sent."

There's an intent for the government to use digital media, digital means to communicate with folks, and it is a digital world now. That's a good idea. I don't think anybody would have any difficulty with that. It's just that we don't want to see any loss of accountability in the process.

Also of interest, there's no mention of a committee, whereas in the Park Act, under section 20, "Issuing permits…." Actually, no. The section I'm looking at is section 3(b) and it says: "written approval for issuing the permit" — and this is under the Park Act — "is given by a majority of a committee composed of (i) the deputy minister, or his or her designate, as chair, and (ii) 2 park officers designated by a director."

There you have a committee of three, which will give approval or lack of approval to a park use permit, and two of those three are park officers. I think generally park officers not only have obviously a lot of knowledge about parks, probably understandably more than a minister of the Crown would, but they also have, generally speaking, certainly a pretty high degree of favour and acceptance amongst the public. I'm sure higher than our profession, but that's maybe not…. Much higher than our profession I expect.

So there's a loss of that in this these amendments — that there won't be that committee process, and it's giving more discretion to the government. The minister said in her opening comments, with regard to regulations, and there are a number of sections talking about the use of regulations….

The minister talked about how the government is moving to a regulations-based system and has done so since 2004. There again, regulations are totally necessary. We have regulations particularly with any larger pieces of legislation, but there again, the public probably are not aware that a regulation is of a different standing, if you will. It doesn't come before this House to be passed. It's passed by an order-in-council of cabinet, and therefore we often….

The public sometimes doesn't know what's taking place. Regulations are necessary, but I'm a little bit concerned about perhaps the overuse of regulations and the overdependence upon them.

[1720]

Perhaps the government feels that that makes permitting more light of foot, I suppose, easier to institute.

Certainly, this government has indicated and the Premier has indicated that she wants to speed up approvals of projects throughout the province. We, of course, want to see a well-functioning system as well, but at the same time, certainly, being very cognizant of the need to protect our environment. As we suffer more assaults on our environment — not only from our own use as the "dominant species" on the planet, but also the assaults that are coming upon us with climate change — we can't afford to not be really cautious about any steps that can negatively affect the environment.

Under this legislation, still on section 16, (3.3) says: "The minister, in a permit, may waive payment of amounts referred to in subsection (3.2)." And under the Park Act it said: "Subject to this Act, and only on receiving payment of the prescribed fees, the minister may issue a permit…."

I'll be curious to know from the minister, when we get to the committee stage, in what circumstances the government, the ministry, might want to waive payments. We've all got to pay our way. We don't want to gouge anyone, but at the same time, we're often short of operating capital in the government. I'd be curious to know what economic effect that might have — waiving fees.

Now, there's no statutory minimum notice by electronic means, and there's removal of — although I think I read in there somewhere that there may be some exceptions — public notification through regional and provincial newspapers. I think we'd like to see that retained. I know that sometimes those notices are small, and people don't often see them. I don't know how the electronic notification is going to happen, exactly, but that will be a question that we can ask the minister for more clarification on, on how that would take place.

Looking at the Park Act in section 17, it restricts the minister to setting application and administration fees only, whereas under the Park Act it didn't restrict payment to these fees. But it didn't say there either, as far as I could see, what other fees could be for. There again is a good area to have some discussion with the minister. I suppose in this case it'll be the Minister of Environment on these sections, on what fees are contemplated or not by this legislation.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It was interesting to me, too, to look through some of the sections that led from the Park Act to…. I'm not sure what section it was now. The section in the Park Act, I think, I can find here fairly readily. I believe it was under section 30 in the Park Act, "Permits and licences for Schedule D parks," and I wasn't clear whether that was no longer in effect as a result of this legislation. That again is something we can discuss further.

With that, I conclude my remarks.

[1725]

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

Hon. S. Bond: Once again, I know we'll have the opportunity to walk through this bill in committee stage, section by section, but for now I appreciate the comments that have been made.

I move second reading of Bill 25.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 25, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2012, 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.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, if you would just remain in your chairs, the Lieutenant-Governor should be in the precinct soon.

[1730-1735]

Royal Assent to Bills

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested attendance to the House, was admitted to the chamber and took his seat on the throne.

Deputy Clerk:

Attorney General and Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2011

Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2011

Auditor General for Local Government Act

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Supply Act (No. 1), 2012

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this act.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[1740]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, as we're coming up to the Easter break, I want to wish everyone well. Spend some time back home with your families. I know that most people believe that when you're back in your con-
[ Page 10601 ]
stituencies it's easy going, but most times it's a lot of hard work that people have when they get back at their offices. I know for Good Friday and through Easter I would hope that all of us would spend a little extra time with our families and our children — and our grandchildren, for some of us. Certainly, I want to wish everyone well over the next couple weeks.

Hon. R. Coleman: It's a good possibility that No. 3 will arrive over that period of time in the grandchildren department. I hope to be able to come back with news for the House.

Hon. R. Coleman moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned till April 16 at 10 a.m.

The House adjourned at 5:41 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:47 p.m.

On Vote 22: ministry operations, $99,366,000 (continued).

V. Huntington: I just wanted to comment that I made an error in my earlier comments with regard to the South Fraser perimeter road and the contracts being let. I just wanted to make sure the record showed that I erred. It was an issue of distance — not on the contracts that were let individually. That did not mean that I erred when I spoke about the Malahat.

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

R. Fleming: I wanted to continue asking the minister some questions about the environmental assessment office, which we adjourned on this morning. I wanted to ask him about some active project applications, beginning with the Prosperity mine application, which I think is renamed New Prosperity.

This is currently before the province's environmental assessment office, although I'm not clear whether the province is doing a new or additional environmental assessment from the one that was previously approved but declined by the federal government.

The question that I think I want to begin with is to look at the marked divergence between the federal conclusions and the provincial conclusions on this project application, which was declined in 2010.

I think I will quote Jim Prentice, who was Canada's Environment Minister at that time. He referred to why he supported the scientists that advised him in turning down the mine application. He characterized the scientific comments he received as "so pronounced, so scathing in terms of the environmental effects that cabinet considered this and has followed the panel's recommendation that the adverse environmental effects are such that we cannot approve this project."

He added comments to describe the mine being predicated on the loss of an entire ecosystem. And he concluded, in a science-based manner with the information that he received from those that report to him, that that mine could not and should not proceed.

[1450]

Now, the Environment Minister knows that the B.C. environmental assessment office reached a different conclusion. In fact, the then executive director recommended the mine application, and the minister approved it.

I wanted to ask the minister for his thoughts on how there was such a wide divergence on that project and — in looking at how vast the gulf was between the two regulatory authorities that looked at the same mine application — whether it calls for a review of how the decision was made in B.C., what information was missing and how they came to a conclusion that was simply not supported and utterly rejected by the federal government?

Hon. T. Lake: The member opposite has been Environment critic longer than I have been Environment Minister. I know that he knows that the answer to that question is that the criteria by which projects are judged in the federal environmental assessment process and the provincial environmental process are somewhat different.

The provincial environmental assessment process is a balance. While environmental effects are certainly extremely important, other parameters are considered as well, including the social effects, the economic effects, effects on health and effects on heritage. So the processes are different.

What I will say is that over the last few years we have been working closely with the federal government to try to harmonize those processes. The public is, I think, rightly confused when you have duplications, or apparent duplications, of processes, especially when different criteria are used in those processes.

So we have been working with the federal government.
[ Page 10602 ]
Some examples of the combined processes that have been working well include Ajax mine, for instance, where we have been working in a combined federal-provincial process. There are a number of other projects around the province. That certainly seems to be the indication, from what the federal minister has relayed to us as a result of the budget announced in Ottawa today.

While there are certainly similarities in the two processes in the past in terms of the enormous consideration given to the environment, the B.C. process also included other important considerations. The conditions that are put on any environmental certificate served to mitigate some of the adverse effects that were identified in the process along the way.

So in that particular case it is important to note that there were over 100 conditions attached to that environmental certificate. It is not as if it was just "Go ahead and do your thing." These conditions are part of the certificate. They're binding on the proponent. We discussed earlier how we are improving our processes in terms of compliance and enforcement of those conditions once the certificate has been issued.

R. Fleming: I think that in terms of the so-called redundancy that the minister just spoke of with regards to this project, most people in British Columbia would be thankful for that redundancy because one regulatory agent made the right decision and one made the wrong decision. That's not just my view of it. That's now the company's view of it.

The company has said: "Yes, that application was wrong. We could have done better. We could have spent more. We could have additionally mitigated many of the concerns that Canada rightfully identified but B.C. failed to detect."

I want to ask the minister about this again — how these two divergent conclusions could have been reached when they were looking at the same project, when the Ministry of Environment was working with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and getting the same information from DFO about the threat to fish habitat, the threat to the ecosystem around that watershed in the mine application area. They had some of the science that the federal government had and reached a completely different conclusion.

Hon. T. Lake: Asked and answered, Mr. Chair.

[1455]

R. Fleming: He has not answered, Chair. He's not answered adequately at all.

It's a concern because this minister and this government are now pushing the federal government to have the B.C. environmental assessment deemed equivalent and therefore get the federal government out of the business of doing environmental assessments for mining applications and all sorts of environmental assessments in British Columbia.

They want deemed equivalent an environmental assessment that in this example, the Prosperity mine application, utterly failed the people of British Columbia — failed to reach the same conclusions and make the same environmental observations and science-based discoveries that the federal process did.

I'm sorry; that answer isn't good enough. The question was not answered by the minister, and the question remains the same. How, in his view, did the B.C. environmental assessment office come to such a radically divergent conclusion than the federal office? And will he consider, if he hasn't done so already, ordering a special review of how those environmental assessments concluded?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I have answered the question. But I will say this. For the member to state that all British Columbians agree with his point of view is ridiculous. Talk to the people in Williams Lake. Talk to the people who own businesses in Williams Lake, and ask them what they think of the B.C. environmental assessment decision versus the federal government's decision.

The member opposite is advocating for bigger government. I understand that. That's what he stands for. He also stands for a process that says no to everything. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: the NDP answer to everything is more money and "at the end of the day, let's just prevent any kind of development in the province of British Columbia." If that's the NDP's stand, why don't you just come out clearly and say it?

What we want is an efficient and effective environmental assessment process. Here in British Columbia we are proud of our environmental assessment process. We are continuing to improve that process, as discussed this morning.

The fact is, as I explained, there were different criteria used in the two processes in the past. We have worked closely with our federal counterparts to harmonize. And regardless of whether there's one process or not, certainly, officials from the federal government — those involved with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, for instance; those involved with the Ministry of Transportation; those officials and experts — would still be involved in a one-project, one-process approach, which is the effective and efficient and timely way to assess projects that impact the environment here in B.C.

R. Fleming: I don't know how the minister can accuse me of being an advocate for big government and all sorts of views that he has just put upon me, when I quoted Jim Prentice, a Conservative Environment Minister, who rendered a decision in Ottawa that was as I described. I don't know if he's calling Mr. Prentice an advocate of big government and against jobs, and anti-development and a
[ Page 10603 ]
process that says no. But perhaps he can clarify if that's what he means, because I used his words to ask the minister to comment on how his agency came to such a different conclusion.

I want to ask him about the New Prosperity application and how his government is treating this new application. Will it require a new review? They, of course, approved as environmentally acceptable the one that was rejected by the federal government in 2010, so the review for them was completed. But this is a new application. Are they treating it as such? And is there a new review coming from British Columbia?

Hon. T. Lake: The environmental assessment certificate granted to Taseko Mines for the Prosperity project still stands. The company has applied for a new application to the federal government and, as is their right, under the provincial process has applied for an amendment to their certificate for British Columbia.

We will be working with the federal government. We are consulting with them to determine how we can coordinate with the process through which the federal government is undergoing to make sure that we get all of the relevant information that is required to do a timely and effective review of the application for an amendment to their certificate.

[1500]

R. Fleming: The new application is different. The destruction of Fish Lake, for example, as tailings ponds is not contemplated, but there are new tailings impoundment facilities that undoubtedly will pose different environmental risks. They need to be studied because they're sited differently in the mine area.

Is the minister going to be conducting a new review on the new facilities that are proposed in this reconfigured mine application as well as going back and looking at some of the fish and fish habitat and grizzly bear studies in the South Chilcotin region, the navigation issues that were looked at by the federal regulators?

Of course, there is, I think, an onus upon the provincial government to consult with First Nations again. The traditional values there that were…. The First Nations at a certain point stopped participating in the initial provincial environmental assessment. I would think that the minister would not be satisfied with such a situation and would be trying to engage them in this new amended application.

Those are the questions I have for the minister about how this mine application is going forward.

Hon. T. Lake: I just wanted to be clear that the divergent decisions on that project are the only one project in British Columbia in which that occurred. I've explained the potential reasons for that, given the different parameters. The proponent has applied for an amendment to the certificate. As the minister responsible for the decision after the process is completed, I have no opinion on that proposal.

The environmental assessment office will work with the proponent and will determine the needs of the application for the amendment to the certificate, and we will work through that process. I'm not going to jump to any conclusions. We actually like to base our decisions on evidence rather than speculation, so we will wait to see the outcome of the process for the amendment through the environmental assessment office.

R. Fleming: Can the minister then update what stage and what work is being currently undertaken by the environmental assessment office on the amended application?

Hon. T. Lake: The application for an amendment to the certificate has been received. We are again, as I mentioned, reviewing the application and working with our federal counterparts to look at ways and means of coordinating the review of the amendment with the federal review of what they consider a new application.

We're consulting with First Nations and the proponent on the proposed procedures for the review of the amendment. So we are at the very early stages — engaging First Nations, talking with the proponent and talking with our federal counterparts.

R. Fleming: Could the minister give a timeline, then, approximately? Has the 180-day trigger been…? Is it in effect now, or is this a preapplication to amend the permit that was already granted by the province?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, there are no timelines on amendment applications. However, the federal government has committed to a review within, I believe, a one-year period. We want to make sure that we coordinate with the federal government to the greatest extent possible. I think our process will certainly be informed by the federal timelines.

The Chair: I've been giving some considerable leeway, and this is an important issue, but I'd like to make sure that the member gets back to the relevance to the budget estimates before us.

R. Fleming: Yeah, I will ask about a few more active applications that have, obviously, budgetary costs associated with them in terms of the work and the resources provided in this budget for this agency.

I would like to ask about the Raven underground coal project here on Vancouver Island. I know that's in the preapplication stage right now. I wanted to ask, first of all, if the minister can describe whether the project team for the office has changed recently or during the response
[ Page 10604 ]
period where the proponent is now responding to issues that were raised during the public input process.

[1505]

Hon. T. Lake: A new project lead was put in place about four months ago, but essentially, the working group remains intact. The working group that has been part of this application remains the same. It's not unusual to have new project leads. Some of the timelines associated with these applications even…. Actually, sometimes the preapplication stage is the longest part of the process, and it's not unusual to have changes in personnel on these projects through that time period.

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister can describe for me the comprehensive study review that is being performed by the federal government. The MLA for the area, who is also the Minister of Agriculture, was asked by stakeholders in his constituency to demand a joint review panel with the federal government. That was, of course, not done. I'm not sure if the request was received by the Minister of Environment, but the province did not make that request.

So we have a comprehensive study in place, a lower tier of federal assessment in this area. I'm wondering if he can describe for me where that process is at, what the timelines are and how the province works with the federal government to come to a completion of their assessments at or around approximately the same time.

Hon. T. Lake: The application is currently in the application information requirements stage. Just to give you a bit of a background, from May 18 to June 27, 2011, the joint federal-provincial public comment period on the draft application was held. This is the character of the environmental assessment process. There's a lot of work done up front on the application itself to make sure that the needs and the concerns of the community and the relevant authorities are met in the application process. That ended on June 27, 2011.

There were over 3,000 comments received by the environmental assessment office and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Then from November 15 to 29 there was another, additional, two-week public comment period. Whenever you have a large project near a large population centre, it's not unusual to get more reaction, more response, more concerns. We recognize that, so we want to make sure that we're flexible enough to take the time to listen to the concerns of the public.

The current setting is that the environmental assessment office and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency are reviewing the draft application information requirements. We look at the application to assess how issues identified by the public and the working group have been addressed. Again, I think that's an important component of the process. Just because someone applies for something and gets their certificate doesn't mean that the initial application, the initial idea, was approved.

It's a very iterative process. Issues are brought through the concerns of the public, through the concerns of the working group. They go back to the proponent and say: "How are you going to manage this? Before you even apply, how are you going to mitigate or avoid this potential problem that has been identified either by experts in the field or by the public?"

[1510]

Then the proponent has to go back and decide how they are going to meet those concerns in their application information requirements. The working group then looks at it and decides whether or not they think it's adequate. If it's not adequate, we'll go back to the proponent with comments as to some of the potential weaknesses of the application. Until an application meets those requirements, it is not put into the 180-day period assessment.

R. Fleming: During the public comment period, which was extensive — and the minister correctly pointed out the vast volume of responses that were received from members of the public and experts that made their views known — one of the consistent concerns that was expressed by people living near the minesite was around the lack of comprehensive aquifer mapping. These are people who rely on the groundwater drinking water sources — and that mapping and modelling was not available to the Raven coal proponents

There are significant watersheds in the area: the Cowie or Cougar Smith Creek, the Tsable River, the Wilfred or Coal Creek and the Hindoo Creek — all of which flow into Baynes Sound, which is, of course, one of the most productive shellfish aquaculture areas in the province. So there are a lot of hydrology concerns here. There are a lot of dynamics, both with the surface water and the groundwater here. As it turns out, in this area it was felt that there was a huge information gap, both for government and the proponents.

I'm wondering, since those concerns were consistently expressed, whether government has been able to respond and provide information and put resources into looking at how the hydrology and groundwater systems work in that area and where they might be potentially impacted by the mine.

Hon. T. Lake: The member mentioned the B.C. Shellfish Growers Association's concern about aquifer mapping. This was addressed in the application information requirements. Preliminary mapping is available, but it's recognized that some further work will likely be required because groundwater flow modelling is an evolving and iterative process. There are different methods of obtaining this. I don't want to presuppose anything, because as the minister, I don't direct the working group or get involved in those sorts of things. I have to maintain a distance from the process while ensuring that the
[ Page 10605 ]
process is working well.

One of the things that the working group may decide as they are examining the application is to say: "Before we take this application in, we'd like you to go back and do some more modelling." Or they may say, as a condition of the certificate if it were to be granted, that that modelling has to occur before any work was done. There are different ways of getting to the concerns expressed by various groups. It's not unusual, however, to go back to the proponent and say: "Before we accept this application, we would like to see more work done in this area."

Those concerns were noted through the consultative process and will be dealt with by the working group. I can't presume that that's what they're talking about right now, but it certainly could be one of the things that they would go back to the proponent with.

That's how the process works. Whether or not that is how it will work in this case remains to be seen. As I say, there are different methods of getting to the same end result to deal with or mitigate the concerns identified by stakeholders and the public in the application information requirements stage.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask if the minister was referring to the working group that is composed of federal and provincial…. No? Okay. He mentioned that they have a number of things before them. Does he have an idea, though, when their work will be completed?

[1515]

I think the residents in this area are watching this mine application. They have made their comments. The company has responded to some of them. They wanted an additional opportunity to respond to the response. So I'm unable to determine when might be a realistic time for the working group to respond to the serious concerns that were raised.

Hon. T. Lake: It is difficult to put hard timelines on this process. We don't actually want to put hard timelines on it because there may be situations in which the required information takes time to obtain. It may be, in some cases, that the proponent is perhaps unable to provide that information in a certain time. There may be situations where the proponents, investors, will not give the green light to take something further.

All of these projects are large projects that require a great deal of financial investment. We don't have the ability to say to the proponent: "We'd like this information; we'd like it Tuesday." We want to make sure that we give adequate time for the right information to be processed.

As I mentioned, the beginning stage of the application of the environmental assessment, and the application stage, is often the most critical. That determines what the problems are, how you will mitigate those, and really is reflected in the final application, because it is often very, very different from the initial application.

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister could describe — not just for this project, although this might be a good example — how the environmental assessment office measures the greenhouse gas implications of the projects that are associated with the project. Not the offshore combustion GHGs, but the ones that are produced in our jurisdiction.

Is that part of the assessment criteria now that is available for him to determine the social, economic and environmental pros and cons of each project application? In other words, is there a climate change lens that is put to these project applications?

Hon. T. Lake: Certainly, the climate action secretariat plays a role in the environmental assessment, providing expert information to the office as they are assessing greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project — or perhaps avoided by a project.

It is a consideration that is taken into account. For instance, a couple of recent projects, a run-of-river project…. There was comment about the greenhouse gases that are avoided by having a clean-energy project — same with a wind farm.

Other projects, like a mine, for instance, would create greenhouse gases, so there's an estimate put on, in terms of the amount of greenhouse gases, as there is about dust and air quality. All of those factors are considered in terms of their impact on the environment.

[1520]

R. Fleming: I thank the minister for that response. I want to ask him about British Columbia's participation in the joint review panel between the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency on the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline.

As the minister knows, unlike Alberta, B.C. has not entered the JRP as a government. Instead, B.C. is classed as an intervener, and there are about 200 of those in this process. The province, at this point in time, as an intervener — as one of many, 200 interveners — is not required to provide testimony or to respond to any written or oral questions that arise during the process. As of, I think, when this set of estimates started, B.C. has not offered any testimony or submitted any evidence to the panel as yet.

So I wanted to ask the minister some questions just about the decision not to seek government status in this process. Alberta has, as I mentioned, entered the JRP as a government. Several federal agencies have also entered the process, and there are even five local governments, municipal levels of government from British Columbia that are registered on the panel.

Can the minister explain why British Columbia has not availed itself of the opportunity to participate in this joint review process as a government?
[ Page 10606 ]

Hon. T. Lake: I would be happy to.

Last year in estimates debate this question came up. At that time we were…. It was early stages, and we were looking at our participation. I said at that time that we would likely participate as a government participant. However, the member for Stikine — a colleague of the member opposite — suggested that an intervener status would provide more advantages for the province, as interveners can ask written information requests of the northern gateway and all other participants and can question them at the final hearing.

By comparison, government participants must receive panel approval prior to asking information requests of other interveners or government participants and prior to questioning them at the final hearing.

What I'm hearing the member saying is that he prefers Alberta's approach to his own colleague's approach and the choice that we made after listening to the member for Stikine. Further analysis of the difference in the two processes…. We believe intervener status gives us more flexibility and more options to represent the interests of British Columbians, as did the member for Stikine, the colleague of the Environment critic.

R. Fleming: Well, while I'm happy to hear that the minister takes the advice of opposition members in the estimates process.

Interjection.

R. Fleming: Used to.

I think a better explanation than that I would seek this afternoon in terms of…. The minister has categorized it as the intervener status giving the province more flexibility and options. It is a lower form of participation and does not give the province any ability to cross-examine or respond or present as a government. The agency that is assisting him with questions does not have that status. The province does not have that status. They do so at the federal level.

My question to the minister, again, is why his government took the intervener option rather than the government status, given that, in fact, that's an avenue to have fewer options of participation in the JRP. A secondary question to this is if B.C. is going to submit testimony or do anything during the JRP. Because so far, as I mentioned, nothing has been submitted to this process. I think people want to anticipate whether the province is going to provide testimony in the near future.

Hon. T. Lake: Clearly, the member is at odds with his colleague. I will reiterate and correct the member in terms of the ability of an intervener to ask questions of other participants and also to ask questions at the final hearing — without panel approval, I might say.

[1525]

We do believe that intervener status gives B.C. the best opportunity to represent the interests of British Columbia. We are actively involved. We're doing a technical assessment of the northern gateway application. We are monitoring the hearings as they proceed, and we will base our future participation on information that we glean from the technical assessment as well as information that is provided that we're closely monitoring. Then we will make a decision whether to present at final hearings based on that information.

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister can outline what permit or permitting is going to be covered by the agreement with the federal environmental assessment agency and what the environmental assessment office role will be in this process.

Hon. T. Lake: The environmental assessment office does not get directly involved in the permitting. The line ministries are involved. I think there are about 70 permits that we estimate would be needed in a project of this magnitude.

Most of those permits would be issued by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Certainly they could canvass that with the minister, but the environmental assessment office has an agreement with the federal government in terms of the types of projects that are carried out by the federal government.

The member opposite was holding up the federal process as the gold standard. Well, in cases of interprovincial jurisdiction — like a pipeline, for instance, that goes across borders — we have an agreement with the federal government that there would be one project, one process. However, we are participating as an intervener, as mentioned, and we'll represent the best interests of British Columbians through that process.

R. Fleming: Yes, I understand that there are a number of line ministries that are involved with issuing permitting and authorizations. And of course there are a number of areas in the Ministry of Environment. I just want to list a few and then ask him how this work is being done congruently with the JRP.

Permits would have to be issued, for example, or authorizations given for tunnel development and waste handling; temporary work camps; management and treatment of wastewater and waste management; borrow pits and quarries; excavation material and how it's managed, including the stockpiles, construction worksite storage and staging areas, handling and storage of petroleum products and hazardous materials, compressor stations; and then of course spill prevention, monitoring, mitigation and response.

That's a very significant piece of work that the province and his ministry are required to do. So far there has been no testimony to the JRP. I'm wondering what work is be-
[ Page 10607 ]
ing done behind the scenes in anticipation and looking at the specs for this project application in the areas where the province will be required to play this regulatory role.

Hon. T. Lake: I mentioned earlier that the environmental assessment office is leading a technical review of the application to identify what the member is referring to — all the necessary permits that would come later. If the proponent were to apply for those permits, then we would do the work that's associated with those.

[1530]

In the provincial process we have concurrent permitting processes so that while the environmental assessment office is doing their work, some work can be done on permit applications. Until there is an application in front of us for a permit, however, we can't speculate on what it would be. However, the technical review being led by the environmental assessment office will certainly give us a better idea of what the need will be for provincial permitting, should the National Energy Board joint review panel approve the project.

R. Fleming: I know that the minister hasn't commented on the application, but the federal resources minister, the Prime Minister, the provincial Minister of Finance have all taken to the airwaves to talk about the National Energy Board process as one that is being hijacked, the word that was being used, by radical ideological groups. Some of them were even labelled as foreign-influenced. There is a terrible clamour of maligning from political officials on those who have registered to participate in this process.

Testimony is going on now. There are hearings scheduled for the remainder of the spring, through the summer and the fall. This is the kind of political pressure that is being put on not just by the federal government and the federal Conservative leaders, but by certain members of his cabinet.

I am wondering if the minister thinks that that is appropriate or helpful or whether that places difficulties on the independence of the panelists and political pressure upon them and otherwise deters from the process as it should be done.

Hon. T. Lake: Our government has been on the record as saying that we respect the process, that we will make our judgment based on evidence and not speculation. That is certainly my position, that we will participate in the process. We will follow the process. We won't prejudge the outcome.

As far as I'm aware, there are no restrictions on who can comment, who can participate. I don't have any worries about who is participating in that process. We're following it. We certainly will represent the views of British Columbia and protect the interests of British Columbia in that process. I won't speak on behalf of any other elected officials but to say that we want to respect the process, and we are following it closely.

R. Fleming: Would the minister consider it irresponsible, then, for other elected officials to do what I have described, which is to not only attack the process but to attack the participants and the motives of the participants — to impugn things about them, about their loyalties and about their motivation for wanting to participate in this hearing and having a view on the project itself? A lot of it is happening right now.

A lot of observers are saying that this is not at all helpful. I want the minister to have an opportunity on the record, because some of his colleagues are indulging in this behaviour. It is not just Prime Minister Harper and the Resources Minister. It is members of his own cabinet that are doing it as well. I just want to ask him whether he thinks that is responsible for an elected official to engage in that.

Hon. T. Lake: I don't feel the need to comment on the behaviour of other elected officials, Mr. Chair.

H. Lali: I would like to ask some questions of the minister regarding the Ajax mine. This proposed Ajax mine — 50 percent of the actual proposal for the mine site is in the minister's riding.

Interjection.

H. Lali: Okay, it's in the other guy's riding. Kamloops–South Thompson — is that what it is?

[1535]

The minister's riding is Kamloops–North Thompson. My apologies. It's in the other gentleman's riding, and then 50 percent of it is in my constituency. But it does have an effect on the minister's constituents as well, because he shares a portion of the city of Kamloops with the member for Kamloops–South Thompson.

Obviously, all three MLAs would have an interest in this. As far as the physical locale of the proposed minesite, half is in the member for Kamloops–South Thompson's constituency, and half of it is in mine. Specifically for me, it's in the Lac Le Jeune and the Knutsford areas, which are in my constituency.

There are a lot of residents who live in my constituency and are concerned about this particular mine proposal that is coming forward. The area is actually a grasslands area with lots of hills, streams, lakes and vegetation in the proposed minesite area. Obviously, I have a lot of questions that I'm going to be asking — some of them here, because I understand the limitations of time.

I would like the minister to tell me, on behalf of my constituents: what is the minister's understanding regarding some of the negative effects on the surrounding environment, including land, air and water in the
[ Page 10608 ]
city of Kamloops, as a result of, say, the mine coming into fruition?

Hon. T. Lake: I mentioned earlier — I think before the member came into the room — whenever you have a large project, such as the proposed Ajax mine, next to a large population centre, the level of concern that you will get is proportionately greater. That's totally understandable. It's the reason that the environmental assessment office increased the public consultation period to the maximum 75 days.

They formed a community organization advisory committee to help with the process. In the working group they have representatives from the city of Kamloops, from First Nations, from all of the people that are experts in the various fields. The application information requirements stage, as mentioned earlier, is where all of those concerns are identified.

For instance, the city of Kamloops had a concern about potential impacts on transmission lines, on roads in the area and asked whether those would be considered in the environmental assessment process. The answer was, "Of course," because it's not just the natural environment but the built environment. All of the impacts that are identified through a rigorous preapplication stage are dealt with by the working group once the application is received.

I'm certainly aware of the concerns that some people have, certainly aware of proponents who talk about the other impacts which may be more socioeconomic. But as the minister responsible — ultimately, one of the ministers responsible — for making a decision at the direction and the recommendation of the director, I don't pass judgment on those because it's at the very, very early stage of the process.

We want to collect the information, collect the evidence, much like a judge or jury would expect to hear from both sides, and listen to all the information before making a judgment. That is the role of the ministers that are responsible for the decision at the end of the day.

H. Lali: I was wondering: has the minister had an opportunity to actually go out and tour the proposed mine development site?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I own a house about a kilometre away, but I've not specifically toured the site, as I don't for projects around the province. We're currently looking at a wind energy project, and I don't go on site to look at that. I think that it is…. Because this one is conveniently close to where I live doesn't mean that I should give this one any more attention or treat it any differently than any other project around the province.

I believe it is not the role of the Environment Minister to go and do a site tour of the 69 projects that are currently in the environmental assessment process.

H. Lali: I can understand the minister's concern: 69 projects would be quite onerous, given the time limitations that we have. But I can share with the minister that when I first became Minister of Transportation and Highways in 1998, one of the first things that I did….

[1540]

Interjection.

H. Lali: He only had two highways back then, I think.

At that time I made it a point of actually travelling every major corridor. I understand that a person obviously can't, due to time limitations, do all 69 of the sites that he's talked about or the hundreds of highways and the side roads and that, that we have in the province. But I made it a point of travelling the corridor and stopping off at many of the main communities and actually talking to the stakeholders — the ministry officials, the mayors and councillors, the regional district reps, chambers of commerce, the economic development commissions, First Nations.

They were all invited to these meetings. Sometimes they were public meetings, but often they were meetings in rooms such as this where all of the stakeholders could be present to talk about highways issues. I also did site tours of many of the projects that were ongoing, some of them that were proposed, some of them where there were ideas for funding for the future, and even the regional advisory committees that were set up in a number of areas of the province that wanted certain highways and projects done.

I did that. I did that for every major highway, including the Trans-Canada Highway, the Coquihalla Highway system, Highway 97, Highway 3 all the way to the Alberta border. And also other areas of the province — Vancouver Island. I did that. You know, the best thing that came out of there was that as minister I had an understanding that I would not have had, had I not actually done that.

It was so beneficial to be able to talk to the people who actually execute the transportation and highways projects on our behalf and, at the same time, talk to the people who live there, to see firsthand what those projects look like and develop the three-year plan accordingly. It met, not the needs of every community or individual that had an issue, but came forward with a plan that was acceptable to the vast majority of the people to look after those interests.

When the minister says that he hasn't and he has no intention of actually going out to visit all of these sites, that is of concern. One of the things the minister ought to be doing is actually going out there and looking at the situation firsthand. After all, the minister is the Minister of Environment.

Of course, when you're looking at any kind of development, there is a certain aspect of the disruption of that en-
[ Page 10609 ]
vironment. If that is not a priority for the minister, I don't know what is. It's in his backyard. As he says, he's about a kilometre away. I would think the minister should be interested in going out and talking.

Will the minister make a point of actually going out and visiting the site? He can do it either with the proponents, or he can do that with the folks who live there who have concerns. Is he interested in doing that and actually meeting with some of the people who it's going to affect directly?

Hon. T. Lake: I commend the member for his work ethic. I understand he was in here sharpening all the pencils before the meeting too.

There are over 200 provincial parks that we have. We have over 200 provincial parks, and I try to get to as many provincial parks as I can, but I can't get to every provincial park. I don't think anyone would expect me to go to every provincial park, check every facility in every provincial park, go to every single project that is considered, even if it's in the preapplication stage, all around the province of British Columbia.

The member perhaps has a different idea of what a minister's role is, but I'm sure the member did not go and walk the proposed route of proposed highways before they were built. This is what we're talking about. We're talking about proposals.

For me to give special attention to one proposal over another, I think, would call into question the objectivity of the minister who has to make the final decision on the project. The role of the working group is to go on the ground and look at these projects and get information back. It is not the role of the minister to go and examine every potential project in the province of British Columbia, nor should it be.

[1545]

H. Lali: Judging from that answer, it's obvious that the minister's pencil is dull. I don't think the minister quite understands his responsibility. The minister is the Minister of Environment. Not only is he supposed to look at all the legislative and regulatory framework as it involves the environment, as for developments — whether it's a mine or something that's recreation-based — but he's also the chief advocate.

This minister is the chief advocate for the environment. In this case that environment is his backyard. It's in his backyard. He just admitted on the record that he lives a kilometre away from there.

What he says is that it's not his job to go out there and look at and tour. Nobody said to go out and tour all 69 sites, because no one has the time. But there are a few that are ongoing that he ought to be looking at. It's in his backyard. Whether it's physically located in his constituency is not the point.

The point is that he's in the community that he lives in, the city of Kamloops. He lives in Kamloops, and it's in Kamloops's backyard. The minister says it's not his role to be able to do that.

That tells me the lack of understanding that this minister has of the needs of people who live in his backyard, of my constituents and of the constituents of the member for Kamloops–South Thompson and the concerns that are raised by those people who live there. He can't make the effort to actually meet with the people who live, who are going to be affected directly, in his own backyard. That's what the minister says — that he doesn't have the time.

Judging from the answer he gives, he doesn't care to go out there and meet with these people. That's the minister's attitude. That's the attitude with which he's moving forward with this.

On one side, we've got the Prosperity, where there was a joint process. My colleague from Victoria did a fantastic job in raising some of those issues. Could the minister put on the record why it is that he did not agree to a joint process with the federal government in terms of an environmental review on this proposal that is before us?

Hon. T. Lake: First of all, for the record, I didn't say I lived a kilometre away. I said I owned a house a kilometre away. I happen to live in downtown Kamloops, which is a little further.

The role of the Minister of Environment is different than the role of an MLA. The member opposite also said that I wouldn't meet with people that were concerned about this. That's not true either. I have met with people that are concerned about this. I talk with people in the city of Kamloops and elsewhere about this. I explain the process. I don't prejudge the process. I don't tell them they're right or wrong. I ask them to get involved in the process. In fact, the environment assessment office has gone out of their way to ensure that the public process has been maximized in this case.

The member opposite seems to think that because it is near where I live that I should give this project special attention. I think that's a disservice to every other part of the province — that the Environment Minister would give special treatment to the area in which he lives. That may be the way the member likes to govern. It's not the way that I see my role as a member of the executive council.

H. Lali: Therein lies the problem. The minister does not know his own role. I never asked him to just visit one proposed site of a particular mine — never said that. What I asked the minister…. Even go through the Hansard and find a place where I said that. What I said to the minister is that he would have some time to look at some of them across the province that are of an emergent nature. This one happens to be in his backyard.

The people of Kamloops — whether they're for the
[ Page 10610 ]
mine or against the mine, or whether they're for the environment or not…. Whatever their stand is, what people want is a fair process. They want a minister who has a role in all of this, at the end of the day, and a minister who is well-informed.

For the intentions of his own information to be well-informed, the suggestion that I made was for the minister to actually go out and have a look at the proposed minesite and, at the same time, to talk to the people who it's going to directly affect. He's the decision-maker who sits at the cabinet table, where it's going to have a decision on the lives of the people who live here.

Whether it's the people who are looking for jobs in the mining industry or those people who already have jobs in agriculture, in the area of recreation and environment and whatever have you — all of those folks are fearful that their jobs would be lost and that their lives are going to be disrupted.

[1550]

Those are the kinds of issues, and that's why I asked the minister if he would have a chance to go out there. Obviously, the minister does not have that same understanding.

I'd like to ask the minister: what dialogue has taken place? Has he executed with the First Nations in the area, or what has Ajax done in terms of the dialogue with the First Nations?

Hon. T. Lake: As a former mayor of the city of Kamloops, I had an excellent working relationship with our First Nations neighbours, both the Tk'emlúps Indian Band and the Skeetchestn Indian band, being our closest ones, and also with the Simpcw First Nation in Chu Chua.

Again, the process that is at play at the moment through the environmental assessment office is that the working group and the provincial government and the federal government carry out consultation with First Nations. That is the role of the officials that are involved in the process. It is not the role of the Environment Minister to do the First Nations consultation directly.

H. Lali: One of the things in terms of the exploration that would take place and all the drilling that would take place in terms of the hydrology of the area on the surface…. This is a grasslands area. Less than 1 percent of the province is grasslands, and 50 percent of it has already been developed.

Here you have thousands of acres of grasslands that are obviously going to be affected, right in the vicinity of Kamloops, in the northern part of my constituency — northeastern.

People are rightfully concerned that any drilling that takes place actually is a disruption of those grasslands because of the invasion by noxious weeds and species of plants that are harmful to grasslands. It happens everywhere in the province where that drilling takes place in grasslands. They're then invaded by invasive weeds.

So what is the minister…? He is the Minister of Environment. He's supposed to protect the environment. That's one of his roles. What kind of safeguards is the minister putting in place in light of future drilling that is going to take place? What kind of mitigation will be put in place?

What happens in instances where drilling takes place and there's an invasion of a species of plants that is harmful to the grasslands? Is there any kind of fund set aside to help mitigate the concerns of the people who live in that area?

Hon. T. Lake: The member's question gives me an opportunity to talk about the protected areas of grasslands that we have in that region. Just today, I believe, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations set aside some land in the Tunkwa Lake area, put it off limits for off-road vehicles, etc., to protect the sensitive grasslands.

We know that that's an ecosystem that is of relative small quantity around the province of British Columbia, something that needs to be protected, which is why Lac du Bois provincial park across the river in Kamloops is so important and why we are in the current consultation phase of looking at expanding the protection of the land around the Lac du Bois provincial park.

When a proponent is doing preliminary work on any kind of exploration, they get a notice-of-work permit from different ministries, mostly from the Ministry of Energy and Mines, for instance, or perhaps from Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. You would have to direct those questions to those line ministries as to the conditions around those notice-of-work applications.

[1555]

In terms of the environmental assessment process through the working group and through the application information requirements, if a concern is expressed about grasslands, either through invasion by noxious weeds or the loss of grasslands, then that is dealt with by the working group and evaluated by the environmental assessment office. There may be conditions attached to the environmental certificate, should it be granted, that would mitigate those potential concerns if they are identified as part of the application process.

H. Lali: I have a copy of a Kamloops Stockmen's Association letter. They've got a number of concerns, with dozens of questions here within their letter, and I'm sure the minister has a copy of it.

They have issues about groundwater, probability and surface water. Specifically, they're worried about Inks Lake and Jacko Lake, as are the residents who live in the area. They're also concerned about grasslands and hay. There's a set of such questions that they pose on there. They have questions about house and building structures,
[ Page 10611 ]
about fencing and cattle movement and livestock in the area, about noise and disruption levels — a lot of questions that they've posed.

Obviously, we don't have enough time to be able to go through all of them, but there are two that I'm going to raise. One of them is on Peterson lake. If the course of Peterson lake is moved….

Hon. T. Lake: It is a creek.

H. Lali: I'm sorry. It is a creek. I misread it. I thank the minister for pointing that out. I'm thinking of so many of the lakes in the area — Inks Lake, Jacko Lake and others — that I just….

The Chair: He was there.

H. Lali: And I was there. Thank you, hon. Chair. He lives there, but I've been there too. It's in my riding.

It's regarding Peterson Creek. The Ajax proposal is for the diversion of a kilometre and a half of Peterson Creek. One of the questions the Kamloops Stockmen propose here in their letter is: "If the course of the Peterson Creek is moved, as it states in the application, who determines the timing of the project, and who monitors the potential problems with water loss or habitat loss?"

As the minister well knows — he is the Minister of Environment — anytime you divert water, you're affecting the groundwater table in that particular area. So this question is very relevant, and I wonder if the minister can respond to that.

Hon. T. Lake: I guess I'm wondering about the direct relevance to the estimates for the ministry, but I can't miss the opportunity to talk about Peterson Creek, because it flows past my townhouse. I like to walk my dog through Peterson Creek every Sunday, and I've been known to tweet out pictures of my dog overlooking….

A Voice: What's his name, Terry?

Hon. T. Lake: My dog Pal. My dog Pal loves Peterson Creek as well.

We have a beautiful urban park around Peterson Creek. We're all very proud of Peterson Creek.

When the proposal calls for an impact on the environment, during the application stage those concerns are identified. In this case the Stockmen's Association, which…. I'd have to confirm, but I'm almost certain the stockmen sit on the community advisory group, along with the Grasslands Conservation Council, so they have a very good line of input into the process.

When a concern like that is identified, the proponent would have to advise the working group, in the application, how they plan to mitigate any potential concerns from any diversion of a water body. I know that that's a concern that has been expressed. I'm sure that through the process it will be addressed, and it would be irresponsible for me to prejudge whether or not it can be done in a way that is acceptable to the environmental assessment office.

H. Lali: They also have on the grasslands a huge concern with the deer population that is there and with the effects of dust on the deer grazing around the Ajax proposal. What they write in this letter…. I mean, I have no way to verify it. I don't have the resources that the minister does. He may comment on that. But what they're saying is that there are approximately 300 to 500 head of deer, depending on the time of year, in the Jacko Lake area.

[1600]

Of course, Jacko Lake, and Inks Lake, which is right beside it…. On the east of it is the proposal for this huge open pit, which is going to be half a kilometre deep. It is going to be fairly wide as well. I have the information here: 2½ kilometres by one kilometre by 500 metres deep.

Obviously, you're looking at a fair bit of disruption here. Of course, there's the tailings storage proposal plus waste rock areas of 3.8 kilometres by three kilometres by 90 metres high. And the tailings will be one kilometre wide and three kilometres long and 150 metres high. It'll cover approximately 940 acres immediately adjacent to the Coquihalla Highway. It is also upwind of the major business and residential city of Kamloops, which will create major dust and health problems.

Some of the concerns they list — I'm just going to read them out quickly. I won't read them all.

"1. There's been an increase in mule and whitetail deer populations during the last few years."

So they're worried about the effect of dust on deer grazing.

"2. With increased mining activities, the deer will scatter in all directions.

3. There will be a higher risk of deer kills on the local highways.

4. Dust on plants is hard on the teeth, and the forage is not as palatable.

5. Compost of dust could have an effect on the species of plants grazed and grazing patterns.

6. Availability of uncontaminated water will also change deer habits as sloughs and springs could disappear."

And of course, one of the proposals is the diversion of Deer Creek.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Of course, it will have an effect on the budget, and we are talking about the estimates here. My question that I'm going to ask the minister is: what measures is the minister going to put in place to actually allay the concerns of B.C. Cattlemen's and the folks that live here when it comes to deer habitat and any mitigation work that the ministry may have to do as a result of this proposal going through? Or is it all the responsibility of Ajax? I'd like the minister to actually share that with us.

Hon. T. Lake: As I've mentioned several times to the
[ Page 10612 ]
member, the process is in the pre-app of the application stage. The working group is looking at all of the concerns that were identified through an extensive public consultation process — a process that involves not only the maximum 75 days in the last public consultation round but also the formation of a community advisory group, which I can confirm does include the Kamloops Stockmen's Association.

Those types of concerns will be identified. The proponent will then be asked in the application review stage to determine how they would mitigate the concerns that have been expressed.

The member, I believe, has a large mine in his riding already, Highland Valley Copper. I presume he thinks that's a well-run operation. I presume he welcomes the economic activity created by that mine.

It is not responsible for me to give my opinion on a potential project before it is going through the process, but I haven't heard the member pronounce judgment on the Ajax proposal himself. Presumably, he is supportive of the Highland Valley Copper mine that is in his riding.

H. Lali: The minister again is going on a diversionary course here instead of answering the question. I'm asking him legitimate questions on behalf of my constituents, and he's going off on a diversionary course — similar to the way the proposal wants to divert Peterson Creek.

His dog Pal, I think, is going to be upset. He says he takes his dog for a walk along Peterson Creek all the time. I can imagine if his dog Pal could speak human talk, he'd be very upset with the minister and might even take a bite out of his leg or something like that.

[1605]

In any case, one of the issues amongst issues raised by other people, as well, who live in the area…. Bill Stirling, in particular, lives in Knutsford, B.C. Bill Sterling has got a lot of issues. Obviously, one of the biggest issues he raises, quite legitimately — and he's a bit of an expert on water — is actually the issue of water and hydrology in the area.

He states here: "The open pit will fill with water and all the contaminants associated with mining will be there as the water level rises and eventually assumes its runoff to where? Peterson Creek." That's the creek that the minister's dog Pal likes to visit, and the minister likes to go for a walk along there.

Can the minister assure this committee — and through the committee, the residents who live there, people like Bill Sterling — that whatever the outcome of the proposal, the minister will make sure that the water rights and the water issues of the people who live in the affected area will be at the top of his concern list?

Hon. T. Lake: I'm absolutely concerned that the environmental assessment process is rigorous, is thorough, that it takes into account all of the concerns that have been expressed by members of the community in every single project. That goes for the many projects that occur or are in process in the member's riding, including the Princeton power project, the Coquihalla Pass resort project, Highland Valley Copper refinery, Ashcroft Ranch landfill project and the number goes on and on and on.

I'm concerned about the process in every single part of the province of British Columbia. As I've mentioned many, many times, if there are concerns identified in the application, those concerns have to be addressed by the proponent. If there is an environmental certificate that is issued at the end of the process, conditions are attached to mitigate or void or somehow, in some way, deal with the impacts that have been identified through the process.

While the Knutsford area is beautiful — I'm very familiar with it — the concerns that are raised by the residents of Knutsford will be dealt with by the working group and the proponent. When we see the outcome of the process, we will know what the concerns were and how the proponent intends to deal with them.

H. Lali: Has the minister met with the proponents of Ajax mine? If he has, will he afford the same courtesy and come and meet with the residents who are affected in the proposed area? I'll even take the minister along on a drive-through in my four-by-four and buy him lunch if he says yes.

Hon. T. Lake: I have not met officially with Ajax mine, the proponents. I have been at events where there are officials of Ajax mine. I've been at events where people that are opposed to the mine have been. I have met with people that are concerned. In fact, I think I have a meeting in my constituency office tomorrow with a couple of residents that are concerned. I had a meeting a couple of weeks ago with a group of people that were advocates of the mine.

I'm happy to meet with people. What I do is I listen to their concerns. I talk about the process and ensure that they know how to make sure their concerns are inputted into the environmental assessment process.

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister a few questions about species at risk, particularly with reference to mountain caribou, which were all struggling, I think, to recover from their lows they've suffered throughout southwestern British Columbia and beyond. I wanted to talk to the minister a bit about an area which is more or less in his backyard in the Wells Gray, Blue River area.

[1610]

There have been some issues raised with me, as the deputy Environment critic, about that area, about caribou, specifically along the North Blue River. I haven't been there, but I'm told it's a narrow valley. There is evidence of caribou, both tracks and actually, in one case, partial remains of a caribou found during the winter and
[ Page 10613 ]
including sightings this past winter.

The difficulty that has been brought to my attention that has arisen is with regard to the stewardship management agreement that is there, one that was a surprise, I think, to other passive recreation users. It has resulted in a very large number of snowmobiles using that endangered mountain caribou habitat. I'm told that on a typical Saturday in the winter, there are some 150 individuals plying that area. It's definitely a concern.

Also, being a steep valley, there is a lot of avalanche terrain in there. There's a high risk factor. I think we're fortunate so far that there haven't been any fatalities, but we know how many we have had throughout the province and how dangerous it can be. When the caribou encounter a snowmobiler in a narrow valley, when they try to make distance between themselves and the snowmobilers, they end up going up on the steep slopes, which in itself is a risk factor as it could trigger an avalanche.

My understanding is that the minister has had discussions with a local ski-touring company regarding the situation with regard to the caribou and their ongoing viability. I just wanted to ask the minister what actions he has taken to ensure that endangered caribou are protected in that area.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the mountain caribou recovery implementation plan was approved in 2007 — October of that year. It led to the successful implementation of the largest habitat protection measure in B.C. history. As a matter of fact, there are 2.2 million hectares that are protected from forestry to allow the mountain caribou to recover and another million hectares that have been deemed off limits to snowmobiles.

There are about 1,700 mountain caribou within 15 herds in the interior of the province, some of which are in the area of the Blue River, which I'm very familiar with. If you're driving that area in the wintertime, always be careful around Blue River. There is a little microclimate there, so always, please, drive with caution there.

We want to recover that population to 2,500 animals throughout B.C. within 20 years. There has been considerable effort that has been informed by the work of the Ministry of Environment, and that is essentially monitored and the operational component of that plan is carried out by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

When we're talking about the use of the back country, I would say this is an unprecedented level of cooperation between forestry, heli-ski operators, snowmobilers and the non-motorized operators that the member was referring to. But there's always going to be some conflict from time to time in the overlapping uses, and that is managed quite well, I believe.

I have seen the e-mails going back and forth and have been part of meetings where users come together and discuss the potential conflicts and how they're going to resolve them. I think the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations is doing an excellent job of managing that situation. I'm very pleased.

We are monitoring closely. My assistant deputy minister for environmental sustainability is with me here. They've done some great work, not just on the mountain caribou but on the boreal caribou and the northern caribou as well. This is a species that has special requirements, particularly in terms of breeding and calving, and there are only certain areas of the province and at certain altitudes where that is possible.

[1615]

We understand the unique requirements of the caribou throughout the province of British Columbia. We're working extremely hard to recover those numbers as we work with the people that are working on the land base, either in forestry or in recreation.

M. Sather: Thanks to the minister for his response. Certainly, I will canvass the issue more broadly with the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, but I knew that the minister was particularly aware of this situation.

The information I have would suggest that there are some serious problems with regard to cooperation — or coexistence, I guess — of the passive recreation group or company and snowmobilers that are there. I understand also that, for example, the Blue River snowmobile club has an agreement in the Groundhog Mountain area to the south. When I was there, they were collecting fees and the like.

On that particular park, the activities of the local club, I have been told — the snowcat activities in there, which allow them to reach the northern parts of the North Blue River — are unauthorized and certainly a threat, as I understand it, to the caribou.

I just wondered if the minister could comment on that. This is the last question I have on that particular area, but with regard to the operations of the snowcat in there, as I understand, it's not authorized. If the minister can comment on that and what steps he'd be taking….

Hon. T. Lake: I am the MLA for the area. The Minister of Environment does not get involved in the management or the infractions of the caribou recovery areas, other than to say this: if there is evidence of people going into the caribou recovery areas that have been designated…. If that is reported, then natural resource officers, conservation officers or even park rangers are given the duties to act upon that.

Do we have conflicts? From time to time there are conflicts that occur. Do we have some people that are travelling into areas where they shouldn't? That probably does happen. A lot of people from Alberta come into the Valemount–Blue River area. Some of them either don't know or don't choose to respect the signage that is
[ Page 10614 ]
there to tell them or consult with the Blue River Powder Packers, the snowmobile club there, to understand the limitations of where they can travel on their snowmobiles.

It's an ongoing problem, as any compliance and enforcement issue in the huge expanse of British Columbia is, but we have increased the capacity of natural resource officers to act as enforcement agents, along with conservation officers and park rangers. Of course, the RCMP are there in situations where they are called for as well.

M. Sather: Thanks to the minister. I wanted to ask him about another species at risk, that being the spotted owl. The minister will know that they are nearly extirpated in our province, down to some ten to 12 individuals in the wild.

I wanted to make reference to the issue that has been most recently in the news with regard to the spotted owl. That's in the Chilliwack area, where the government approved the cutting of timber in the spotted owl habitat — actually, within a wildlife habitat area set aside to assist the owl near Chilliwack. I wanted to ask the minister why the government would approve the cutting of the very habitat that was set aside for this endangered species. I'll leave it at that. Why did the government approve that cutting?

Hon. T. Lake: The spotted owl is certainly one of the species for which we have recovery or a special program in place to protect it.

[1620]

As I mentioned, the application or the granting of cutting permits is the purview of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. I can't comment on the specifics of why a cutting permit was issued. We certainly take seriously our role in conserving the spotted owl population in terms of the number of wild spotted owls that are out there, as well as a captive breeding program.

We are at the northern edge of the spotted owl habitat here in British Columbia. We certainly are very aware of the very, very limited numbers of spotted owls. We take, I think, seriously our role in trying to preserve and in fact recover the population of spotted owls. But in terms of why a particular permit was granted, I'm sorry. I cannot speak to that particular question. It would have to be canvassed with the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

M. Sather: The Forest Practices Board had expressed their concern with the logging company going ahead prior to what was intended or what they had said they would do previously. I wanted to know, though, too….

I understand that the minister is not responsible for timber harvesting as such, but certainly he is responsible for the protection of endangered species. So I wanted to know if he directly had had any discussions with his counterparts in cabinet about that or if his ministry officials had any concerns about that cutting and what the results of those conversations were.

Hon. T. Lake: Madam Chair, after this answer I wonder if I might request a short break.

In 2006, as part of the spotted owl recovery program, 23,000 new hectares was set aside in wildlife habitat areas. My understanding is that cutting permit was given outside of those wildlife habitat areas, and then subsequently there was evidence of the spotted owls in that region.

But I would say that when we understand that information like that comes forward, then we have a discussion, certainly, with our counterparts, to make sure that the plan is still being adhered to in terms of overall outcomes, and to ensure that…. When you have such small numbers, of course, every bird is important. So we want to make sure that we manage that closely.

But my understanding is that a cutting permit was given outside of those areas, and subsequently there was some evidence of spotted owl activity. We will certainly talk with our counterparts in Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations about that.

With that, Madam Chair, if I could request a short break.

The Chair: We'll take a seven-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:24 p.m. to 4:33 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

M. Sather: I just wanted to finish up with the minister on the spotted owl situation in Chilliwack. Now, that wildlife habitat area was set aside in 2006 for the protection of the spotted owl. Then a mitigation agreement, I guess, was reached — that's what it's called — with the logging company, whereby they would log within the wildlife habitat area unless prime habitat then had been agreed prior to the establishment of the WHA.

I guess maybe that's what the minister was referring to about an earlier agreement. But of course, that's not going to work well for the endangered species — in this case, the spotted owl. I understand, when I was in Chilliwack, that the ministry has radio-tagged the owl, and I was curious, too, when that happened. Who did it? In addition to that, they were following it in a pickup truck, I suppose.

Really, is that what we've come to in protecting endangered species? Even though we're down to ten or 12 birds that, you know, depending on how close they get to the logging…. Birds, like other animals, use a wider habitat than they will occupy at a given part of the year. Spotted owls won't use habitat, is my understanding, if it's degraded.

[1635]

Although they may not be there during the period of
[ Page 10615 ]
the logging, they very well could…. Well, that was considered suitable habitat for the spotted owl. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been set aside as a wildlife habitat area. It doesn't seem to me that the protection is great for the owl in this instance, and I wanted to get a final comment from the minister on that.

Interjection.

M. Sather: Yes, indeed there was. I referred the minister to the history, as I understand it, of a wildlife habitat area and how a mitigation agreement had been put in place with the logging company to, in essence, circumvent the fact that it was set aside for the spotted owl in 2006.

My question to the minister was: is this what it's come to? Rather than do all we can to protect this endangered species and this endangered individual, are we going to make mitigation agreements that will endanger the bird, such as it appears that we've done here?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, under the spotted owl management plan — 2.0, I guess, is the second version — some existing wildlife habitat areas were released from protection in exchange for protecting higher-value habitat elsewhere.

These plans are living documents. If we can identify better habitat somewhere else and exchange areas to create wildlife habitat areas within areas of higher habitat potential, then that's what we do.

If, in the process of operations, a logging company were to come across a spotted owl that was in that area, there are basically two options. The habitat around the area in which the spotted owl was found could be protected, or the spotted owl could be taken into the captive breeding program.

Those are sort of the avenues that are available to ministry staff. The outcome, obviously, is to increase the numbers of spotted owls, either by protection or through the captive breeding program. In each individual case where we run across a problem like this, those are the options available to us.

V. Huntington: The poor spotted owl.

I have two questions which I hope will be rather quick, one on enforcement and the other on air quality — if that helps. I was originally going to ask the minister if he would care to list the designations that have been made in Delta for wildlife. However, to save time, perhaps I'll just go through them very quickly and then ask the enforcement issue.

I don't know if the minister knows all of this, but Delta has been recognized as an international important bird area. Alaksen on Westham Island, the national wildlife area, is a wetland of international significance under the Ramsar convention. It's a national wildlife area under the Canada Wildlife Act.

There's the Boundary Bay provincial designation — Boundary Bay wildlife management area, the Sturgeon Bank wildlife management area, the South Arm Marshes wildlife management area and the new, somewhat hypocritically designated Roberts Bank wildlife management area, and there is a provincial raptor management area. Those are in my riding alone, which might explain to members opposite why I am constantly referring to environmental issues that impact the migratory bird flyway.

The minister has been receiving a number — and his ministry receives an ongoing series — of emails from an individual in my riding and from others, constantly referring to enforcement issues or the lack of enforcement with regard to issues within those provincially, nationally and internationally designated areas.

[1640]

We've had some significant target-shooting issues, especially on the Roberts Bank wildlife management area; kite surfing in the Boundary Bay and Tsawwassen area of the wildlife management areas; and jet skiing. All of these are going on during the winter migratory and spring breeding times of year. Those are the times of the year when we're most concerned about the protection in these wildlife management corridors.

It is almost impossible to get the conservation officers out there and enforcing. Given the nationally, internationally and provincially significant area that you have, basically, responsibility for, Minister, can you please tell us how and when you will increase the enforcement opportunities and abilities out in the Delta area? There is no other area in the Lower Mainland more important.

Hon. T. Lake: I can appreciate the passion that the member obviously has for her riding. As an MLA that represents a very large area in the interior of the province that has, as I mentioned, mountain caribou recovery areas, provincially protected areas and beautiful Wells Gray Park — it takes me three hours to drive from one end to the other — I can assure the member that she's not the only MLA that has considerable conservation values in her constituency.

But I think the member is correct in her assessment of the unique nature of Delta. Whenever you have an estuary, you're going to have some very unique forms of animal life that are critically important.

In terms of migratory birds, those are the purview of the federal government, so many of the areas on which she was commenting are a federal responsibility. I can understand the frustration if you're a person living there. You don't know who is responsible for what.

The wildlife management areas are managed by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. They have officers that are responsible for compliance and enforcement. If there is a higher-risk conflict involving wildlife and humans, then the conservation officer service, which is under the Ministry of
[ Page 10616 ]
Environment, certainly would respond.

V. Huntington: Then, quickly, does that include human interaction and disturbance in a wildlife management area?

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

Hon. T. Lake: I'm trying to get the scenario. Presumably, it would be someone target-shooting at birds in a wildlife management area that the member might be referring to. That would be the duties of the natural resource officers that would enforce that.

It seems perhaps a little bit self-centred, as human beings, for us to determine that if it was the other way around — birds endangering people — the conservation officers would be involved. But that is the role of conservation officers when it comes to wildlife. If there is a danger to human life from wildlife, then the conservation officers would get involved.

I think the member makes an important point about the necessary coordination of activities from provincial government. I'm always happy to talk about how we can work with our colleagues in Natural Resource Operations and the Ministry of Environment to make sure that, you know, we are communicating and responding in a timely way. I wouldn't want to give the impression that conservation officers would respond to a lower level of risk incident.

[1645]

V. Huntington: Thank you for that explanation. I have to suggest…. I mean, I have read the service plan and the budget and the vote appropriation descriptions very carefully, and it is extremely difficult to be able to tell exactly whether it's an animal attacking a human, where it falls under you, or a human attacking an animal, and it falls under another ministry. Surely to goodness, I would hope the staff of the two ministries can get together and make it a little clearer, even for somebody like me who's pretty involved in dealing with some of these issues.

On the air quality issue…. I think it's the ministry's purview, is it not? All issues of monitoring, data collection, reporting are this ministry. Am I correct?

Hon. T. Lake: Right on.

V. Huntington: Okay, I'd like to know…. Again, in Delta we have four highways. We have the largest container port in Canada and one of the largest on the west coast of North America. We have the ferry terminal. We have the cement plant, which is the single biggest polluter in the Lower Mainland. We have so many container trucks in a single hour that you can't really bother to count them. We have both major national railways coming and going through the agricultural land, all with coal dust, etc.

I would like to know what monitoring stations are being conducted by the ministry, what the baseline data is, what the reporting structure is and what standards you are setting in an area that is subject to the maritime emissions, which are considered the number one hazard in the world. I would like to know the standards of care that this ministry is exercising when it comes to the air quality in and around Delta.

Hon. T. Lake: Welcome to the debate, to the member for Delta South.

Airshed management is actually under the purview of the greater Vancouver regional district — which, she will know, her mayor was a chair of for a long time. As such, the GVRD has what we would refer to as a compromised airshed. We are certainly very well aware of that. But we have a delegation agreement with the GVRD to manage certain things, whether it's under their solid waste management plan or their liquid waste management plan.

In this case they are responsible, and in fact they have emissions standards and air quality standards — because of the unique nature of the airshed — that are more stringent than the provincial standards that would be used elsewhere. So the monitoring is being done by the GVRD.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister about the Species-at-Risk Task Force report. We asked about this last year in estimates. Of course, at that time government was in receipt of the report, but had not released it publicly. They finally did in July of 2011, and promised a response that may include adoption of the key recommendations, which include legislative changes.

I think the timeline at that time was several months. Well, it's now almost a year later. We have a legislative session that runs for eight more weeks, and I wanted to ask the minister whether he will be informing the House during this legislative sitting or at whatever the next earliest opportunity is, and to strengthen B.C.'s existing legislation that protects species at risk or to introduce a new stand-alone act, as eight of ten provinces in Canada already have.

Can he tell the House whether we can anticipate that in the spring — to have debate on changes to strengthen protection for species at risk — or in the fall sitting?

[1650]

Hon. T. Lake: First of all, I want to thank the members of the Species-at-Risk Task Force. They did an excellent job. We posted that report in July of 2011 so people could take look at the report and recommendations. I'm sure the member has had an opportunity to do that.

The direction that we received after receipt of the report was to make operational improvements where appropriate and, within existing budgets, to line up with the task force recommendations. Some of the work that was recommended was already underway, and we con-
[ Page 10617 ]
tinue to do that.

Key actions include supporting an ecosystem-based approach to management of species at risk, including developing a tool to bundle species and ecosystems. That was one of the major findings of the Species-at-Risk Task Force — to look at an ecosystem-based approach. We also are supporting information management systems and decision support tools to incorporate species- and ecosystems-at-risk values into integrated decision-making for natural resources, so that when line ministries are making decisions on permits or any kind of development, they in fact have a tool available to them to assess the impact on ecosystems that would affect species at risk.

We're also developing tools to assess cumulative effects and policies to increase options for environmental mitigation. Over the next several months, the ministry will be working with partner ministries to develop a five-year plan for management of species at risk in British Columbia, some of which may involve legislation. But it's important to know that we already have legal protection for species at risk under several provincial acts, including the Wildlife Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Oil and Gas Activities Act. We will be looking at ways and means of strengthening the activities associated with the concern around species at risk.

R. Fleming: I want to ask the minister, maybe in a different way, when we can expect a formal response by the government to the SAR task force. He has mentioned some initiatives, but really, this was a task force that examined all of the patchwork approach that British Columbia has and looked at what other provinces do, where there is a single ministry responsible for conservation efforts, where recovery plans and efforts around species at risk are well resourced.

Those were all recommendations that B.C. should adopt. Even in the words of the CEO of the Mining Association of Canada, who was a task force member…. He endorsed all of the recommendations so that B.C. could move towards a leadership position in Canada, which we currently are far from.

I think government has really dithered on the task force report. It has taken a long time to get any utterances out of government about how they will handle the key recommendations there. We asked the minister to release the report this time last year. He finally did so last summer. It's getting on in time. There have been two legislative sessions since then — no response.

One of the task force members, Peter Robinson, who's the CEO of the David Suzuki Foundation, says that the key recommendation is to actually forward legislative amendments that strengthen existing legislation or to bring in new legislation around species at risk, because the task force identified many legal gaps that are allowing government to do a better job at species-at-risk protection.

Again to the minister: when can we expect a formal response from the government and finally have debate in the Legislature about species at risk?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I mentioned that the report was released last summer, and we announced at that time that an implementation plan would be developed. I have mentioned some of the things that we have done in that implementation plan. We are still working on other components of the plan and, as I mentioned, will have a five-year plan that will be presented to government in the fall of 2012.

[1655]

R. Fleming: The Species-at-Risk Task Force submitted their recommendations to cabinet's environment and land use committee in May 2011 — again, some time ago. Can the minister tell this committee whether the cabinet committee endorsed the recommendations that were made by the province's task force on species at risk?

Hon. T. Lake: Mr. Chair, cabinet committees are confidential, as the member is well aware.

R. Fleming: It was worth the effort. It has been a long afternoon.

Interjection.

R. Fleming: Yeah, there are no leaks in government.

I want to ask the minister about something he has been working on this week, which is the waste-to-energy regulation for the Fraser Valley and the Lower Mainland. I want to ask him a couple of questions, just so I get the information right, that he put out there. The new regulation suggests that all proposed waste-to-energy recovery facilities in the Lower Mainland and the Fraser Valley will be subject to a full, mandatory environmental assessment in accordance with the amended Environmental Assessment Act. That was announced just two days ago in Chilliwack.

I want to ask the minister, specifically, what this means, because there is a current threshold for environmental assessment for these types of facilities. An automatic environmental assessment is triggered if the facility burns 225 tonnes a day or more. Now, there is no incinerator in Metro Vancouver — or, as far as I'm aware, the province — that burns anywhere close to this. In other words, the existing threshold has covered every waste-to-energy facility in British Columbia.

The Burnaby facility, for example, burns 3½ times more volume on a daily basis than the threshold, so the threshold that exists appears to catch all in terms of applications. Indeed, in Metro Vancouver the proposal that they're going to the market and working with their stakeholders on would be drastically bigger than the existing
[ Page 10618 ]
Burnaby facility, even if it was split into two facilities.

I'm just trying to understand if there's actually any meaning to this change that the minister announced, because nobody was proposing to build, and there is no interest in building, a waste-to-energy facility that is below the current existing threshold. This might look good, but can the minister tell the committee here this afternoon whether in fact anything will change by this sleight of hand?

Hon. T. Lake: Mr. Chair, I take exception to the "sleight of hand." If the member had been at the waste-to-energy discussion at GLOBE in Vancouver a couple of weeks ago, he would know that in Switzerland, for example, there are waste-to-energy facilities that would be below the threshold. There were people there from the Fraser Valley that attended that seminar.

We understand that residents of greater Vancouver and the Fraser Valley are very concerned about air quality, and we wanted to assure them that any waste-to-energy facility that might be proposed would be put through a full B.C. environmental assessment process and that the ultimate decision would be that of the province.

Whether there is new technology that is used in Switzerland, where they have quite small waste-to-energy plants…. There could be a proponent that would come forward with three or four distributed waste-to-energy plants to take advantage of location or transportation.

We wanted to assure the residents of the Fraser Valley and Metro Vancouver that any proposal would be put through a full environmental assessment.

R. Fleming: Well, I think it's interesting because first of all, as I said, in Metro Vancouver's proposal, the tonnage — in the RFQs that they have put out and the conversations that they have had, the consultations so far — is greatly in excess of the existing thresholds. I want to ask the minister, then, since his amendment only applies to the Fraser Valley and Metro Vancouver, why he wouldn't have done a provincewide change to the Environmental Assessment Act for waste-to-energy incineration.

[1700]

As he well knows, just a couple of years ago in his own community he was adamantly opposed to an environmental assessment being done to a proposed facility that was going to burn not solid waste but creosote-soaked railway ties, something that is illegal in the European Union, that would not be allowed in those countries within the EU. He was against having an environmental assessment.

Now that he's had the chance to think about waste-to-energy and change and amend by regulation the Environment Assessment Act, why did it not include his home jurisdiction, which has a very challenged airshed? Kamloops isn't the only one. Prince George could easily have been added to this regulatory change, and I want to ask the minister why he didn't take the opportunity to do that.

Hon. T. Lake: The simple fact is that the airshed that is shared by greater Vancouver and the Fraser Valley is a unique airshed, given the geography, the funnelling effect that occurs into the Fraser Valley, so that the Fraser Valley ends up being the recipient of air that comes in from the Lower Mainland.

In terms of the Aboriginal Cogeneration project the member is referring to in Kamloops, it was proposed. The technology was from the University of North Dakota. It was analyzed by the Ministry of Environment. The air quality expert in the region, Mr. Ralph Adams, whom I have great respect for, has looked at the proponent's request. Analysis showed that the emissions would be equivalent to one wood stove. That certainly wouldn't meet the trigger for an environmental assessment.

In this case, we have a certain type of airshed, which is quite different than the airshed in Kamloops or Prince George, not to say that they don't have their unique challenges. But in fact the airshed in the Fraser Valley, the concern that the people in the Fraser Valley and Metro Vancouver have over that airshed, we wanted to assure them that any potential waste-to-energy project….

I know that the member and his colleagues are supporters of waste-to-energy projects — one in Burnaby, where a leading member of the NDP party is an advocate of the waste-to-energy facility that's there. But again, we want to make sure that people are assured that this airshed is treated so that any risks are put through a full environmental assessment process.

R. Fleming: Well, it sounds like a by-election special to me from the minister. He didn't take the opportunity to expand the new thresholds to his own community or to Prince George, which has been cited for a number of air-quality violations and has ongoing concerns there. Clean Air PG is one of the groups that monitors that. They may have had an interest if they were involved in a broader consultation that wasn't just designed as a by-election special for Chilliwack.

The minister set this in motion by doing what the previous Environment Minister refused to do, which was to approve the solid waste management plan of Metro Vancouver, which involved waste-to-energy incineration. That sat on the previous minister's desk. It did not budge from there because presumably there were serious disagreements between the former Minister of Environment, who was a Chilliwack MLA, and Metro Vancouver about the threats to the Fraser Valley air quality.

A lot of the minister's colleagues in the Fraser Valley constituencies have expressed concerns about the emissions from burning garbage that would flow into the Fraser Valley, which of course is the fruit and vegetable breadbasket of Metro Vancouver and British Columbia.
[ Page 10619 ]

Again, my question to the minister is: why did he implement something two days ago on the eve of the by-election, in fact in the community where the by-election is going to take place, rather than taking the time to talk to all of the other communities in British Columbia that have airshed challenges, where waste-to-energy may be proposed — there are proposals to have it on Vancouver Island, for example — and take a much more comprehensive approach?

Hon. T. Lake: I suppose rounding up seniors in Chilliwack wasn't a by-election special either — to scare them over their ability to drive.

[1705]

The fact is that the Minister of Environment has the authority to put any project into the environmental assessment if he deems that it's in the public interest.

If there were plans, for instance, that came to the attention of the minister and were causing…. If the minister thought that it was in the public interest to put through an environmental assessment process, the minister could have. The minister of the day could have done that in the situation in Kamloops. He chose not to.

I think the decisions we make are based on information, not speculation. In this case, there are proposals. Not even proposals; there is an allowance. I think that's the important part. There's an allowance, with the approval of the solid waste management plan, to consider waste-to-energy. That consideration must be done in full consultation with the Fraser Valley regional district. It must have a competitive process. It must consider both in-region and out-of-region proposals.

Even though it was very likely that any project that would perhaps come forward would go through an environmental assessment process, we wanted to assure people of Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley, if there were proposals for multiple waste-to-energy projects of a smaller size but that in aggregate, of course, would be greater than the threshold, that they would all go through an environmental assessment process.

We heard a member earlier in the day talk about how things are broken up into smaller parts so that they can avoid the environmental assessment. I have not seen that happen. I've seen the opposite happen, where proponents voluntarily come into the environmental assessment, even if they don't meet the threshold. We wanted to make it clear that if any waste-to-energy project was broken up into smaller components, all of those would have to come through an environmental assessment.

R. Fleming: I understand part of the minister's point. The fact remains that he's created, really, a two-tier system here. In Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley, the minister has absolutely given up and surrendered any discretion. As soon as there is a proposal to burn waste, no matter what size, there's no discretion. There has to be an environmental assessment now, thanks to the regulatory amendments he made.

But in his own riding, in Prince George and in the rest of British Columbia, where there are a number of challenged airsheds, it can be at the minister's discretion, because the threshold survives. He's talked about these Swiss technologies and all of these things. Well, if you're going to put one of those in a community outside the Fraser Valley and Metro Vancouver, the minister's concern disappears, and they don't need an environmental assessment.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I don't understand why he didn't take a comprehensive approach, look at all of British Columbia and have one regulation for every community in B.C., instead of going with the by-election special. Do you have to have a by-election in Kamloops for the Kamloops airshed to be treated in the same way and have the same thresholds that the Fraser Valley and Metro Vancouver have?

Hon. T. Lake: A number of things. Number 1. The regulations allow for designation based on geographic region. The regulation was meant to be flexible, to consider geographic location. That's what the legislation allows for — the consideration of geographic location in the regulation. That's what we have done: to say that this is a geographical location of special concern.

We talked earlier in the day about how we shouldn't take a one-size-fits-all approach to things. We talked about the water sustainability act, for instance, and not treating every part of the province the same. We talked about the agricultural waste intentions paper and talked about how, if you're in the Cariboo, it's quite different than if you're in the Fraser Valley, for instance, when it comes to managing agricultural waste.

I made the comments that we shouldn't take a one-size-fits-all approach to all environmental challenges. This is a way in which we recognize the special circumstances of the airshed that is shared by Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley regional district.

R. Fleming: As the minister knows, a key overall pillar of the budget that was tabled a few weeks ago is to show that in the second year of the three-year budget plan there is a balanced budget. That's the election year that's coming up in 2013.

[1710]

A huge line item that is included in the fiscal assumptions for that second year of the budget is that $700 million worth of land and assets will be sold by the province of British Columbia. This, of course, was announced by the Minister of Finance. He says it's a sale of "non-strategic provincial lands."

I want to ask the Minister of Environment if he has any
[ Page 10620 ]
input into what lands are considered strategic and whether any areas that may hold conservation value are now contemplated for sale in that list of the properties that are in the fire-sale sum of $700 million which, so far, the government has refused to give the public any details about.

Hon. T. Lake: I am aware that some parking lots are under consideration. I'm not aware of any parks that are under consideration. But I would refer those questions to the Minister of Finance.

R. Fleming: So the minister has not been consulted and can give no advice on the land sales? That would be my question for him. Certainly, when you look at the sum of $700 million, that is going to be an incredibly complicated property portfolio, one would think, including lands of all types of zonings and designations in every region of the province.

I would think that the Minister of Environment would be consulted if there are lands in this for-sale list that they refuse to disclose to the public, which are, for example, adjacent to parks or protected areas. Has the Minister of Environment had any input into what is a key and suspect budget assumption for this budget that they've tabled?

Hon. T. Lake: Mr. Chair, this is a debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, and I would refer those questions to the Minister of Finance in his estimates debate.

I'm ready to answer any more questions you might have.

R. Fleming: With the very limited time left, I think I will ask the minister just about the Growing Green Jobs report that was released this month. There was a commitment around the release of that report for the government to promote carbon capture and storage by completing a "legislative regulatory framework" in this area.

I would ask the minister if he can provide more details, because of course, that legislative regulatory framework review will be done in the fiscal year that we're discussing today, presumably.

Hon. T. Lake: While that falls under the Minister of Energy, I can say that our input into that document was certainly very complete. What we're referring to is that in order to have carbon capture and storage, there will need to be regulations developed around that kind of a process.

We'll be working with our colleagues in the Ministry of Energy and Mines to ensure the development of those regulations. It's essentially to provide the regulatory framework for that type of technology.

R. Fleming: I wonder, with the very limited remaining time, whether I could ask the minister to answer a couple of questions on marine protected areas. The question I would begin with is that Canada, of course, has made an international commitment under the convention on biological diversity to build a network of marine protected areas on our Pacific coast by 2020.

The target is that at least 10 percent of each ecological region is effectively conserved. Currently, I believe, the part of the Pacific coast that is covered by MPAs is 1 percent.

[1715]

I wanted to ask the minister, because the date 2020 is not far from now: is the province working with the federal government to move the number closer to the target, which is part of an international agreement that Canada has signed?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I was pleased to be with my colleague, the federal Environment Minister, Hon. Peter Kent, last year in Sidney to announce the participation, the continuation and commitment to a national marine conservation area around the southern Strait of Georgia. That's part of the strategy around ocean conservation, but there's also work being done on the Scott Islands.

The provincial government is working with Coastal First Nations around a marine protected area strategy, and also work is ongoing with the Haida around the Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area proposal as well.

A lot of work is going on with our colleagues in the federal government. The member is right. This is an important piece of strategy, and 2020 is eight years away. It will come up quickly, but I'm very happy with the progress we're making with our federal colleagues.

Noting the hour, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Environment and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:18 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 © 2012: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada