2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, March 10, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 7, Number 9

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

MONDAY, MARCH 10, 2014

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Bond: It is my pleasure to welcome a very special group of British Columbians to the House today. They are individuals in our community, both men and women, who do an exceptional job every day of ensuring that all of us feel safer in our communities.

[1335]

They do much more than that. One of the things I remember in terms of characterizing their work: they are the people in our community who run into buildings when most people are running out. I think that speaks volumes of their courage and their competence. They also support burn victims, and they teach our children how to be safe in their schools and in their homes.

Today we are delighted to have over 100 firefighters join us here in the Legislature as they begin their annual conference here in Victoria. The B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Association is an organization which is comprised of 53 locals that represent the professional men and women firefighters of this province. The professional firefighters in many of our communities are trained to provide services other than the traditional form of fire suppression, including heavy rescue, fire safety and prevention.

Today I take the risk of highlighting just two of the many members that are in the House, but I think it would be important to recognize President Michael Hurley, who is here, Secretary-Treasurer Gord Ditchburn and their entire executive. They have worked tirelessly in order to improve working conditions for their members.

I know that every member of the House would want to say a profound and heartfelt thank-you and welcome each of them to the precinct today.

S. Simpson: It's a pleasure for me to join with the Jobs Minister in welcoming firefighters from across British Columbia here for their annual visit to the Legislature to speak with members of the Legislature on both sides. Clearly, the firefighters, as a body across this province, really are just part of such an integral part of the fabric of British Columbia, about what makes our communities strong and what makes our community successful.

We know, as the minister said, that these are the people who every day put their own safety and lives at risk to ensure that we're safe. I want to express certainly the official opposition's strong welcome to President Hurley and to all of the members who are here with us today. We look forward to the opportunities to meet over today and tomorrow, to have some important discussion and to hear again from the firefighters about those issues that are critical to the success of firefighting in British Columbia and to the safety and security of their members.

Certainly, on our behalf, a welcome to all of the firefighters here, and all of the firefighters across this province who aren't here in the chamber with us today.

Michelle Stilwell: Today I would like to introduce Steve Arnett from the Nanaimo Youth Services. Joining him today are three inspirational young ladies who have been supported by Nanaimo Youth Services.

It's a pleasure for me to introduce Sarah-Anne Jim, who has gone through the BladeRunners program along the side of Stones Boatyard owner, Nick Webster, who has given her employment. She has done such a great job there. She has been employed for three years. Lindsey Lillian is a grade 12 graduate and currently looking into some future education at VIU in hairstyling. Ashley Frerich is the 2012 recipient of the Representative for Children and Youth Awards of Excellence for Youth Leadership. I would like the House to help make them feel welcome.

M. Mungall: I'd like to introduce the House to Peggy Wilmot. She's with Faith in Action. They do amazing work. Recently they've been doing work throughout the province to raise awareness about food bank usage in our communities. May the House please make her welcome.

Hon. M. Polak: I have two introductions. First, joining us in the gallery today is Alex Denis. Alex is Métis, originally from Port Alberni and is working in the Ministry of Environment as part of the province's aboriginal youth internship program.

[1340]

She has been working with the environmental emergency program on the development of a world-leading spill preparedness and response system for B.C., and will be working with the ministry until May. Alex will then spend three months working with an aboriginal organization as part of the internship program. Would the House please make her very welcome.

Then secondly, my father, Peter Inkman, is not only a proud veteran of the Korean War; he's also a very regular watcher of question period. Today is his 85th birthday, so happy birthday, Dad. Would the House please join me in wishing him well.

J. Darcy: It gives me great pleasure today introduce three members of the B.C. Nurse Practitioners Association who are in the gallery today: Stan Marchuk, Donna Nicholson and Andrea Burton. Nurse practitioners, as we know, are playing a wonderful role in our health care system and the future of our health care system — a
[ Page 2014 ]
public, sustainable health care system. Nurse practitioners play an absolutely vital role in a multidisciplinary team. Please make them feel welcome in this House.

Hon. T. Lake: I, too, would like to add a warm welcome to the Nurse Practitioners Association of B.C. As the member opposite mentioned, these are critical professionals to health care in our province. We look forward to working with them to expand their role in the health care system in British Columbia and look forward to their team joining the rest of the health care team to provide excellent service to the residents of British Columbia. Will the House please, again, make them very welcome.

V. Huntington: Joining Delta firefighters Shawn Cropley and Mike McMillan today is Jamie McGarva, who is a member of this year's award-winning championship team at the world firefighters combat challenge. Jamie and his team make not only Delta but all of British Columbia proud. Please welcome him.

G. Heyman: A number of constituency assistants for myself and colleagues on our side of the House are here for a conference this week. Joining us in the gallery today is one of my constituency assistants, Jarrett Hagglund. He, along with Ashley Fehr and Reamick Lo, welcome my constituents into the office warmly, whether they come with problems or they just come for a talk. It's an honour to have him in the House observing us today. I look forward to seeing him later tonight, because among his side skills, he's a great stand-up comedian. Please join me in welcoming Jarrett Hagglund to the House.

D. Routley: I'd like to make an introduction, but I'd also like to express that with the gallery so full of firefighters, to a capacity I don't think we've ever seen, we may have exceeded fire code.

I'd like to add my introduction to the member for Parksville-Qualicum: Steve Arnett from Nanaimo Youth Services, who is a real asset to the Nanaimo community, to young people and to families alike. Steve has a gracious way of bringing together the community and people who are struggling. He is very realistic about expectations so people don't enter into plans with false expectations. He always delivers above those, so he has gained a credibility that is his own making and has served so many people.

There are so many young people in Nanaimo who have better lives because of the service that Steve Arnett has given to them and our community, so with great thanks I would welcome Steve to the House.

C. James: As you noted this morning, hon. Speaker, today marks Commonwealth Day. For over 40 years the Monarchist League of Canada has been at the forefront of the promotion, education and non-partisan representation of the Canadian Crown.

We have guests in the gallery today who are active members of the Victoria branch of the Monarchist League. I'd like to introduce Monique Goffinet Miller, Ken Lane, Daphne Massey, Lynda Witham, Val Holden, Diane Taylor and Rosalind Jordan. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a fellow climate scientist, Trevor Murdock, visiting here from the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium.

[1345]

I might say, based on that vote two weeks ago, that we could use more climate scientists down here in the Legislature.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, it is my pleasure to advise that we have a Clerk visiting from another jurisdiction to our House this week: Ms. Audrey O'Brien, Clerk of the Canadian House of Commons.

Ms. O'Brien has held a distinguished career at the House of Commons and has served as Clerk of the House since 2005. She has served seven Speakers and ten parliaments during her more than 30 years of service to the institution. She is also the first woman to hold this office. Please join me in welcoming Ms. O'Brien to British Columbia and to our House.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Hon. S. Anton presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2014.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I am pleased to introduce Bill 17, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2014.

This bill amends the following statutes: Accountants (Chartered) Act; Accountants (Certified General) Act; Accountants (Management) Act; the Adoption Act; the BC OnLine Act; the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Belt Tax Act; the Local Government Act, Community Charter and Vancouver Charter; the Mines Act; the Real Estate Development Marketing Act; Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act; Taxation (Rural Area) Act; Vital Statistics Act; Workers Compensation Act and various statutes related to nurse practitioners.

I'll just add a statement about the Workers Compensation Act, given the firefighters in the cham-
[ Page 2015 ]
ber today. This proposed amendment to the Workers Compensation Act fulfils government's election commitment to restore heart disease in firefighters to the list of presumptive diseases recognized by WorkSafe B.C. The bill also makes validating provisions and a number of consequential amendments.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 17, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

SOCIAL WORKERS

G. Hogg: This is Social Work Week in British Columbia, and March is Social Work Month in Canada.

While we recognize them this week, we appreciate their work each day of the year. Social workers travel with police officers to save abused and neglected children. They support individuals and families in all stages of life, and they console families after deaths. Social workers recently drove through a snowstorm in northern B.C. to save abandoned children.

They are often faced with the most difficult of decisions — decisions that will have a lifelong impact on the individuals and the families they serve. They make the best decisions possible with the information available, and they can do everything according to the very best of practices and still have a negative outcome. We cannot accurately predict human behaviour.

Social workers are guided by purpose and are driven by a calling to improve the health and well-being of those they work with. They respect and honour their judgment in making life-altering decisions on behalf of all of us.

Social workers and clinicians are dedicated advocates for human rights, for an inclusive society and for social justice. Every day they fight discrimination, open doors of access and create opportunities for those in need.

They strengthen our communities, build relationships and enrich lives. They believe in the dignity and worth of people. They nurture diversity and help to build brighter futures by helping us all to understand the benefits of looking after each other.

[1350]

Please join me in thanking our social workers for their dedication and service for improving the lives of all British Columbians.

VOLUNTEERISM AND
SAANICH PENINSULA VOLUNTEERS

G. Holman: I want to recognize today the value of volunteerism in British Columbia and some of the incredible volunteers in my constituency. According to Volunteer B.C., 1.5 million B.C. volunteers contribute 114 million hours a year to make our communities better, which is equivalent to about 60,000 full-time jobs. Sorry, I can't help but translate this into monetary terms. I'm an economist. At an average wage of $30,000, the equivalent wage value would be about $1.8 billion per year, although the benefits of the services volunteers provide extend well beyond their monetary value.

Every community and region in British Columbia has reason to celebrate its volunteers, and the Saanich Peninsula is no exception. Some of these volunteers were recently recognized at the Hearts of the Community Awards in Sidney at the Mary Winspear Centre. Of the 20 award nominations, seven were youth who now have a head start in shaping the hearts and minds of their peers and their community.

I want to take a moment to briefly recognize the winners of some of the awards and their specific contributions. Sheila Bell is a volunteer at the Saanich Peninsula Hospital whose philosophy is to help doctors, nurses and other staff at the hospital to be as effective as possible and to make sure they understand how highly they are valued in the community. Melissa Rickson is a grade 12 student who volunteers at numerous organizations in our community, particularly with residents at long-term care homes. Graham Debling is a passionate history enthusiast who has put years of work into improving and expanding the Sidney Museum.

Crystal Underwood is a Tsawout First Nation high school student from Stelly's Secondary who pioneered the inclusion of the traditional Sencoten language into her school's curriculum for grade 9 to 12 students and who gave a speech in her language at the Strength of a Woman conference at the University of Victoria. Sage Broomfield is a Claremont Secondary student who….

Madame Speaker: Thank you, Member.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF
SURREY-TYNEHEAD MLA AS RCMP OFFICER

M. Morris: In July of 2012 an off-duty RCMP officer was enjoying a walk along the wharf in White Rock when he was alerted to a person struggling to stay afloat in the water. One bystander jumped in to assist but was having difficulties due to the state of panic the individual was exhibiting. The RCMP officer quickly jumped into the ocean waters and was able to calm the individual down and assisted him in getting to safety. The individual who was saved was very intoxicated and would have surely
[ Page 2016 ]
drowned had it not been for the quick actions of this off-duty RCMP officer.

Last week that officer was formally recognized by the RCMP for saving the life of that very intoxicated person. This was not the first time this particular RCMP member was formally recognized by the RCMP. In 1991, four years after he joined the RCMP, he received the RCMP Commissioner's Commendation for Bravery when he rescued an unconscious woman from certain peril.

I first met this RCMP member in 1993 when I was the RCMP human resources officer for southern Alberta. He struck me then as a person who would make significant contributions to Canadians as he developed his career. In 2001 he received his commission in the RCMP and was transferred to British Columbia. During his service in the RCMP he has been the recipient of the RCMP Long Service Medal, the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal and the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal.

It gives me great pleasure to recognize the accomplishments of this retired member of the RCMP and his continued dedication to serving the people of British Columbia, now as the Minister of Advanced Education and member for Surrey-Tynehead.

BEST BUDDIES PROGRAM

G. Heyman: March is Best Buddies Month, and no, that doesn't mean we're going to take a kinder, gentler approach to question period. Best Buddies is a volunteer movement that partners students with and without intellectual disabilities for one school year.

Every March Best Buddies Canada and chapters across the country try to spread the word about their program. It fosters friendships. It fosters leadership development. It supports integrated employment for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities such as Down syndrome or Williams syndrome.

[1355]

Buddies get together twice a month — once in a one-on-one activity and once in a group activity. They grow and build amazing friendships amongst each other. This gives children and adults with intellectual disabilities an opportunity to develop their personal interests, to build self-confidence for emotional growth and to build social networks and independence.

The goal of Best Buddies Canada is simple. It's to raise awareness and create inclusivity. The benefits are not just for the people with intellectual disabilities. Other students, faculty and staff get to experience and grow from the diversity and potential that they see firsthand and that these students with disabilities possess.

A little over a week ago I had an opportunity to attend one of the Best Buddies Month events in Vancouver-Fairview. It was held in a bookstore. There was great enthusiasm, joy, warmth and camaraderie among the people who were there.

Best Buddies is providing support and the networks necessary to develop inclusive communities. Best Buddies Month helps to spread the word to the community and to potential future volunteers. It's a life-enriching and life-changing experience for all. I'm happy to have this opportunity to help spread the word.

ANN KITCHING

L. Reimer: Last week I had the great honour to speak to the House about International Women's Day. Today I rise to recognize a remarkable woman from my constituency, Ann Kitching, who exemplifies outstanding leadership and a passion for community-building. Ann was presented with the keys to the city of Port Moody this past December, when she was awarded the Freedom of the City, the highest honour that the city can bestow on an individual.

Ann moved to Port Moody in 1978, working for Douglas and Kwantlen colleges, becoming principal of Fraser Pacific College in Richmond and then serving as a senior administrator for the board of Douglas College. After retiring in 1997 she turned her talents toward the creative field, becoming a renowned fibre artist and playing an integral role in establishing Port Moody as a City of the Arts.

Ann contributed to the arts and cultural strategic plan for Port Moody, and in 2013 Ann was a member of the Port Moody centennial committee, working with a team of local fibre artists to stitch a large commemorative piece for the 100th birthday celebrations. Ann is currently president of the Port Moody Arts Centre and chairs the wearable art committee, a committee that puts on a fabulous yearly wearable art fashion show. Over the years Ann has sat on several dozen civic committees.

Ann is a true gem in Port Moody. Her incredible commitment, passion and dedication to the community is appreciated by us all. I rise in the House today to recognize Ann Kitching, an inspirational, creative and exemplary woman.

FARMWORKER DEATHS AND SAFETY

R. Chouhan: Two days ago, on Saturday, I was able to attend a candlelight vigil in memory of three farmworkers who were killed in a roadside accident seven years ago. I was joined by my colleagues from Surrey-Newton and Surrey-Whalley. This candlelight vigil was organized by the B.C. Federation of Labour and the families of three women who were killed in the roadside accident on their way to work seven years ago.

The three women, Sarabjit Kaur Sidhu, Amarjit Kaur Bal and Sukhwinder Kaur Punia, were the ones who died in that accident, and 14 others were also seriously injured. It was the first day for Sarabjit to work and her last day on earth. She was a young mom of three young children
[ Page 2017 ]
— Avneet, Avnoor and Sukhman. Sukhman was only 15 months old at the time of the accident.

For seven years these families have lived in grief — with grief from a needless tragedy. They're still seeking answers to so many questions. A coroner's inquest was held after the accident. Many of the recommendations made by the coroner were accepted. Some are still to be implemented.

The harvesting season is about to start. I hope the thousands of farmworkers — who will be again travelling with these labour contractors in their vehicles — will be travelling in safe vehicles. We must have the collective courage to make sure that no other farmworkers will ever be put in a tragedy like this.

[1400]

Oral Questions

JOB CREATION AND
GOVERNMENT JOB STRATEGY

M. Farnworth: In September 2011 the Premier said creating employment was her "primary mission." She spent $17 million of taxpayers' money to run partisan ads claiming success about the so-called plan. On Friday the latest job numbers came out: 10,400 jobs lost in the last month alone. Clearly, not mission accomplished.

My question to the Premier is this. Why is the Premier failing so badly at the one thing she said was her primary mission?

Hon. S. Bond: We're very pleased and proud that we have a strategy for job creation in British Columbia. If we look at the data, in fact, the net number of new jobs since the jobs plan was created is in excess of 36,000 jobs.

Now, we're not going to rely on monthly numbers that fluctuate. In fact, last month in British Columbia the job numbers went up in the province. What I can tell the members opposite: we are committed to a long-term, aggressive strategic plan that will see the increase of family-supporting jobs in British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Temporary foreign workers isn't a job strategy. Slogans B.C. isn't a job strategy. Putting people to work — that's a job strategy.

For the last 30 months, since the Premier announced her job strategy, this province has had the worst private sector job creation record in the country. There are 150,000 British Columbians looking for work, and that doesn't include the hundreds in Quesnel and Houston who will be out of jobs this spring when their mills shut down for good.

Hon. Speaker, 30 months with the worst private sector job creation record in the country. Perhaps the Premier can tell us: why is every other province in the country doing a better job than British Columbia when it comes to job creation?

Hon. S. Bond: We've been clear on this side of the House. As we look at job creation, it is a long-term process. The kinds of increases that we want to see in British Columbia — we're going to work harder. We've been clear. Of course we're disappointed by the slow economy, the slowing economy, the chance to see those numbers increase, but we have done all of the things that are necessary to put the financial foundation in place.

We are one of two jurisdictions in Canada who have actually managed to control spending and bring ourselves to a balanced budget in British Columbia. We have concentrated on ensuring that British Columbia has a competitive tax regime. When we needed to look to expand markets, we've seen incredible increases in exports, allowing mills to stay open, for example, in the forest sector that simply would not have if we had not made the effort to reach out to Asian partners.

We have a plan, we're going to work harder and we're redoubling our efforts, because we know that we have put the fiscal foundation in place to create jobs in British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: Well, it's nice to hear the minister say she has a plan. I guess that's what the Premier meant when she said: "I think we're beginning to see results."

[1405]

Well, guess what. After 30 months, we are seeing results: the worst record of private sector job creation in the country. That's a fact — the worst record. That may not mean anything to the minister, but for 150,000 people looking for work in this province, 30 months of the worst job creation in the country is thin gruel. And 12,000 people have left this province, seeing opportunities elsewhere, because they've given up on the Premier's jobs plan.

My question to the Premier is this: what are other provinces doing right that this province is doing wrong? Is it the fact that they're not relying on slogans and platitudes, that they have a real jobs plan?

Hon. S. Bond: I would find it hard to believe how having one of two balanced budgets in the country is a slogan. I find it hard to believe that a slogan actually represents the fact that we are one of very few jurisdictions that have a triple-A credit rating in our country.

Let's talk about thin gruel. Let's look at a headline in the Times Colonist on April 25, 2013. Here's what it said about the Leader of the Opposition: "The Leader of the Opposition Lays Out the NDP's Election Platform and Comes Up Empty on Jobs."
[ Page 2018 ]

M. Elmore: I'd like to draw the attention of the minister to the issue and the reality that we have the worst job loss in the private sector in Canada. That's the reality in British Columbia. It's British Columbians out of work, looking for jobs that this Liberal government has not delivered on. Last month B.C. lost another 10,400 jobs. Since September of 2011, when the Premier said her "recipe is that we grow a thriving private sector," B.C. has the worst private sector job growth. Not second-worst. Not third-worst. Worst. Last place in private sector job creation.

Will the Liberals admit the Premier has failed to create jobs and bring in a real plan to get British Columbia working?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, perhaps we should actually get the fact around unemployment rates in the country on the table as well, rather than just the selective facts being suggested on the other side. British Columbia currently has single-digit unemployment in every area of British Columbia. In addition to that, unemployment rates are significantly below the national average, and, in fact, we are fourth-lowest in the country.

I know this. It's very interesting that suddenly today the members opposite have decided that, potentially, they might just want to talk about job creation in our province. First of all, I look forward to hearing from the members opposite about liquefied natural gas in British Columbia. Are they supportive of it, or do they oppose it? I'll wait to hear in the next answer whether or not they actually support projects in British Columbia that will create thousands of new jobs.

[1410]

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Kensington on a supplemental.

M. Elmore: Well, this is a fact: B.C. has the worst employment rate west of the Maritimes. That's a fact. Thirty months ago the Premier said job creation was her primary mission. A year later she said her plan was successful, even as B.C. was shedding private sector jobs. Two years later the Liberals say they're achieving great things in employment growth.

Last week the Premier said that we're seeing the results of her plan. Now, 30 months after she made these big promises, all we're left with is her empty words. B.C. has the worst record in private sector job creation.

The words British Columbians deserve to hear are the Premier admitting her so-called plan has been a complete failure. Will she tell us what changes she's made to her plan to ensure that we stop having the worst record for job creation in Canada?

Hon. S. Bond: Perhaps the member opposite thinks if she just repeats it enough, British Columbians might believe it. We laid out a plan, and I think it's clear, looking across the aisle, whose plan British Columbians believed in. It was this side of the House. So we should be clear….

Just to correct the record for the members opposite, when you look at private sector job creation from February of 2013 to February of 2014, British Columbia ranked third.

What I'm looking forward to over the next number of months is whether or not every single member of the opposition is going to stand up and support an industry which is going to create thousands of new jobs. Is it yes, or is it no?

I want to point this out to the members opposite. If they can't even agree on what it takes to get the product out of the ground, I can assure you, they're not in favour of seeing exports and brand-new jobs in an industry in British Columbia.

CORE REVIEW AND HIRING OF PERSONS
ASSOCIATED WITH B.C. LIBERAL PARTY

S. Simpson: We know there's been some job creation going on in this province. We know that while average British Columbians are still struggling to find work, the B.C. Liberals are making sure their partisan friends are finding soft landing spots. While B.C. remains in last place in private sector job creation, the Premier has found more than $1 million a year to pay perks and patronage appointments — $1 million to hire 20 failed candidates and Liberal insiders. No jobs created for British Columbians, but good-paying jobs for their friends.

On July 18 the minister said to the media: "We will look at everything. We're going to look at absolutely everything. There is nothing sacred in this." Will the Minister for Core Review tell us if the Liberal pork-barrel program will be looked at as part of his mandate?

Hon. B. Bennett: It reminds me of the question about beating one's spouse. No, I don't. The answer to the question is that we're actually proud on this side of the House of the way we do appointments in this province.

[1415]

When we were first elected in 2001, what we found was that we had NDP constituency assistants, NDP campaign managers, NDP friends on all of our boards and agencies in this province. That was the state of affairs at that time. The then government of the day….

Interjections.

Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Speaker, it's difficult to answer….

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: We created an agency within gov-
[ Page 2019 ]
ernment that we call a board resourcing office, and we created a skills-based appointments process that we're actually quite proud of on this side of the House. Instead of having, for example, in my region…. That's a good place for me to talk about as an example. For example, the Columbia Basin Trust today has people who are appointed to that board who have the skills to contribute to the operations of that agency.

When I was first elected in 2001, there were constituency assistants, there were campaign managers, and there were close personal friends of the NDP who were on that board. So we have actually cleaned up that side of government, and we're quite proud of that.

S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, 15 failed Liberal candidates getting jobs valued, some of them, at over $100,000 a year. That's what you call integrity on the Liberal side of the bench.

The minister told British Columbians that the core review would think of the single mom earning $35,000 a year who pays the government a few thousand annually in taxes. The minister said: "We want to make sure that every single dollar that's being spent by a ministry or a Crown corporation is treated respectfully."

How respectful is it when a government says one thing to the single mom and then finds more than $1 million to pay off defeated candidates and friends? And this doesn't even include the 300-plus people that this government employs, which the Liberals employ, in communications staff to prop up the Premier and the cabinet.

If this government was really committed to making tough choices, it would start by looking in the mirror. Will the core review look at the full cost of Liberal pork-barrel programs, and will he tell British Columbians what value they get for the millions they'll be spending over the next four years for spin doctors and defeated candidates?

Hon. B. Bennett: One thing we're not going to do is siphon off constituency funds from MLA accounts — money that is supposed to go into constituencies to help constituents, whether they are rural or urban. We're not going to make a secret compact with our MLAs to take money from them, which is supposed to be going to help their constituents where they live, and use it to advertise. That's what the other side of the House did just prior to the election. Very proud of what we're doing in core review.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: The minister will conclude his remarks.

Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Speaker, they clearly don't like hearing about this. They didn't like hearing about it at the time, and they don't like hearing about it now. It is the most egregious use of constituency funds of anything that I have ever seen in my 13 years. It was disrespectful to the people that they are accountable….

Which one of them over there, I wonder, went to their constituents and actually apologized for taking money from their constituency so they could advertise down here in the Lower Mainland?

[1420]

L. Krog: Well, we're all very glad that minister is in charge of the core review. If you want to talk about the trough, if you want to talk about how governments operate, the best thing to be in British Columbia is a losing Liberal. If you're Nick Facey, the unsuccessful candidate in North Island, you get a newly created chief-of-staff position with perks and benefits closing in on $110,000 per annum.

There are 20 B.C. Liberals — including failed candidates Gabby Kalaw, Hector Bremner and Fatima Siddiqui — and they're all there making money at the public trough at the very time the B.C. Liberals say that we can't do anything for people in public education or people on social assistance.

My question is to this minister over there in charge of the core review. Is he going to actually look into the pork-barrel program to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to hire failed Liberal candidates?

Hon. B. Bennett: It's important that we put this in context, I think. I was just handed some information on what the NDP government spent on advertising just before they were unceremoniously dumped by the electorate. They spent $21.38 million on advertising. This year, this government, the blue book amount is $8.5 million.

Staff budget. There have been questions directed around the cost of staff.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

Please continue.

Hon. B. Bennett: There have been questions around comments in terms of staff. The staff budget for the outgoing NDP government was $39.29 million. It's currently $2 million less than that, and that's with 14 years of inflation.

I'm actually very proud of what the core review process is accomplishing. There's lots more to be done. We have found a couple of agencies that the taxpayer can do without. I know that the opposition didn't support that, but we're trying to find ways so we can do things for less taxpayer dollars so that we can take those dollars and apply them elsewhere in government.

We think that is part of the reason why we were chosen
[ Page 2020 ]
as a political party over the NDP.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing the member for Nanaimo on a supplemental.

L. Krog: I know that the minister doesn't want to answer the question. But I just want to talk about a couple more Liberal friends. Let's talk about Kenneth Fung, who got onto the UBC board of governors, the biggest public institution in the province. Let's talk about Gordon Wilson, who just managed to get an extension for his $150,000 patronage appointment.

Now, what is it that Gordon Wilson and Kenneth Fung have in common? What is it? What is it they have in common? They're both….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Member. Member, just wait.

Please continue.

L. Krog: What is it that Gordon Wilson and Kenneth Fung both have in common? Well, they both like to phone in to radio shows, and being modest, they don't use their own names when they do it.

Now that we're rewarding people who phone in to radio shows using fake names with $150,000 jobs and putting them on the board of governors of UBC, I just want to again ask the minister: with the core review, are they actually going to look into this pork-barrel program for failed Liberals and their Liberal friends?

[1425]

Hon. B. Bennett: The opposition has opened an interesting but — I find, personally — somewhat revolting area of inquiry.

We ran in the 2013 election as a party that was going to work hard to try and do what government can do to turn the economy around. We promised that we would balance the budget. We have done that. We promised that we would do everything we could to retain our triple-A credit rating so we weren't spending $2 billion more on interest than we had to. And we promised the people of the province that our leader and everyone else in this caucus would act in an ethical manner.

The people of the province chose us. They chose this side of the House. They chose to elect us not only because of our proficiency at dealing with economic issues but also because of that other piece — the ethics. They chose this side of the House because they knew they could trust us and they knew they couldn't trust them.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
POVERTY OF SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES

M. Mungall: In 2010, 20 percent of B.C.'s single moms and their children lived in poverty. A year later, in 2011, median incomes for single mothers dropped by more than $10,000 to just $21,500 per year. The massive decrease in income left half of all single mothers and their children living in poverty.

My question is to the Minister of Social Development. Now that the Liberals have found jobs for their friends and failed Liberal candidates, are there any resources left to truly tackle child poverty in this province?

Hon. D. McRae: It's really important that we make sure we treat all British Columbians with dignity and respect, and there are things that we can do in this government to make their lives a little easier. I'm very pleased to say that there are 800,000 persons in British Columbia who pay no MSP premiums. I'm pleased to say there are over a quarter of a million individuals in British Columbia who do not pay PharmaCare. And if you make under $19,000, you do not pay personal income tax in British Columbia.

That being said, there's more we can do. One of the things, sometimes, single mothers could use, when it's the right stage of their life, is to have a job. There are 128,000 people we've served through Employment B.C. Now, in that time, we've been able to find jobs in that sector for 40 to 50 percent of those individuals. Why? Because they are a sector that struggles to find work, and this government is there to assist those individuals.

M. Mungall: Just telling people to go get a job without proper child care, with cuts to employment programs, is not going to help the single moms living in poverty and their kids. That's why B.C. has had the worst rate of child poverty in this country for ten long years.

B.C. has the worst rate right now for private sector job creation. That's a reality. Now we see that poverty rates for families headed by single mothers have more than doubled under this government's watch.

Again, when will the Liberals start offering more than rhetoric, more than slogans and start taking real action to reduce poverty in this province? Today, Minister.

Hon. D. McRae: One of the reasons that I ran for this party — and I think many people support this party — is because we want to make sure we serve all British Columbians.

[1430]

I'm very proud to say that one of the programs that affects all British Columbians in a positive way, if they have children, is StrongStart. This government started it. We've grown it in British Columbia. It provides great benefit to individuals across this province.

Not just my daughter next year will start all-day K, but all children in kindergarten next year will have the opportunity to take kindergarten all day. It's a benefit to my daughter and to daughters and sons across the province
[ Page 2021 ]
of British Columbia.

I'm also very pleased to see in the budget this year that not only do we balance the budget but we're also going to be introducing, in the future, a $650 early childhood tax credit, which will benefit families who are bringing up young children across the province of British Columbia.

Lastly, I just can't rise in this chamber and not bring up the disability white paper consultation process, where we're asking families across British Columbia, whether they have a disability or not, what we can do to do more. I'm pleased to say that the response has been so positive and suggestions have been so meaningful. I'm looking forward to this process ending tomorrow.

[End of question period.]

D. Horne: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Horne: On behalf of you, Madame Speaker, I would like to introduce two guests who are visiting us from Richmond East, from McKesson Canada, a major employer of over 700 high-tech jobs. In the Richmond headquarters are Anthony Leong and Ron Dunn. May the House make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, second reading on Bill 16, the interim supply bill, and in Committee A, the Committee of Supply, for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 16 — SUPPLY ACT (NO. 1), 2014

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 16, Supply Act (No. 1), be read a second time now.

The existing voted appropriations for the Crown will expire on March 31 of 2014, later this month. Bill 16 will provide interim supply for the first nine weeks of 2014-2015 fiscal year while members debate the appropriations presented in the 2014-2015 estimates.

The interim supply for ministry operations and other appropriations is required, of course, to ensure continuation of government services until the end of this legislative session, when it is hoped that final supply will be determined.

Bill 16 provides one-third of the combined voted amounts in schedules C and D of the 2014-15 estimates for disbursements related to capital expenditures, loans, investments and other financing requirements. These disbursements are not evenly distributed throughout the year; therefore, the higher level of interim supply is required to accommodate the uneven timing of payments made under these schedules.

Madame Speaker, 100 percent of the 2014-2015 requirements for schedule E, financing transactions, is being sought in this supply bill. Schedule E of the '14-15 estimates outlines the revenue collected for and transferred to other entities. These distributions are statutory, and there is no impact on the deficit, borrowing or debt resulting from the collection and transfer of the revenue.

These interim supply appropriations are based on the accountabilities and allocations outlined in the 2014-15 estimates. The final supply bill for 2014-2015 will incorporate these amounts to ensure that it reflects the sum of all voted appropriations to be given to government in that fiscal year.

[1435]

In closing, I understand that there are differences of opinion with respect to the budget itself. I expect, however, that members understand and will agree with the need to ensure — on an interim basis, at least, while those differences are considered and debated — that an interim appropriation to allow government operations to continue is appropriate.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 16.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My colleague the House Leader wants comprehensive remarks, and I will endeavour to provide comprehensive remarks, because Bill 16 is extremely important. We have bills that are tabled in this chamber which may run to many hundreds of sections and may have 45 or 60 pages to them. Some might think that that is a piece of legislation that is of extreme importance, and, in fact, they might well be right. But don't let size be an indication….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My colleague across the way says to be careful, and I'm mindful of those words.

Don't let size be an indication of power. When it comes to Bill 16, this is anything but. This bill is literally a page. It is three sections — three sections only. But it is called a supply act for a reason. What it does, as my colleague the Finance Minister has outlined, is it allows the government to function. It allows government to spend the money that keeps the province running.

[D. Horne in the chair. ]
[ Page 2022 ]

It allows the salaries of teachers to be paid, of health care professionals to be paid, of the public service to be paid — the people who keep this place running, the people who keep the province running in terms of the delivery of services that 4½ million British Columbians rely on. The Supply Act does that.

Now we are in the start, if you like…. We've debated the budget at second reading. We're now into what is known as Committee of Supply. In Committee of Supply each of the ministry's spending estimates undergoes detailed examination.

One of the chief jobs of the opposition is to ask questions, as can government members, of the different ministers and their departments and how they are spending taxpayers' dollars: what the programs are, whether those programs have changed, whether they have been improved, whether they have been cut back. Increases in spending in some areas, decreases in others, the size of the budget in the minister's office, the number of staff — all kinds of conceivable questions you can ask — policy questions, you name it.

In fact, there have been those who have watched the process of estimates and think that that really should be question period, unlike our real question period, where we get to ask the questions and we don't necessarily — quite often — get an answer. We only get a limited opportunity, time, to do that — 30 minutes. Each individual MLA, apart from…. The lead questioner, usually the Leader of the Opposition, can ask three questions. Everybody else gets to ask two questions, and you may well not get an answer to your question.

In the estimates debate you do get to ask questions. You can ask as many questions as you want, and you can keep asking a question of a minister until you get, hopefully, a satisfactory answer, or at least an acknowledgement that your question will be answered in writing at some point in time. What it does allow: it allows for a thorough examination and discussion of key policy areas that matter to members on this side of the House.

I look forward to my time in estimates with the Minister of Finance. There'll be lots of questions we'll ask there. I know that other colleagues will be wanting to ask questions of the Attorney General during her estimates process. It's a very thorough process.

The problem is that while that is going on, that means that the whole budget has not been passed. If that budget has not been passed, then people don't get paid, so in order to make sure that that is not a problem, we have the supply bill. The supply bill — as my colleague has pointed out, the Minister of Finance — is for nine weeks of the 52 weeks that make up the calendar year, and that will allow government operations to continue. Then at such point as when the budget is passed….

Even though we disagree with the budget itself, the fact is that once the debates and then the supply bill are voted on and money can flow…. In the meantime, that's what Bill 16 is allowing: the government to continue its operations while we debate the budget and its estimates.

[1440]

With those short comments — as I said, because it is only three sections long — I will take my place. I know that the minister will have some closing comments, and then we will be moving on to other just-as-important business.

I guess the final point that I would make is that the initial sum we will be approving with this supply bill is some $6,185,265,000 — a not inconsiderable sum. With that, I take my place and listen. I look forward to the minister's closing remarks.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call on the Minister of Finance to close debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the hon. opposition critic. I will simply say this. I appreciated his description of the estimates process that is now underway and will follow. His description and, dare I say, profession of faith in that process lead me to maintain some obscure level of hope that by the end of the exercise there may yet be universal support for the budget that the government has tabled. But I'm not holding my breath.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 16.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 16, Supply Act (No. 1), 2014, 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. de Jong: I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 3, the Missing Persons Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 3 — MISSING PERSONS ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 3; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:43 p.m.

On section 1 (continued).

K. Corrigan: When we finished on Thursday, I was asking some questions about section 1, the definitions section, and specifically about the definition of "missing person."
[ Page 2023 ]

I raised a concern that it wouldn't necessarily have to be a relative or a service provider, but that hypothetically under this act the police could be the ones to start the process to demand records. I gave the hypothetical that if police were seeking a suspect in a case and they went to the relatives of that person they were seeking and those relatives said that person — perhaps a son, a loved one — wasn't around and that person was missing, that would satisfy the requirements under the act, under "missing person" definition subsection (a). I suggested that was the case and asked the minister about the response to that.

The minister said that's not the purpose of the act, that the purpose of this act is for civil remedies, and then said: "The hypothetical situation being raised by the member opposite, I think, would be an issue of conduct. We have high expectations of our police officers."

[1445]

I've gone back and looked at what the minister said. I'm not sure why, actually, the minister would suggest that it would be bad conduct, if in fact that would be within the parameters of the act.

I'm going to go back to that and ask the minister again: would it be lawful under this act for a police officer to try to make contact or have somebody make contact with an individual and find out there has not been contact with that individual and then be the agent themselves, saying: "This test has now been satisfied" — if they're, say, a suspect — "and we're going to go and get an order"? Is that plausible or possible under this act? And if it isn't, could the minister tell me why it isn't?

Hon. S. Anton: The purpose of this act is to find an individual who is missing, not for the police to find a suspect in a case.

K. Corrigan: I know the minister has said repeatedly that is the purpose of the act. That is not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is: is it possible, under the definition of "missing person" as it is written in the act that the minister has brought into this House…? A police officer could be the one, as this act is written, that says: "There have been efforts to locate the individual. We've made efforts to locate the individual. We can't find them"? It seems to me that would fit the first part of that definition, and that the person "has not been in contact with those persons who would likely be in contact with the individual."

If a police officer was to go to a family and say, "Have you seen this individual?" and they say no, what I'm asking is: would the provisions of the act have been completed? And if not, why not?

I just don't see it. I'm not saying it's an issue of misconduct. I'm saying if it's legal, then police shouldn't have to feel like it's misconduct at all, because this is what the act says.

I really hope the minister is not going to get up again and say: "That's not the purpose." I'm not concerned at this point about what the purpose is. I'm concerned about the interpretation of that phrase and whether or not the minister agrees that it could conceivably be used that way.

[1450]

Hon. S. Anton: The act in its entirety defines a missing person, and then it defines the ways that the police department may go out and look for the missing person. The conduct of the police is under judicial oversight because they need to go to the judge to make the order.

The purpose of the act is to find missing persons. The member opposite keeps coming back to using it for a different purpose. That is not the reason for the act. The reason for the act is to find missing persons — persons missing to their friends, to their family.

K. Corrigan: The minister can say it over and over that that is not the purpose of the act. What I've asked is….

I have asked leading members of the criminal bar the very question that I'm asking the minister. I've had leading members of the criminal bar — more than one — say to me that they believe that under this act the police could file an affidavit saying they couldn't contact the individual through their wives or their brothers or their mothers and that it could be used that way if they are simply a person who was missing, as many criminals are, and if their whereabouts are unknown and they've made efforts to locate the individual.

It's not just me that is suggesting it could be used that way. I guess I'm going to ask just one more time. Not what the purpose is. Under the minister's reading of this section, is that a possible use of the act? Is it possible? Not whether it's the purpose. Is it possible? Yes or no?

Hon. S. Anton: The other day I did mention that British Columbia's act is consistent with acts in other jurisdictions. The purpose of these acts in other jurisdictions and in British Columbia is not to conduct criminal investigations, as suggested by the member opposite, but to find missing persons.

D. Eby: My question is similar to my colleague's question. Under the definition of "missing person," why would the ministry not have the "or" be an "and" under subsection (a)? By changing the "or" to an "and," you import the requirement that there's a reason to believe that the person who is being searched for — that their safety and welfare are somehow at risk.

It would seem to me that that very simple change would address the concern. You could also get rid of it entirely. But that simple change would require that in order to be accessing people's records, accessing third-party records, going to court and so on, you have to actually believe that the person's in danger somehow, that their welfare is at risk.
[ Page 2024 ]

With the "or," that doesn't have to be the case. All it has to be is someone who hasn't been in touch with people who would ordinarily be in touch, and it imports all kinds of risks in terms of privacy to people who may not want to be in touch with their relatives, for example. All of a sudden the police are tracking them down on behalf of family members they don't want to talk to.

The question is quite straightforward. Why is that not an "and"? Why is it not a requirement that the person's health or welfare be at risk before all the powers of this act come into force?

[1455]

Hon. S. Anton: As I described the other day, it is consistent with the legislation in other jurisdictions, and it is believed to be appropriate to have that broader section (a) because there are some circumstances where section (b) may not be called into play but section (a) is. It gives friends, family and parents, for example, the ability to go out and look for the individual who is missing.

N. Simons: As a matter of fact, other jurisdictions that the minister references make specific reference to when a criminal matter is under investigation. In Manitoba the act gives the police the ability to obtain information when criminal activity is not suspected. Has that been clearly delineated in this act?

Hon. S. Anton: The investigation being conducted under this act is a civil investigation for a missing person. It is not an act to be used for finding a criminal suspect, as keeps being raised by the members opposite.

N. Simons: You just blew section 20 out of the water. I mean, it's clear what the question is. When does a missing person become someone we can't find? I think it's essential that, as legislators, we determine whether it's possible under a less benevolent authority that this act will be used in less positive ways.

That's why legislation is important. It's not about the motivation, as this minister knows. The Civil Forfeiture Act is being used in ways that we were assured in this House it wouldn't be used. The Safety Standards Amendment Act we were assured wouldn't be used. It's about how the act is interpreted not by you, through the Chair, but by the people enforcing this act. I think it's essential that we have answers to these questions.

[1500]

Hon. S. Anton: Section 20 talks about related criminal investigation, and that's an evidentiary issue. That is when the police go to look for somebody, they get information. So far they are in a civil investigation. Sometimes it turns out that the person they're looking for in a civil investigation may in fact, for example, have become the victim of foul play. That is where, on an evidentiary issue before a court, that phrase "related criminal investigation" would come into play. It would be for the court at that time to determine whether or not it was a related criminal investigation.

N. Simons: While the minister is giving examples, could the minister provide an example where…? If one part of "missing person" is present, like section (a), why would you need both?

Hon. S. Anton: As I have replied to this question several times now, the answer is that that more general provision may be needed from time to time for persons where they are missing. They are missing by a friend or family. They have not been in contact with their friend or family, and the friend or family wants to know where they are. So it's a more general provision which is, as I said, consistent with legislation in other jurisdictions and is a valuable part of this act.

K. Corrigan: I'm not going to ask too many more questions on that section. We have talked about it. I did say last time, when I asked a similar question to my colleague, that every time the minister responded it sounded like a set of circumstances where there was concern. Again, the minister just said that family wants to know where they are. It sounds a little bit different than it did last time, because when we were talking on Thursday, it was more of a focus on…. They're concerned about that individual. To me, that would fall squarely under subsection (b), and if you're not worried about it, I'm not sure why we want to be looking for them.

Maybe I'll ask this in a slightly different way. If, hypothetically, a police officer was to swear an affidavit or whatever the process is and go to a justice for an order saying that this person has been missing, at what point in the process would it be stopped? Would it be before the justice that the justice would say this is not what this act is intended for?

Hon. S. Anton: In order for a police officer under this act to get an order, they must go in front of a justice and satisfy the justice that there are proper reasons to go and look for the missing person. They're not going to get that order unless they can present those circumstances to the justice.

K. Corrigan: The minister is saying, then, that a justice would take a look at the provisions of the act, and he or she would satisfy themselves that they could not allow an order under this act on the basis of that scenario — that the police are looking for somebody. They say that they are missing. Their whereabouts are unknown, and they've not been in contact with people that they would normally be in contact with.

[1505]

The minister is saying, under that scenario, that it would be stopped, that the judge would not…. Would the judge or justice not simply take a look at the act and say: "Are the criteria met or not"? And if so, what is it about these criteria that would not be met in that circumstance?

Hon. S. Anton: When the officer appears in front of a justice with the affidavit in order to get the order, they must satisfy that justice that the order is an appropriate one to be granted.

Now, the member opposite said: "What will the judge or the justice consider?" I think a justice will consider what a justice considers, which could be many factors. Their role, of course, in this kind of thing is to make the order in the appropriate circumstances, and the justice or judge would have to be satisfied that the circumstances were appropriate to grant the order.

K. Corrigan: Well, we're going to be talking in a few minutes about emergency orders, wherein police officers in an emergency situation don't have to go to a judge. I guess, from the comments that were made last Thursday and the comments being made today, what the minister is saying is that somebody could not be a missing person and the police officer could not, in an emergency situation, use that definition — even though they don't have to go before a judge.

Hon. S. Anton: In an emergency demand, the police officer must file a written report and is responsible to their officer in charge.

K. Corrigan: Yes, I appreciate that. That is true. There would have to be a report, and there are concerns about that. But maybe I'll leave that for now, because we will deal with this section later. But I was thinking of it in terms of the context of the definition and how that could play out in various scenarios.

Subsection (b). This would be the second set of criteria that have to be met to have somebody declared a missing person, and therefore it would be appropriate to get records related to them. Subsection (b) is that there have been reasonable efforts to locate the individual — they're missing — whose safety and welfare are feared for, given the individual's age, the individual's physical or mental capabilities, or the circumstances surrounding the individual's absence.

I'm wondering why the individual's age was made so general as opposed to something specific like a minor or a senior.

[1510]

Hon. S. Anton: The descriptor "the individual's age" captures both minors and seniors who are missing and who are feared for in that section.

K. Corrigan: If it was a senior or maybe somebody with Alzheimer's — you know, these are the kinds of cases, the wandering-away cases; we've had some real tragedies in this province — would that not be covered? Let's say it's a senior who has Alzheimer's and has gone missing. Would that not be satisfied by subsection (iii) — in other words, that you would be concerned about the safety and welfare of that individual given the circumstances surrounding the individual's absence? Would not age and the fact that they had Alzheimer's be enough circumstances that it would satisfy subsection (iii) rather than…? In fact, it would satisfy all of the requirements.

Hon. S. Anton: It is useful in this case to allow for a senior who may not necessarily fall into subsection (ii) but whose safety and welfare are feared for. So to confine it to minors, you lose the opportunity of that broader descriptor, which is contained right now in subsection (i).

K. Corrigan: The minister is, I think, talking about the fact that we are going to have an amendment that I've provided. I've provided a number of amendments that we're going to bring forward shortly, and we will be proposing that it be "a minor" instead of "the individual's age," which just seems quite loose to me. It gives me some concern, and I think it could be improved just to say "a minor" so we have something concrete.

Particularly because we have concerns…. There can be concerns when — we talked earlier about it — sometimes people want to be able to just leave, disappear and not be followed. The minister has agreed that that is legitimate and lawful, even though it might be painful to family. And if it's nebulous like this, then it could be a 20-year-old or a 21-year-old. So I'm a little concerned about leaving it open. Because whose concern are we talking about? The safety and welfare are feared for by the parents. I think that when somebody is a minor, it gives a little more clarity and puts that boundary there a little bit better. That's why I'm concerned about that.

When I was talking about the sub-subsection that would address the concern about the older individual or somebody else who has physical or mental challenges, subsection (iii) — "the circumstances surrounding the individual's absence" — might address whether it's somebody who is older and perhaps has Alzheimer's. Would that not be covered — that situation where you're talking about the older person? Subsection (iii).

Hon. S. Anton: As the member opposite has pointed out, people are entitled to be missing from their families, and that can certainly happen within the parameters of this act. It can certainly happen that the police search for a missing person, they find that person and the person says: "No, sorry. I'm just not interested in being found."

[1515]

That happens today. That happens right now when po-
[ Page 2026 ]
lice go and look for people when they don't need these civil remedies, but they find people, and the person says: "I don't need to be found." And that's that. That happens from time to time, and it will continue to happen from time to time under this act. Nothing in that section will change that.

K. Corrigan: But what's different about this act is that in searching for that individual, the police are being given broader powers to go to a justice and ask for information that up to date has not been available. That includes cellphone records, records containing contact information, identification, text messaging records, Internet browsing history, GPS — all sorts of different things. So that's where it's different. We're giving very broad powers on a civil basis, not on a criminal basis.

Hon. S. Anton: Indeed it does, because the purpose of this act is to find people. The purpose of this act is to save lives. We have faith in the police. We have faith in the judicial system, and in particular, we have faith in the police. I have faith in the police, and this legislation assumes faith in the police that they will do the right thing.

Again, if the person doesn't wish to be reported back to their family or the people who are missing them, they will not be. They have not been in the past. Nothing in this act will make that happen again. They may be found now. As a result of this act, there are more tools to find that person, but there are no more tools to report back where that person is than there ever were before. That is a matter of police judgment and practice, and it's something that police do now and will continue to do.

G. Heyman: Chair, I will confess to being a bit mystified by the answers provided to some of these questions by the Justice Minister. It seems to me that we're all in agreement that if somebody is missing and in danger in some form, the police should have the tools to find them.

Yet every time we ask a question about whether there's an unintended consequence to provisions in this act, such as the use of the word "or" between (a) and (b) in "missing person" instead of "and" when it seems clear to me and to my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey that if you take (a) on its own, it's virtually a blank cheque…. When we ask questions in this regard, we simply get brought back to: "The purpose of this act is."

We know what the purpose of the act is. What we're trying to ask is questions about unintended consequence. To define a missing person on its own as someone who has not been in contact with those persons who would likely be in contact with the individual is, in fact, granting to the police quite broad powers. It seems to me that it's simply not good enough for the Justice Minister to say she has complete faith in the activities of the police.

We all do, and we also all know that laws need to be precise and specific to protect people's individual rights. If they're not, they will be subject to abuse. So I would simply repeat the questions that have been asked earlier. Why is there an "or" instead of an "and"?

Hon. Chair, I'm not much interested in hearing for the umpteenth time what the purpose of the act is. I'm interested in hearing how the Justice Minister thinks that the wording of the definition of "missing person" as it's currently stated in the draft legislation in front of us simply cannot be abused. It seems to me that it's wide open.

Hon. S. Anton: Chair, there have been two problems hypothetically put forward by the members opposite. One is that the act may be used to find somebody who doesn't wish to be found, and somehow there's something wrong with that.

[1520]

Well, people, as I mentioned already, may be found who don't wish to be found. That's normal police practice to not report that person back.

The second proposition put forward is that the police may abuse the act. Well, police are expected to conduct themselves properly. We don't expect, in an act, that a police officer is going to use an act, which is a civil remedy for a missing person, in order to further their criminal investigation on something else altogether.

G. Heyman: If the police never abused some of the powers they had or never undertook an investigation in an inappropriate manner, we wouldn't have a Police Complaint Commissioner, and that Police Complaint Commissioner would never be considering complaints against the police.

I would ask that the Justice Minister simply apply the logic of her office that bills brought forward to this Legislature that grant extraordinary powers should be carefully crafted and should be very focused on their intent — in fact, the exact intent that the Justice Minister has attempted to drum into members of this side of the House. If there is a clear intent, there is no reason for the act to extend beyond the clear intent.

My second point is that the Justice Minister has said that if somebody doesn't wish to be found, no harm done. The police simply let them go ahead being invisible. That's not the point of the question.

Surely, the Justice Minister understands that what we are saying and what the Privacy Commissioner has said is that extraordinary powers to go deeply into somebody's private information are being granted for the sole purpose of finding somebody who is missing and may be at some sort of risk of harm or may, in fact, have been harmed.

So, yes, harm will, in fact, be done to people's right to privacy if a loophole that has no purpose for the provisions of and the express purpose of this act — that is, to find missing persons — is used, in fact, to reveal their private personal information when no demonstrated
[ Page 2027 ]
real need was there.

If the minister would like a question, then my question is simply…. Please tell us how her theoretical faith in the absolute proper behaviour at all times of every single police officer in every instance — which is admirable, but as past experience will often point out, perhaps cannot always be relied upon…. How can she guarantee that this definition, as currently put forward, will not ever be subject to abuse?

Hon. S. Anton: The information accessed under this act can only be used for the purpose of locating a missing person or in a related criminal investigation, as I described earlier.

Police conduct themselves appropriately. If they do not…. On the rare occasions when they do not, then there are procedures in place to deal with that. But there are police standards, there is police training, and police in British Columbia really are of the very highest standard in terms of the way they conduct themselves.

A police officer using this legislation is using this legislation to find a missing person.

G. Heyman: Let me try and reframe the question in a simpler format, because the minister has admitted that there are rare occasions where powers may be abused and that there are remedies in that case.

[1525]

I would put forward that if there is an opportunity to close the door, at least more tightly, to prevent abuses, then we should do it, rather than simply rely on remedies after the fact.

So let me simply ask the minister what harm will be done by changing the word "or" between (a) and (b) in the definition of "missing person" to "and." How will that possibly interfere with the purposes of this bill?

The Chair: Member, it appears that we're currently debating an amendment that's not currently on the floor. So unless that amendment is put forward, I think that we should move to….

K. Corrigan: I'm certainly happy to, at this point, introduce an amendment to section 1.

[To amend section 1 of the Act by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

"missing person" means an individual whose whereabouts are unknown despite reasonable efforts to locate the individual and

(a) who has not been in contact with these persons who would likely be in contact with the individual, or

(b) (a) whose safety and welfare are feared for given

(i) the individual's age that the individual is a minor,

(ii) the individual's physical or mental capabilities, or

(iii) the circumstances surrounding the individual's absence;]

On the amendment.

K. Corrigan: I'm moving that amendment because we on this side of the House have repeatedly expressed concerns about the inclusion of subsection (a) as the section is presently written. We believe — I believe — that it would be an improvement to the bill to limit the circumstances in which an order could be brought under this act, an order for production of records, to a case where there are safety and welfare concerns.

It concerns me greatly, as many of us have said repeatedly, that simply not being in contact with individuals should not be enough to trigger an order that would allow the police to access records. I also believe the fact that it would have the circumstances that safety and welfare are feared for given "the circumstances surrounding the individual's absence" would include the situation where an individual had not been in contact with people that they were likely to be in contact with, with that individual.

It makes it imperative, a pre-condition that you have to have safety and welfare being concerned about. I think that's the proper use. Every time we talk about a person being missing and we talk about scenarios and what circumstances would there be…. Every single time we talk about it, we and the minister have all talked about circumstances where there is a concern for their health and safety.

So I think it should be explicit. The reason that I have, in addition, said that the individual…. Rather than we say that there's concern for the safety and welfare "given the individual's age," I think we should be more specific.

[1530]

I think if you say that individual is a minor, it takes it out of that kind of fuzzy area. What do you mean by "given the individual's age"? Could they be 23 or 24? I think that it's more clean if you say that the individual is a minor, and the senior that we're concerned about would be covered under subsection (iii).

So for that reason, I'm moving this amendment.

G. Heyman: Speaking to the amendment, I think we have stated some of our concerns, on this side of the House, in the context of being generally supportive — certainly very supportive of the stated purposes of the bill.

We want to see it succeed. We want to see the police have the tools they need. We simply want to ensure that we don't have to look at possible misuse of the bill and of information gained through the bill after the fact, and take available remedies. We just want to be sure that everybody, police included, is clear about what the stated purposes of the bill are, as clearly stated in the bill.

My question to the minister is: if you believe that this proposed amendment somehow makes it more difficult for police to get the information they need in a timely way, as quickly as currently stated in the bill, to get the information needed to find a missing person, please explicitly tell us what the problem with the amendment is, how the amendment does not allow the police the tools
[ Page 2028 ]
they need to locate a missing person, or any other reason that she thinks that the amendment is inappropriate.

Hon. S. Anton: I'm speaking against the amendment. The section as originally written has the broader capability of finding a person in the specific circumstances which are not described in section (b).

The two fears that are mentioned by the members opposite are these. One is that someone will be found who doesn't want to be found. I have addressed that, Chair. The second is that police will abuse that. I find that offensive.

This act is brought in, in direct response to the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. It is done by carefully considering other acts across the country of a similar nature. It is here to find missing persons. It's here to look for people who are at risk. Neither of the counter-examples that have been mentioned by the members opposite has any legitimacy.

If the person doesn't want to be found, they will say so. That happens now; that will continue to happen. If the person…. If the act…. I don't even like to repeat what the members opposite are saying about possible police abuses. That simply is not something that this act is designed for. This act is designed to give police officers a civil remedy to go out and look for somebody.

I'm speaking against the amendment and in support of the original language.

N. Simons: Wow, that was very interesting. First of all, I don't think the minister has any right to be offended by legitimate questions about legislation, especially with the track record of the government across the floor. Quite frankly, it's just an insult to most British Columbians that the minister is getting insulted. These are important questions.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

N. Simons: If you understood the issue, you'd probably be concerned as well. If this minister continually says…

Interjection.

The Chair: Member.

N. Simons: …that this legislation was brought in as a specific response to the inquiry, I have to take issue with that. She admitted that it's copied from Alberta and Manitoba. If it's copied from Alberta and Manitoba, why did the minister change the wording with respect to the definition of a missing person? Why is it that these other jurisdictions have a more accurate definition? Probably definitions that can be accepted by this side.

Let me read into the record — Alberta. Under section 1, definitions: "(b) 'missing person' means (i) an individual who has not been in contact with those persons who would likely be in contact with the individual, or (ii) an individual (A) whose whereabouts are unknown despite reasonable efforts to locate the individual, and (B) whose safety and welfare are feared for given the individual’s physical or mental capabilities or the circumstances surrounding the individual’s absence." Okay, that's Alberta.

[1535]

Let me bring in Manitoba. A "missing person" means "(a) a person whose whereabouts are unknown and who has not been in contact with those persons who would…normally be" with the person — whatever that wording is — "and (b) a person (i) whose whereabouts are unknown despite reasonable efforts to locate the person, and (ii) whose safety and welfare are feared for given the person's age…."

I would say, first of all, if they're making copies from other legislation it surprises me, because I think in British Columbia we should have the ability to design legislation for British Columbians, especially when that's touted as the main reason for this legislation. It's just a little bit weak, especially when you consider the other legislation was brought in, in 2011.

Interjection.

N. Simons: I'm sorry if it makes the minister uncomfortable. You know? Considering his cabinet position, he should be able to do something about that.

I think that the questions being asked are legitimate. Perhaps the minister can consider that maybe the amendment can happen now, and maybe it'll have to happen later. But I don't think it's fair to characterize the questions by the opposition as an insult. I think that there are loopholes in law that go unnoticed, and that's why we have debates in this Legislature. That's why, when we're talking about legislation, it's important to get it on the record.

Simply, I support the amendment as proposed by my colleague, who does so in the best interest of the people of the province. I think when you look at the Civil Forfeiture Act and you claim that there's never an abuse of the way the law was intended…. We had the Solicitor General telling us what the intent was, and then we see the events later. I don't think that the minister has to look further than the Vancouver Sun today to find evidence of that.

Quite frankly, I think it's…. I take issue with the minister characterizing these questions in any other way than it's important as legislators to be able to do that. I think that the minister should consider that. We're all legislators in this building, and that's why I'm going to support that amendment.
[ Page 2029 ]

K. Corrigan: I also wanted to express concerns about the characterization of us as doing something that is inappropriate or slagging the police. We're just trying to understand this legislation.

We do have many, many examples in the past where we have dealt with legislation in this House. I have dealt with many pieces of legislation that we've been told one thing about in this House. We've been told that a piece of legislation is constitutional. We've been told that a piece of legislation will not be used in a certain way. Civil forfeiture — it's going to be to get gangs and drug dealers. We found that there are real concerns about the application of the act.

I think we're doing our due diligence to ask these questions about how it potentially could be used. I've heard nothing from this minister to do with this definition that in any way persuades me that it could not be used…. I would actually have a different characterization than a couple of my colleagues here. I don't think it would be an abuse of the act — if it is interpreted as being legal, if there is a challenge, and if it is interpreted as being a legal use of the act — for a police officer to use this definition of missing person in order to find a suspect. Then I would say to the police, "Go ahead and use it that way," because I don't see anything in here that would disallow that.

Just because of the fact that there's a criminal element to it…? It is a civil regime, but so is civil forfeiture, and we have a blending of the line between criminal and civil with regard to civil forfeiture. We have a blurring of the line when it comes to roadside suspensions. This would not be the first time if there was a use, in terms of criminal law, that a piece of civil legislation was used for.

[1540]

I think that they're perfectly legitimate questions. That's why I submitted this resolution. I think it cured something. I don't see what situation…. I can't think of any situation that could not be covered under the definition as I've moved to have an amendment on. I think it would provide comfort to know that it's only when you're concerned about the safety and welfare of an individual that you could then go looking at people's cell phone bills and possibly anything, any number of records.

I think it's reasonable to say that you should be concerned about this individual, not just the fact that they are not presently there. You have to have had concern about the safety of the individual, I think, in order for it to be an appropriate use of power to get records that are, in many cases, very private.

I'm not going to speak any more on that. I think we've definitely made our point. I think this would be an improvement to the piece of legislation. I've talked to some lawyers who think this would be an improvement. That is not what the minister believes. I know it's similar in other jurisdictions. But I'm very concerned about the definition as it now exists, and I think this would be an improvement.

G. Heyman: I won't speak long. I think the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake has summed up the view of this side of the House.

It's unfortunate, in my view, when the people of British Columbia look to us to come together, review legislation, suggest improvements or amendments that will make a piece of legislation more focused on its stated purpose and more airtight, that we're treated to an example of legislation by stubbornness.

For the Justice Minister to accuse us of an approach to the police or an attitude to the police that is somehow disrespectful or so out of place that she won't even repeat it in the House, let me simply say to her that there are examples currently today of police officers who are before the courts because they are charged with improper behaviour.

That's not a common occurrence. They are exceptions. But to pretend that this doesn't happen is simply at odds with all of our experience and certainly is not a reason not to entertain a motion to make a piece of legislation more focused and not open to any kind of abuse.

Finally, the minister can, if she wants, say that we are somehow blocking a piece of legislation that is crucial and at the heart of the recommendations of the Missing Women Inquiry. We are not attempting to block the legislation. We are in support of the legislation. We're attempting to make it better. We're attempting to make it focused on not only its stated purpose but to ensure that it complies with people's privacy rights as stated by Privacy Commissioners across Canada and, particularly in British Columbia, to protect the rights of British Columbians' privacy — except in extreme circumstances.

Our amendment attempts to do that. To say that our amendment somehow interferes with the ability of the police to find a missing person or somehow our amendment would interfere with an act that would have prevented the unfortunate death of somebody on the Highway of Tears is simply inaccurate. It's not worthy.

I'd ask the minister to take a step back and consider the amendment in light of: does the amendment in any way, shape or form interfere with the stated purpose of the act? If it does not, and if it in fact enhances the privacy rights of British Columbians, then there is, in our view, no reason not to say yes.

The Chair: Proceed, Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan: I was wondering if the minister was actually going to get up to respond, but I guess not.

I was listening to this debate, and I came rushing up here to enter into this debate because I actually take the minister's comments quite seriously. When she actually said on the public record, as though there are no issues with the police system across British Columbia…. It is hugely flawed.
[ Page 2030 ]

[1545]

The whole reason why the missing and murdered women situation occurred and was escalated to the point that it had been was because there were systemic failures in the policing system.

In the bill that's before us and in the amendment that my good colleague brought before this House…. When the minister responds to say that her defence in not supporting this amendment is because she has faith in the police system and that she would not validate questions in this very House that put questions to the police system, I can't help but wonder: what, then, was the purpose of the entire Missing Women Inquiry? What is the purpose of the 63 recommendations that came forward?

When the minister says that this bill before us is at the heart of the Missing Women Inquiry, then she will know the failures of the policing system across British Columbia that brought us here today, and she will know that the issue that is central to the missing and murdered women was because of the police culture and the lack of action in even following up with reports to the police of people who were missing. That was the central reason that brought us to where we are today, in that historic, tragic case of the missing and murdered women in British Columbia, the worst homicide that's ever happened in this country.

On this question around the amendment, what does it simply say? The amendment actually says to amend the definition of "missing person" by deleting "(a) who has not been in contact with those persons who would likely be in contact with the individual" and "(b)(i) the individual's age." That's all that it says. It does not compromise at all the people who went missing and were murdered in the Missing Women Inquiry case. It does not, and why I say that is because of the problems that arose as they were found by the minister's predecessor around that case, centred around the police culture.

To pretend that there were no issues with the policing culture and how sometimes they do fall down in their job in failing to do what they're supposed to do, and to pretend that those problems don't exist, the minister is being willfully blind to the very problems that led us to where we are today, with so much tragedy and so much sadness that could have been prevented.

What are we talking about here as legislators in this House? What are we talking about? We're talking about making sure that legislation is brought forward that is thoughtful in its application and in anticipation of what might come forward. That's exactly what my colleague, the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, brought forward in anticipation of some of the problems that could exist in our system. Instead of taking these issues seriously, the minister chooses to close her eyes, to pretend as though somehow those problems will simply not exist. How faulty we are to go down that road as though we never learned a lesson from the missing and murdered women's inquiry?

Why is the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake advancing this motion? Simply to ensure, as best as we can, that in bringing forward legislation, there would be no abuses of the system. There are no guarantees, but simply to do the best job that we can. That's all that this is. To pretend the problems won't exist and to close your eyes entirely, in the manner in which the minister has done, I find offensive. Maybe the former Solicitor General — the top cop, supposedly, in this House — will find that "oh well, that's too bad." But I'll tell you this: it is too bad. Do you know why? Because we're talking about the lives of people here.

[1550]

It is an extremely serious matter.

Interjections.

J. Kwan: You know what, Mr. Chair? For all the ministers who are heckling…. I would love for them to enter into this debate. I'd like to hear, on the record, what they have to say around this — on the very public record. Absolutely, I am on the record. That's why I came running up here into this House to enter into this debate.

After all, it is through these debates that the government could be held accountable and all of us will be held accountable, unlike the government's side. Unlike the Premier, who likes to just make slogans and pretend that she doesn't need to be held accountable with her statements, I want to be on the public record about this — absolutely. There is no question.

So I ask the minister again. Is she then saying, in her response to my colleagues the member from Fairview, the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, who were engaging in this debate — the member for Vancouver–Point Grey who raised these questions…? Is the minister saying — and I want to hear her say this on the public record — that she is being wilfully blind to any potential problems that could come up through the policing system related to this act?

Is she saying that there are no problems whatsoever and she does not see them and therefore does not even acknowledge the recommendations that were brought forward by her predecessor Wally Oppal in the missing and murdered women's inquiry? Is that the reason why she's rejecting this amendment?

Or is the reason that she simply just wants to have partisan politics involved instead of doing the best job she can in bringing the best set of recommendations forward and legislation forward? Is she just simply being partisan because they fail to see those problems and anticipate the issues that my good colleague the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake anticipated, and so, therefore, she will not acknowledge them? What's the real reason for her to actually ignore and reject this amendment?
[ Page 2031 ]

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, I'll put the question.

The question is the amendment to the definition of "missing person."

Amendment negatived on division.

K. Corrigan: Well, I think that's unfortunate. I think it would have improved the act, and I'd like to thank my colleagues for speaking very passionately. Certainly, my colleague has spent many years following and being very concerned about the inquiry and has been passionate and dedicated and speaks with a great deal of knowledge. So I appreciate her involvement in this and for coming and joining us.

I think it's important for us to get this on the record. I hope there are not problems. I hope that it is not used in the way that I have expressed concern about. But I still have seen nothing in this act that would not prevent some of the scenarios that we've talked about and been concerned about from unfolding legally, actually — I don't even know if I'd call it an abuse — under this act. So it does concern me.

I want to, under the definitions, continue with the definitions. I want to ask about the definition of "person." It says a person "includes a corporation, partnership, party, public body" and so on, "and the personal or other legal representatives of a person to whom the context can apply according to law." Could the minister please clarify to me. You're not talking "person" as in the missing person. What agencies are you talking about? What's the need for this description, this definition, in this act?

[1555]

Hon. S. Anton: The word "person" in the definition in section 1 is a person referred to in sections 6, 7, 8 and 9, which is where "a member of a police force may apply for an order requiring a person to give access to a record." So that person might be an individual. It might be a corporate entity of some kind.

K. Corrigan: I assumed that, but I just wanted to make sure we were not suggesting "a corporation, partnership, party, public body or unincorporated association, and the personal or other legal representatives of a person to whom the context can apply according to law" — that all of those things could not be declared a missing person. I just want to confirm that that's the case.

Hon. S. Anton: Yes.

K. Corrigan: "'Person at risk' means an individual assessed, in accordance with the regulations, to be at risk." This concerns me, because we talk about persons at risk later in the act, and I will ask more questions about that. It troubles me that we are dealing with a bill where we are going to find out what the assessment process looks like in order to determine whether somebody is a person at risk, without knowing exactly what that regimen is going to look like.

I'm wondering why it is that we don't have that information now. What are the regulations going to say?

Hon. S. Anton: This is the section where consultation is both valuable and has been committed to. We've committed to the Privacy Commissioner and to women's groups and, certainly, others who are interested in consulting. This is a consultation, and this regulation will be developed in consultation with interested parties.

K. Corrigan: I'm just wondering if the minister could be a little more explicit about what groups the minister is consulting with in order to come up with that definition.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. S. Anton: The intention here is to have a fairly broad consultation and consult with those who are interested. We know a number of the groups already and certainly will be welcoming to others who are interested in being involved in this particular consultation.

It is a definition that needs development, and it will be done in development with stakeholders, with persons interested and people who are able to give their advice as we develop the definition.

D. Eby: On the question of consultation, in drafting this Missing Persons Act legislation itself, were women's groups consulted then, or were police consulted at that stage? I guess my concern that I would raise would be that the women's groups are being consulted after the legislation is drafted rather than before, which seems strange to me.

I wonder if the minister could explain if that's the case, or whether my concern is misplaced.

[1600]

Hon. S. Anton: In the drafting of the bill, the consultations were with police and related entities. There were a number of women's groups consulted with on the 20th of February. There was a commitment made at that time to consult again on the definition of "person at risk."

D. Eby: Might I say that this is exactly the issue that was identified in the Missing Women Inquiry — that the government and the police don't talk to the community they are trying to protect.

The minister has stood up in this House — how many times now? — and said that this is to respond to missing and murdered aboriginal women, the women who were identified in the Missing Women Inquiry yet didn't even talk to them before the bill was drafted.
[ Page 2032 ]

I would expect that the minister would very quickly realize that that was a big mistake and would now commit to going back to those groups and putting everything on the table, with respect to this act and saying: "Does this even address your needs or concerns at all?"

We have heard in this Legislature…. We heard from the families, and we heard from the women that they need a bus, for example. They need many things. To put forward legislation that's intended to protect a group without talking to that group first to say, "Hey, is this something that is useful? Is this something that answers your concerns?" is completely bizarre to me.

I wonder whether the minister will stand up today, do the right thing and say: "No, we'll take this bill off the table. We'll go back to those women's groups, and we'll treat them with the exact same respect and dignity we treated the police. We will commit to consulting with you before we put this bill forward again."

Hon. S. Anton: As stated, moving forward, we will consult with the groups that I mentioned and, indeed, others who are interested on this definition of "person at risk." The legislation will not be withdrawn.

J. Kwan: I'd like to ask the minister this question. The minister, after six months of the coalition of missing and murdered women contacting her in her office and requesting a meeting, finally granted one in November — November 25, if memory serves me correctly. There was meant to be a follow-up meeting with the minister, which the minister's office cancelled in February.

On this question around consultation, did it occur to the minister that it would be important for her to actually consult with the coalition of missing and murdered women, who involve organizations as well as families related to the missing and murdered women's case?

Hon. S. Anton: I did indeed attend the meeting on the 25th of November. I'm taking the member opposite's date, because I don't remember exactly which date it was. I certainly appreciated the input from the groups I met with on that occasion.

The commitment at this point is to meet with those groups, should they be interested, and others on this definition of "person at risk," because it is an important definition in the act. It does need consultation in order to determine how that should be defined.

[1605]

J. Kwan: Why would the minister do that after the fact?

Hon. S. Anton: It is actually before the fact. It is developing the regulation which would define a person at risk. In order to develop that regulation, we will be consulting.

J. Kwan: I'm talking about after the fact that this bill is before this House. Why wouldn't the minister take the consultation to the coalition before this bill was tabled, as she had done and given the same courtesy to the police? Why wouldn't she give the same courtesy to the very people who advocated for the people who went missing and murdered in the community, for the very family members who lost their loved ones and who are still grieving their loss and who are still waiting for action from the government?

Why wouldn't the government give them the respect and courtesy to do that consultation prior to this bill being tabled in the House?

Hon. S. Anton: The consultation is as I have described. But if I might, this is a debate on the section itself, and the section I think we're talking about right now is "person at risk." There is a commitment made by myself that we will be consulting in the development of the regulation around person at risk.

J. Kwan: Of course, the former top cop in the House comes in to rescue again.

I've got to say that it is extremely disappointing, because at that meeting the minister herself said how she wanted to respect and work with the coalition. She had that one meeting with the coalition to date since the recommendations came forward.

She claims in this House and on numerous occasions that this bill is central to the recommendations from the missing and murdered women inquiry. She has not even taken the time to consult with them to get their opinions on the drafting and the crafting of this bill.

Yes, we're talking about a crucial definition, the persons-at-risk definition, but that's not all. It just speaks to the entire approach and thinking that this government has in the way in which they deal with the people who matter the most in relation to this bill and who should have been consulted right at the beginning, at the get-go. We should have actually had their input here, as we move forward, to do it right, given the history of what's happened to date.

The answer that the minister has given is completely and woefully inadequate. I have to say I am embarrassed. I am embarrassed as a legislator on this issue.

On the question related to the definitions, every single definition matters in defining how to go forward with this bill. That's why the consultation should have been done before this bill appeared in this House.

K. Corrigan: I want to ask another question about the definition of "person at risk."

Interjections.

The Chair: The member for Burnaby–Deer Lake has
[ Page 2033 ]
the floor, please.

K. Corrigan: Thank you, hon. Chair.

The definition of "person at risk" is going to be developed. That's important, because where that definition comes in play is in a later section, so we can talk about it more then. But it is really important, because that has to do, if somebody is determined a person at risk…. We're going to have regulation that's going to let us know how that person is to be assessed as a person at risk. That's coming later.

[1610]

But if they are determined to be a person at risk, then a member of a police force can apply to a justice for an order under section 11, which now has to do with a minor or vulnerable person and gives them significant powers to enter by force into private dwellings or other premises. I think it is a real concern that we have, perhaps, a premature bringing of this bill to the House when we don't know what the definition of "person at risk" is.

Our hands are tied, on this side of the House, to make appropriate comment or to be comforted, when we don't know how it is going to be determined that somebody is a person at risk. We know how much trouble we had, what concerns we had, with the definition of "missing person." We have similar concerns about "person at risk," except we don't know what that definition is or how they're going to be assessed.

I find it troubling, and it makes me wonder whether or not, perhaps, this was rushed. Why would it be rushed? Well, perhaps because this government wanted to have something they could talk about that would be seen as some response to the 63 recommendations that were made in the Missing Women Inquiry.

I do have concern, and I'm wondering what comfort the minister can give me with regard to that definition and the fact that very serious powers are attached to somebody who is determined to be a person at risk, that very serious police powers will come into play.

Hon. S. Anton: The legislation needs to be passed. Once it is passed, we will be looking for a definition of "person at risk," and that will be done through consultation with women's groups, with stakeholders, with those interested, so that we get this definition down, so we get it right. It's an important part of the bill, but it can only be developed after the bill is passed.

K. Corrigan: Why could it only be developed afterwards? I'm asking, perhaps, out of ignorance. I haven't been through this process of a development of a bill, looking at it closely, but I'm wondering why it is that it would have to be done after the bill is passed.

Hon. S. Anton: The regulation typically follows the bill. As I have said many times, we want to do a proper consultation on this section, and that will come after the bill itself is passed.

K. Corrigan: Is there anything that would have prevented the minister from having these discussions before the bill is passed so that we would have some ability to understand how it is that an individual would be assessed to be a person at risk?

Hon. S. Anton: The bill needs to be available to people so they can see the whole context of the bill in order to understand how the definition of "person at risk" fits within the context of the bill. That helps the stakeholders, those consulting on this definition.

J. Kwan: I wonder if the minister can advise. Under the definition of "vulnerable person" the three definitions that have been provided in the bill speak to "an individual (a) for whom a committee has been appointed under the Patients Property Act, (b) for whom a representation agreement under the Representation Agreement Act is in effect, or (c) who is the subject of a support and assistance plan under section 53 or 56 of the Adult Guardianship Act. "

[1615]

I'm wondering: why is it that only these three definitions are being used to define a vulnerable person?

Hon. S. Anton: There's a specific definition of a vulnerable person. It's a person who generally is not taking care of their own affairs, can't take care of their own affairs. It's defined under the different pieces of legislation that we have here in British Columbia. Like some of the other sections, this is consistent with the approach taken in other provinces.

J. Kwan: The minister cited the missing and murdered women inquiry as a central reason why we're sitting here debating this bill today. If the minister had actually read the report, the inquiry recommendations, Forsaken: The Report of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, she would note that the report recognizes marginalization and vulnerability. In the report it states under that heading:

"Marginalization is closely related to the condition of endangerment and vulnerability to predation, creating the climate in which the missing and murdered women were forsaken. Three overarching social and economic trends contribute to the women's marginalization: retrenchment of social assistance programs, the ongoing effects of colonialism and the criminal regulation of prostitution and related law enforcement strategies."

It goes on to describe, at length, marginalization and vulnerability in the very act itself.

If this was meant to be an act to address the missing and murdered women, as the minister claims, then why wouldn't it have an expanded definition of vulnerability?

If the minister had taken time to consult with the very
[ Page 2034 ]
people affected who lost loved ones in the community and the very people who do their advocacy in the community who have contact with the women who are at risk, who are vulnerable under the definition, if you will, as put forward by Justice Wally Oppal, she would know that. Because the government didn't consult with them, we now, in my view, are missing an important component that would capture what I would call a vulnerable person.

Why didn't the government include that definition, as Justice Oppal had done in his report into this act?

Hon. S. Anton: The issues raised by the member opposite are not under the section "vulnerable person." "Vulnerable person" has a specific definition. The kinds of situations raised by the member opposite will fall under "person at risk" — and that is the piece of work that we are yet to do — and also fall under the broader definition under "missing person." In other words, that's why it's useful to have that broad definition in (a) and (b) of "missing person" — so that we can find the kind of person, the sort of description of the person that is being raised by the member opposite.

J. Kwan: With all due respect, the whole purpose of a definition in an act is how the government chooses to define it and what you choose to put under each heading of the act. When the minister says a person is a person at risk, is she purporting to say that vulnerable people, as they're defined by Justice Wally Oppal in the missing and murdered women inquiry, would then be put in, by way of regulation, as persons at risk?

[1620]

It doesn't make any sense to me. When you have a heading that actually says "vulnerable person," which the government can define — what that vulnerable person is in the act, because after all, they are the people who legislate the act — why wouldn't they actually incorporate that?

The very basis in which the women are put into vulnerable situations, and by definition of their situation…. It created what I think Justice Oppal is trying say in his report — a class of citizens who are vulnerable persons in our community. Why wouldn't we do that right?

Hon. S. Anton: The "person at risk" would be where the definition raised by the member opposite would fit. Section 11 deals with a "minor or vulnerable person." It gives police officers certain authority. Section 12: "If a missing person is a person at risk…." That is a section that will become defined following our consultation. The police then will also have the same powers under section 11.

It requires that definition to be developed, which it will be. And then that person…. As I said, the police will have the powers given to them in section 11.

K. Corrigan: I'd like to go to another definition. "'police force' means the (a) the provincial police force as defined in the Police Act, (b) a municipal police department as defined in the Police Act, or, (c) any prescribed entity." In other words, I guess, prescribed by regulation.

So at this point, this does not apply to the RCMP or the transit police? Or what is expected in that regard?

Hon. S. Anton: The provincial police force as defined in the Police Act is the RCMP. The municipal police department — I think the member opposite knows who they are — and any prescribed entity….

Sorry, I didn't mean that disrespectfully. It might sound disrespectful on the record, but I think the member opposite knows that that means the Vancouver police department, the Abbotsford police department and so on — the municipal departments.

The prescribed entity could include designated law enforcement units that could be First Nations police departments and other such entities who are given the designation of police force through regulation.

K. Corrigan: Well, I wasn't sure, actually. I'd have to go back and take a look at the definitions. I was under the understanding that there was a contract between the federal government and the provincial government and that the provincial police force was the organization — that it is the RCMP who does the provincial policing.

Does that definition include local RCMP detachments? Is that what the minister is saying? Or just the provincial policing function that is provided by the RCMP?

[1625]

Hon. S. Anton: The provincial police force is the RCMP.

K. Corrigan: For clarity, the provincial police force is the RCMP, but does that include local detachments?

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, it does.

K. Corrigan: Thank you for that.

On the definitions. When we're talking about "public body," meaning "a public body as defined in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act," what's the purpose of having that included in this bill?

Hon. S. Anton: The definition of "person" includes various entities — corporation, partnership, party, public body. This clarifies exactly who the public body is and refers to the definition in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

J. Kwan: In the definitions section…. I just want to put this on the record as well, according to Justice Wally Oppal. He writes:
[ Page 2035 ]

"One point that is absolutely clear is that it is wrong to attribute the women's vulnerability to predation to their 'high-risk lifestyle'. This narrow view cannot explain the disappearance of so many women over a sustained period of time. This attitude allows us, as a society, to simply accept that these women and others like them live in desperate and deadly situations."

I wanted to put this passage onto the public record. Why I wanted to do that under definitions is because I don't want people to walk away, and the minister in particular, with the notion that somehow the women's vulnerabilities are a result of their lifestyle. I want to make that very clear, because we heard in the debate in second reading from one of the members. I think it was the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, if memory serves me correctly. I'll stand corrected if I got his riding incorrect. He seemed to imply that, and it's dead wrong to make that assumption.

So in the definitions of this section it's absolutely critical that we don't attribute that to the reasons why the women are at risk or are deemed to be persons at risk. Rather, it is much broader than that, which is why I would argue that under "vulnerable person" there should be a different definition, as opposed to defining that as people at risk. I wonder whether or not the minister had actually thought about that in her crafting of this legislation.

Hon. S. Anton: That is why it's critical to get the "person at risk" description carefully formulated.

Section 1 approved.

The Chair: Shall section 2 pass? So ordered.

Sorry, Member.

On section 2.

K. Corrigan: It's difficult, hon. Chair, when I'm standing behind you and you can't see me standing. I'll shout at you or something if I'm standing up — respectfully. I'll respectfully try to get your attention when I'm standing up.

Part 2 talks about the order for records, search orders and emergency demands for records. Section 2 says: "If a police force is conducting a missing person investigation, a member of the police force may (a) apply to a justice for an order under this Part, or (b) make an emergency demand for records."

[1630]

I just wanted to make it clear, following on the discussion that we had earlier about the definition of "missing person." Would the minister confirm that this can be initiated by the police and that there doesn't have to be a suspicion that there is a crime? Both of those things.

Hon. S. Anton: I think I heard the member say there does not have to be a suggestion of a crime. Yes, I heard that correctly. That is correct. This is a civil remedy. There does not have to be a suspicion of a crime.

K. Corrigan: But of course, there could be a suspicion that there is a crime.

Hon. S. Anton: Sorry, I should have made that answer clearer. This is a civil remedy. This is a remedy, under this act, for when there is not suspicion of a crime.

Sometimes, of course, as these investigations go along, it may become apparent that there is a very strong suspicion of a crime, in which case it changes into a criminal investigation. This is a civil investigation where there is no reason to believe a crime has been committed.

K. Corrigan: That surprises me a little bit. I know the minister has said that it's a civil remedy several times. But is the minister saying that if an individual who goes missing, under the definition of "missing person," and is also suspected of committing a crime but is truly missing…?

We've had a lot of gang violence and murders, and so on, over the last many months in British Columbia. If somebody was to be a suspect in a case and they were to go missing and the provisions of the definition were met — in other words, they hadn't been in contact with individuals, or their safety and welfare were feared for — is the minister saying that this act could not be used in order to get records if there was also a criminal investigation going on with regard to that missing person?

Hon. S. Anton: If a crime is suspected, the police use their usual tools that they would use in a criminal investigation. This is for a civil investigation. This is to search for a person who has gone missing where a crime is not suspected — as I say, not initially. Obviously, sometimes they turn into a crime, but initially there's no reason to suspect that a crime has been committed.

K. Corrigan: I have some questions about that. There are a number of places in this act that I can ask these questions, but I guess now is as good a time as any.

If there is not a crime and this is intended simply for a person who has gone missing, is the minister then saying that you could not use it if there was a police investigation? I'm not sure what it is about….

It seems to me, actually, a legitimate use. If this person is missing, harm may have come to them. You think that there may have been, for example, gang warfare and that an individual may have been shot or killed. Could you not use this missing-person legislation, the Missing Persons Act, in order to access information?

Hon. S. Anton: This act is for the safety of the individuals, not for criminal investigations. The example that the member has raised of someone who's been shot — I think that would fall fairly clearly into the definition of a criminal investigation.
[ Page 2036 ]

K. Corrigan: Well, I guess what I want to ask, then, is about the powers that the police have under this act as opposed to the powers — and this is where I was going to ask questions later — that the police have in a criminal investigation. Is there anything in the powers provided under this act in terms of accessing information that goes further than the powers that the police otherwise would have in a police investigation?

[1635]

Hon. S. Anton: The police, using this act, apply to a justice for an order, or they make an emergency demand for records. This is to find a missing person. This is not to conduct a criminal investigation. If they're conducting a criminal investigation, they go to get search warrants and other similar orders, depending on their investigation. But this is, as I said, to find missing people. It's to save lives. It's to find people who are missing for reasons other than where a criminal offence is thought to have been committed.

K. Corrigan: Well, we seem to be getting back to the purpose of the act again. I'm reading the words, and the minister is talking about the purpose. Would somebody who is involved in a crime, as bad as we would all agree that it is — committing crimes…? If they disappeared, would they not be entitled to have the benefits of this act and the powers that the police have under this act?

Hon. S. Anton: The act is for use when no crime is suspected. It does give the police additional powers, and that is the whole purpose of the act — to give them powers when a crime is not suspected but when a person is missing.

K. Corrigan: Can a person not be missing and have committed a crime at the same time — so that there would be an intersection?

Hon. S. Anton: A couple of things to add to that. If it's a criminal investigation, police are, in the course of that investigation, collecting evidence. The evidence collected under this act is only to be used in a related criminal investigation — in other words, if it's related to the fact of them going missing: a kidnapping, for instance. A related criminal investigation would not be where you have a suspect in a case and you're looking for that suspect. There you bring in the powers that the police have to pursue their criminal investigation. This act is for the purpose that it is here for, which is to find missing persons.

K. Corrigan: I've heard over and over again what the purpose is, but I don't see anything in the act that would preclude it being used in that way. So my question to the minister is: what are the powers, then, that are given in this act that are greater than the powers under the criminal law? Are there things under this act that a police officer can do when they have got their order for production? Are there things they can access that they can't do under the criminal law?

Hon. S. Anton: The criminal law does not give police authority to look for missing persons. Under a search warrant, a police officer, if granted the warrant, can have numerous powers to go and look for things, depending on the nature of the warrant and where they are requesting the ability to search. They're not going to get a search warrant on a civil case when a person is missing. That's what this act gives the authority to do — to get an order for records, to make an emergency demand for records where there is no criminal act suspected.

[1640]

K. Corrigan: I've heard that that's not the purpose over and over again. When we have our definition of "missing person," that's not…. The minister has said that that would be an issue of conduct and that our police…. We have higher expectations.

I do want to say, by the way, that I have a great deal of respect for the RCMP in my community and the hon. Chair's community. We are very well served by the RCMP detachment in our community. But we do want to explore the boundaries.

I do just want to come back to…. I understand what the minister is saying, and I'm not going to question at this point how it could be used or whether it could be used together. But I do want to ask specifically: are there powers granted under this act that go further than criminal investigation powers? Given the minister's answer, I just want to know whether the police powers granted here are greater in any respect than the investigation powers under the Criminal Code.

Hon. S. Anton: Under a search warrant, police can request certain information that they establish, to a justice, is needed. Under an order under the Missing Persons Act, police can apply to a justice for information that they believe they require. The justice, in each case, must be satisfied that the police are seeking the appropriate information.

I think the member opposite is asking me to think of some kind of hypothetical situation where there may be something else that could be found under this act than might be able to be found under a criminal search warrant, and I'm unable to offer an example of that.

I think, generally, the concept is the same, which is that you apply to a justice for an order. You explain to the justice what kind of order you wish. The justice grants or doesn't grant, depending on the justice's reading of the situation and the order that the person is seeking.

K. Corrigan: Well, I am asking a hypothetical. What
[ Page 2037 ]
I'm asking is…. Given my concern about the possibility of how this legislation could be used, which is a different interpretation than the minister's…. I still haven't seen anything that would preclude it being used by police forces in tandem with a criminal investigation.

I just would like to know, and the answer may be yes, whether or not in a criminal investigation — or there could be an application made in a warrant for all of those things, for example, listed in section 9 — there can be orders with respect to third parties or whether or not there can be particular emergency types of demands for records in the case of serious bodily harm — all of those things. I would suspect that probably, in terms of emergency demand, there is.

I want to know whether this is an extension of power greater than criminal investigative powers — not only whether there are more types of records and more situations under this act where information can be accessed but also whether or not it is going to be easier or more difficult to get an order. That is perhaps two questions in one.

Hon. S. Anton: Under a criminal investigation, if a search warrant is sought, the officer must satisfy the justice that the order is required. It can be a very complex application. Similarly, where an order is sought under the Missing Persons Act, again the officer will have to establish to the justice that the order is appropriate.

[1645]

I think that's what the question was, but if there was another part, perhaps the member would ask it again.

They are different things. One is a civil remedy, and one is a criminal remedy. One gathers evidence in order to pursue a criminal investigation and, possibly, a criminal prosecution. The other is to find a person.

K. Corrigan: I think it would be a bit naive to not expect that some missing-person investigations will become, at some point, criminal investigations. There is a lot of information that can be accessed under this act.

The minister was a prosecutor for some time so is fully aware and, of course, has read every single section of this act and gone over it very carefully, so I would think that the minister would be able to answer.

I'm not talking about the different purposes. I'm trying to understand the content. What could be accessed under this act, as compared to a criminal investigation and with a warrant? Could all the types of things and all the forces and all the powers that are provided under this act also be accessed — those same records in the same types of situations — if there was a criminal investigation going on?

Hon. S. Anton: The section here — which is part 2, 2(b), "make an emergency demand for records" — may be somewhat different than the ability of a police officer under the Criminal Code. But as I said, the purpose of this is to find a person. If there's an emergency demand for records, those are records so that a person can be found. Again, it's not to conduct a criminal investigation.

K. Corrigan: We probably can deal with this later, because there are sections later that deal specifically with making an emergency demand.

But it is also clear that if records are accessed in order to find a missing person — the legitimate and good purpose of this act — and it later turns out that there is a criminal investigation, then those records could be used with regard to that criminal investigation. That's why I think it's important to understand whether the powers under this act are in any way greater powers than under a criminal investigation.

Hon. S. Anton: The emergency demand for records is a different power given to police under this act in order to search for missing persons. As I said earlier, these can become part of a criminal investigation, these records, should the missing-persons investigation itself turn into a criminal investigation — for example, if it were a kidnapping.

[1650]

K. Corrigan: Is there not an equivalent power under the Criminal Code for an emergency demand for records if there's a criminal investigation?

Hon. S. Anton: The question of what the police might get under a search warrant or under their demands in a criminal investigation is a different question than what is here. The question here is what police can do in a missing-persons investigation, and those are the two things in (a) and (b). In terms of whether or not this is something that can be done in a criminal investigation, I will get back to the member on that one.

The section we're dealing with here is the Missing Persons Act. We're dealing with this section. We're dealing with the powers given to the police under this section in order to find missing persons, and those are the powers set out in section 2.

K. Corrigan: Yes, I appreciate that. I appreciate that in the vast majority of cases there won't be any question but that. It is simply to find a missing person, and it's very clean. But we've talked…. Members on this side of the House have asked some questions about situations where, with the definition of "missing person," whether or not the police could use that. The answer we get is that that's not the purpose of the act, which is fair enough, but I don't see it in the reading that it couldn't be used that way — and quite openly used that way. It seems to me that if you read it, you could use it that way.

But here we are in a situation, with section 2, that I think the line could easily become blurred, because we are going to have a combination of criminal and civil law,
[ Page 2038 ]
I think, in a number of cases. When you're talking about kidnapping, that's the perfect example, or perhaps in an abuse case, where somebody is fleeing and ends up being missing and so on.

I think there are times when the criminal and the civil law will not necessarily be intertwined, but they'll be in parallel, possibly, in the same case. That's why I'm trying to figure out what powers there are.

Is the minister saying that it is not possible…? For example, the police officer who is seeking the order for records would foresee…. Let's say they know it's a kidnapping. They're trying to find the individual, so they go and get the order. In that case, they know that there's going to be a criminal investigation. There probably will be. Would that police officer not know that the information that is accessed in order to get an order so that they could find the missing person can also be used in a criminal investigation?

That's the question. That's why I'm concerned about the powers in comparison to the powers under the Criminal Code in a criminal investigation.

[1655]

Hon. S. Anton: If the officer is engaged in a criminal investigation — a kidnapping — the officer will use their powers under the Criminal Code. They have emergency powers under the Criminal Code. If they think somebody is being taken away in a vehicle, they'll stop the vehicle. Or locked in a room — they'll go into the room. They have those emergency powers right now under a criminal investigation.

This is the civil remedy. This is where they don't know where the person is, where it may be a vulnerable person. They need to look for the person, but they don't have a criminal offence at that point. That's what gives them the power in this act.

K. Corrigan: Then is the minister suggesting that in all cases where this act is used in order to access records, it has to be that the officer does not believe there's been a criminal act when they ask for the order?

Hon. S. Anton: That is correct.

K. Corrigan: What section in the act says that this act could not be used in a case where there is a person who is missing — there is a kidnapping — and the police think that the best way to get the information is through this act? What in this act says that that couldn't happen?

Hon. S. Anton: Police operating under the Criminal Code have extensive powers — either emergency powers, in the example I just gave, or powers to get a search warrant. Up till now they have not had those similar kinds of investigative tools when a person is missing but no criminal offence is suspected. That's the purpose of the act here.

K. Corrigan: Where does it say that that's the purpose of the act and that it's not to be used for criminal investigation? Where does it say that in the act? What section can the minister point to — and I'm sorry that I'm asking a question that applies to all sections — that says: "That is not the purpose of this act, and it won't ever be used for that purpose"? That's what the minister has just said.

Hon. S. Anton: It is not stated in the act because the act is here as the civil remedy. The Criminal Code is there for the criminal remedy, for the criminal investigation.

K. Corrigan: There are all sorts of situations — I talked about them a few minutes earlier a little bit — where police and Crown have a choice about whether or not it's going to be a criminal or a civil process. There are lots of cases. Civil forfeiture is one of them.

I still don't understand. I know that the minister has said over and over that that's not the purpose, but particularly — and later we'll get to it — if you have a section that makes it very clear…. If there is information that is accessed through a demand for records in this civil process, they can be used for the purpose of a related criminal investigation. Surely what the minister can't be saying is that the expectation is that you start with no suspicion of a criminal investigation and then suddenly, magically, later it turns out that it's a kidnapping.

[1700]

The minister is saying, then, that in that case of a kidnapping, it would not be appropriate and it's not possible to use the Missing Persons Act provisions in order to access information if there is a potential criminal investigation?

Hon. S. Anton: This is new legislation in British Columbia, of course, so we don't have our own experience to go by. But I am certainly told that in other jurisdictions police are very careful about their use of this legislation, because they don't want to jeopardize the legislation. They want it to be there, and good and robust, for the purpose for which it is written — namely, to find missing persons.

If police use it improperly, they jeopardize their own information. They jeopardize their own investigation because the evidence they gather may not be admissible in the criminal proceedings. As soon as it turns into a criminal proceeding, they need to turn to their criminal powers, and if they don't, they risk the investigation itself.

K. Corrigan: I wonder if the minister could explain that a bit more, then. Why would accessing information under this act, information that's gained there, which specifically says that if it turns into a criminal investigation, then they can use it…? What would be jeopard-
[ Page 2039 ]
ized in a criminal investigation if some of the records had been originally accessed through the use of this civil remedy?

Hon. S. Anton: The police engaged in a criminal investigation have extensive powers. Some of them are powers inherent in their ability to do an immediate investigation, and some of them are their powers inherent in their ability to appear in front of a justice and to achieve certain orders in front of the justice. They have not had those powers for missing persons. This act allows them certain powers to find missing persons when no criminal offence is suggested.

In fact, in so many missing persons cases, there is not a criminal offence. The person is missing for other reasons. Sometimes there is, and in that case, the records may be able to be used for a related criminal offence, a related criminal charge, but that is a question of admissibility. Certainly, if police are involved in a criminal investigation, they're going to use their powers under the criminal law.

K. Corrigan: Well, the minister offered, a few minutes ago, to provide information about, I believe — a comparison, perhaps, of the powers under a criminal investigation as opposed to the powers under this act, where it's a civil remedy. I would appreciate that.

I would appreciate knowing if there are any powers provided under this act — perhaps the minister can get that information to me, because I don't know — that are not available to police in a criminal investigation. I just want to confirm that I can get the information from the minister within the next day or two.

Hon. S. Anton: I may have been a prosecutor, but I was never a police officer. Rather than…. I think it would be wise for me to just get absolute clarity on that question, as the member opposite has requested.

The emergency demand is new. But the member is asking a question which has a strong relationship to criminal law, and I don't want to stand here and be an expert in criminal law at this particular point in time.

[1705]

K. Corrigan: But I believe that the offer that was made — and I would like to take the minister up on it — was that the information would be provided to me at a later time, which is fine, about what types of records and what types of powers there are under this act — what type of records can be accessed that might not be accessible, as opposed to in a criminal investigation, in addition to any powers under this act that would not be available in a police investigation.

So I will take the minister's offer and thank her for that and look forward to receiving that information in the next couple of days.

Clearly, the reason for asking these questions is…. I understand what the minister is saying about this. The purpose is not a criminal investigation. But it seems to me that, on the reading of the various sections, it would certainly be possible for the police to be suspicious of and think it's going to turn into a criminal investigation in the case of a missing person and make an application — not knowing for sure, perhaps, but being suspicious. If somebody goes missing and there's no other obvious reason, they might think this is going to be a criminal investigation.

But if they don't know, then under this act they can apply for an order, have the production and have access to all manner of records. I just want to be really clear for my own comfort that there are not powers there that they could get through the civil process that they wouldn't have under the criminal process. So I appreciate the minister providing that information to me, and I don't have any more questions on that section.

The Chair: Shall section 2 pass?

Section 2 approved.

Hon. S. Anton: Hon. Chair, could I suggest recess for five minutes?

The Chair: Committee in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:07 p.m. to 5:13 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

On section 3.

K. Corrigan: So section 3 is about how to make an application for an order. I'm wondering if the minister can explain. It talks about: "An application for an order under this Part (a) may be made without notice, other than an application for an order under section 16," which is the emergency demand for records. Who are they referring to? They don't have to give notice. To whom is that referring?

Hon. S. Anton: Let me give you an example. If a cell phone bill was being sought and the application was to see whether a person was still using their cell phone — in other words, to look at their cell phone records — that application could be made without notice to the cell phone provider.

[1715]

D. Eby: In reading section 3, "An application for an order under this Part (a) may be made without notice," but then an application for an order under section 16 — which is the emergency section, as I understand it —
[ Page 2040 ]
must be made on notice to the person served.

My question to the minister is: why in an emergency would you require notice and all the obligations of notice, yet in a situation that isn't an emergency, you wouldn't require notice? How does that make sense?

Hon. S. Anton: Under section 3, the application for an order, there is already judicial supervision. In an emergency request for an order, there is no judicial supervision. In order to enforce that, that is where notice is required.

D. Eby: Certainly, it's true that under an emergency request there's no judicial supervision, if somebody asks for the records and then they're handed over. But if an officer asks for the records and they're not handed over, then the officer has to go off to court to make an application. That application, as I understand, under subsection (2) must be made on notice.

My question is: if there is time for notice in an emergency — and not only an emergency but an emergency where you've gone and asked somebody and they said no, so you're going down to court, and you still have to provide them with notice of your application — then why wouldn't there be a notice requirement under just a regular situation that's not an emergency?

I don't understand why there's notice in an emergency where the person has said no, but there's no notice in just a regular situation where there is no urgency. It seems to me that there's time for notice. I wonder if the minister can clarify that.

[1720]

Hon. S. Anton: On the emergency demand, which I think is what the member opposite is raising the question about. A police officer has gone to a hotel, and the hotel has said: "No, I'm not giving it to you." In that case they need to have some kind of enforcement power to require the hotel to turn over its records. So they appear in front of a justice. They've already had a no from the person, so the person then is entitled to come in front of the justice to explain why it's a no.

That's the purpose of section 16, and that's the relationship to section 3.

D. Eby: I'm of a mind with the minister on that. We both understand that that is the point of the section.

The question, I guess, is: why in that situation does a person asked for records get to come in front of a judge and get notice of the application, but in the other situation, where there's no emergency, you don't get notice that they're asking for your records?

In the non-emergency situation, the police officer goes to court, gets an order for my records as a telephone company, and then comes and tells me about the order, enforces it and takes the records. But if it's an emergency, it happens differently. I actually get notice. I get to go to court. I get to say, "No, our customer's privacy is important. This isn't an emergency. The person's not missing" — whatever.

Maybe the minister can clarify. I feel like I'm missing something here. We definitely understand and are on the same page that in an emergency where someone says no, they're going to get a chance to appear in front of a justice on the application. The question is: in the non-emergency, why isn't there that same notice to them of the application?

Hon. S. Anton: The question is a question of judicial oversight. In part (1) there is judicial oversight. It's an application for an order. In part (2) there's an emergency demand. If that demand is turned down, then again you go back to get the judicial oversight.

K. Corrigan: I want to be clear about who we're talking about when we say "may be made without notice." My understanding is that the only people or organizations that would be being referred to would be the people who have the records. What about third parties or somebody else affected by the records — for example, text messaging records, cellular telephone records, Internet browsing? I mean, there are many of these types of records that it could include more than one party.

I'm wondering, when you're talking about notice, who are you talking about, and what about those third parties who might have their records taken, divulged? Do they have any right to notice in any situation?

Hon. S. Anton: The notice applies to whoever holds the records. If I might, I think the member is referring to if somebody is texting back and forth with a friend. Does the friend get notice? The holder of that record is, in this case, the cell phone company, and that's who is entitled to the notice. I think the question was whether the friend would get notice, if it was a text back and forth with a friend. The answer is no.

K. Corrigan: It does raise some concerns. I assumed that was the meaning of the section. I thought that it referred to the person who holds the records. But it does raise that question about….

[1725]

One of the things that seems to be able to happen under this act is a lot of information can end up in the hands of police. And for good reason — we want to find missing persons. But a lot of information that could be embarrassing or problematic to an individual could end up in police hands, and I don't think there is protection for those individuals — certainly not notice, but also protection.

I know there are some later sections that deal with the use of information, and I'll get into that more then. But I
[ Page 2041 ]
do think… It's just a concern that I have.

If the minister wants to respond, that's fine. No, you're good on that. Okay. I think, actually, that's all I have on that section.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

K. Corrigan: Section 4 deals with how to make an emergency demand for records. It "must be (a) made in the prescribed form, and (b) served in accordance with the regulations."

Again, just to point out that it looks benign enough, but we don't know what that form is going to be, and we don't know what service is going to be. I'm wondering if the minister could explain, perhaps, whether the minister has any idea what, for example, service is going to look like.

Hon. S. Anton: It says there that it will be served in accordance with the regulation. That's a regulation that needs to be developed, and obviously, we can include that in the consultation. We'll be looking, as well, at what they do in other jurisdictions.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

K. Corrigan: Section 5 talks about privileged information and says: "Nothing in this Act compels the disclosure of any information or records that are subject to (a) solicitor-client privilege, or (b) any prescribed privilege." I'm wondering if the minister could explain what type of prescribed privileges are being contemplated.

Hon. S. Anton: There will be a consultation on this, particularly with the legal world. There are other forms of legal privilege, such as litigation privilege and settlement privilege, that may be prescribed. This, again, is a matter for consultation, as to whether the privilege goes further than what is defined in section (a), which, obviously, is always privileged.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if I could get just a bit more from the minister on what…. I understand there's going to be consultation, but I'm just wondering if the minister could explain a little bit about what type of privilege there could be. There must have been some thought, or this section would not have been included. Can the minister give me some examples?

Hon. S. Anton: I just mentioned two — litigation privilege, settlement privilege — and there may be others. But this is a matter for consultation. I don't want to attempt to define at this moment all the types of privilege that may be out there. We will be investigating that question and resolving it with the regulation.

K. Corrigan: Sorry. I missed those two examples. I didn't hear them properly. What is litigation privilege, then?

[1730]

Hon. S. Anton: It's similar to solicitor-client, but it includes communications between solicitors and third parties. Settlement privilege relates to communications for the purpose of achieving settlement. But again, I don't want to be too definitive at this point because it is, as I said, still open to consultation and discussion as to whether or not anything will be put in part (b) or if it is, what form, exactly, that will take.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

Hon. S. Anton: I move the amendment to section 6(2) standing in my name on the orders of the day, and that is to add the words "there are reasonable grounds to believe that the record…." The words "to believe" are added.

[SECTION 6 (2), by adding the text shown as underlined:

(2) A justice may make an order under this section if the justice is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the record

(a) may assist the police force in locating the missing person, and

(b) is in the possession or under the control of the person.]

On the amendment.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. S. Anton: This is an editing change. The act was written, and it seemed prudent to include the words "reasonable grounds to believe" because generally that is the test.

The amendment will recur in the next section, and there may be one or two more where it's added.

Amendment approved.

On section 6 as amended.

K. Corrigan: This has to do with the missing person record access order. I have a question about the words "in respect of." "A member of a police force may apply for an order requiring a person to give access to a record set out in section 9" — those are all the types of records that we've talked about before — "in respect of a missing person if the member has reasonable grounds to believe that the record" may assist them and "is in the possession
[ Page 2042 ]
or under the control of the person." I wonder if the minister could explain what the term "in respect of" means.

Hon. S. Anton: The language is consistent with that of other jurisdictions. Clearly, the record has to relate to a missing person, so it says "in respect of a missing person." But there are other qualifications, of course. The member must have reasonable grounds to believe that the record may assist the police and is in the possession or control of the person.

K. Corrigan: Well, I looked up the term "in respect of" just to try to have more clarity. It means regarding or concerning but not belonging to — in relation to. So could it be someone else's cellphone records?

[1735]

Hon. S. Anton: The member of the police force is applying for an order. When they apply for the order, they will have to satisfy the justice that the record that they are seeking is relevant to their investigation. I'm not going to go into what kind of hypothetical situation there may be, but the point is that the record must be something that helps the police take their investigation forward. Of course, the list of possible records is laid out in section 9.

K. Corrigan: But it doesn't have to be a record, just to be clear, though. My reading of that term…. Yes, I understand that it has to, as it should, assist the police force "in locating the missing person" and "is in the possession or under the control of that person." But it doesn't seem to limit whose records, whose cell phone records, whose text messaging records, Internet browsing history could be accessed.

So if someone went missing, would the minister contemplate that it would be reasonable for a police officer to go to a judge and say: "This young person" — a 13-year-old girl, for example — "has gone missing. We want to get access to the cell phone records, the text messaging, of all of her friends to try to figure out where this girl is"? Is that something that is contemplated and could be accessed, those types of records, under this act?

Hon. S. Anton: Section 7, the next section, talks about third-party records. Section 6, generally, is the records of the missing person.

K. Corrigan: Well, section 7 talks about third parties who were in very specific circumstances — that the missing person might be in the company of that person now or was last seen in the company of the third party. So it's quite a different type, a very specific type, of third party. So the minister is saying that when you use the words "in respect of a missing person," that it could only be the cell phone records, for example, of that missing person and that it couldn't be a request for cell phone records of friends, acquaintances — not people that they were last seen with but just third parties generally?

Hon. S. Anton: Section 7 applies to third-party records. Section 6 applies to the records…. It does say "in respect of a missing person," but the intention of that is that it is the missing person's records. Let me take another moment, please.

[1740]

Let me go back to that. It may be that police are checking to see if a missing person was staying in a hotel. That is section 6.

That hotel record, whether or not the person stayed the night in that hotel, is a record in respect of the missing person. It may be in the possession…. It may be in the third party's particular record, but it is related to whether or not the missing person stayed at so-and-so hotel on so-and-so night.

K. Corrigan: Okay, the minister is now saying that it could be a third-party record. I want to get back to the scenario that I was talking about. If there was a belief in the mind of the police officer who wants to make the request that getting access to records of people whose lives surround the missing person…? The records of the missing person are, for whatever reason, not available, but there is a group of people, eight or ten people that were perhaps in regular contact or whatever. It's not the missing person's records but a third party's. Conceivably, under this act and under this section, could the police officer ask for cell phone records, for example, of eight or ten people, but they're not that missing person's record?

Hon. S. Anton: That order would be under section 7.

I just remind the member opposite that in each of these cases, it is an application in front of a justice for an order. In other words, the investigating officer must satisfy the justice that the order is appropriate. It's not a fishing expedition, and justices are fairly careful in what kinds of orders they will grant to an officer. I imagine they would apply that usual level of care in both sections 6 and 7.

K. Corrigan: But section 7, as I said before, only applies when the missing person may be in the company of the third party or was last seen in the company of the third party. The scenario I was talking about, where there might be cell phone records that would help in the search that do not belong to the individual, would not necessarily fall under section 7 at all.

The only thing about…. In section 7 it very specifically says you can only get those third-party records if the person may be in the company of that third party or was last seen in the company of the third party. The situation I'm talking about has nothing to do with section 7, I don't believe. It is to do with that there are records that may lead
[ Page 2043 ]
to the lost individual, the missing individual, but don't belong to the missing individual.

The words "in respect of" are a little bit of nebulous words, and I'm wondering whether it could be "linked with" — you know, those kinds of words — in which case cell phone records of somebody else might lead to that person and therefore might be accessible under this act. Is the minister saying that's just not the case?

Hon. S. Anton: To put "linked to" a missing person is not going to change the issue in this case. I just reiterate that the records need to be in respect to a missing person. If it's a cell phone, it has to be in respect of that missing person. If it's a hotel record, for instance, again, it relates to the missing person because it's whether or not the missing person spent the night in the hotel.

To say "linked to" I don't think is going to help. Again, I just reiterate that an officer has to go in front of a justice and justify their request for these records.

K. Corrigan: Of course we want people to be found if they're missing and in danger or their welfare is of concern. That's fair enough.

[1745]

When you say "in respect of" and you say it's okay to go to a hotel bill with regard to that person — it's not that person's record — but a cell phone or a text message doesn't fall under it, I'm not sure that I see the difference.

I know that one is more closely linked than the other, but it's a progression, and I'm trying to figure out where the line is on this. If that text message would say, "I'm going to meet you here at nine o'clock," and that person didn't show up, that's a record in respect of that individual.

What the minister was talking about was a hotel record that would indicate that person was there. What a text message might indicate is that that person was somewhere else, or some other thing with respect to that person. I'm just not sure this section is clear that that situation would not also be covered by this provision.

Hon. S. Anton: I'm not entirely clear what the question is, but let me try this. A young girl goes missing. She has a cell phone. Sorry, I think the member will have to repeat her question, because I can't understand the hypothetical that she's presenting.

You're looking for the cell phone record of the girl who's missing. You're in front of a justice, and you ask for an order to get that cell phone record. Now, that may give you a number of another person so that you can go find her friend who she was talking to, and I suppose that's how police will investigate these things. They go from "a" to "b" to "c" to look for a person, but again, as I have emphasized several times, all of this is done under the authority of the justice.

K. Corrigan: Okay, so the police are investigating a missing person. They don't have the cell phone records, or maybe they do have the cell phone records of the missing person, the 13-year-old girl.

They hear through their investigations that there are some friends of the missing girl that have been talking about her and that there might be information in their cell phone discussion, back and forth, that will lead them to this young girl. They don't think that it's a criminal investigation yet, but they believe that there is information in cell phone records of two other 13-year-old friends.

It's in respect of this person. It doesn't belong to the person. It's not their record. Could that be accessed through this act — those types of records?

Hon. S. Anton: A very specific test is set out in section 6. The police officer must go to a justice. They must apply for an order. They must establish to the satisfaction of the justice that the record they are seeking is in respect of a missing person.

I don't think for us to go into all kinds of hypotheticals here is going to assist that justice at all, because on the day it'll be an issue of fact — for that justice on that day — what kind of record is in respect of a missing person.

If it's a third-party record for the third party, and the person was in the company of the third party, etc. — something quite different — that is in section 7.

[1750]

K. Corrigan: I have a great deal of respect for the judiciary in this province, and I'm sure they would make the right decision.

I'm just trying to figure out what this section means and whose records can be accessed. I haven't got an answer to that. Conceivably, if the judge were to say that this is appropriate, that it's a way to find this person, could an application be made, to be considered appropriately by the judge, about third-party records under section 6 when it's not those conditions that we talked about in section 7? Is that conceivable?

Hon. S. Anton: Again, a justice is going to take this section and determine at the time whether a record is in respect of a missing person. The cell phone records of a third party and so on are generally going to be under section 7. That is the specific purpose for which section 7 was written.

Do I want to say that…? I don't want to limit section 6 by what I say here, because it's not going to be up to me by what I say here. It's going to be up to the justice on the day who will be making that determination — of whether or not the record is in respect of a missing person — but with the context of section 7 right before them, which is the context of third-party records.

K. Corrigan: I agree that the fairly narrow circum-
[ Page 2044 ]
stances by which the records can be accessed under section 7 would seem to inform section 6 to some degree. But to me, it's not conclusive.

I would think that the minister who is responsible for this bill and bringing it to this House would have contemplated whether or not under section 6 there's a possibility that third-party records could be accessed in, for example, the scenario that I talked about. I find it surprising that the minister would say: "Well, I'm not going to presuppose what a justice is going to say."

This minister wrote the legislation. Surely, there must be some intent here in whether or not this would apply to third-party records. We must have some idea. I mean, the minister has many times talked about the purpose of the legislation to find missing persons. What is the purpose and the intent of this section? Is it intended to apply to third-party records or not? If the minister can't answer that today, then perhaps the minister could get an answer and bring it back to us the next time we are dealing with this bill.

Hon. S. Anton: Let's go back to the hotel. The hotel's record of whether or not a person stayed in the hotel the night before — that is a record in respect of the missing person. The entirety of the hotel's records going back for months one way or another, looking for somebody else altogether — that's a third party's records. If I could possibly put forward every permutation and combination of human recordkeeping in here so as to define for the member opposite exactly where or where not this test would apply, I would be a magician.

The officer must attend in front of a justice. The justice must determine whether or not the record is in respect of a missing person. If it is, and if it falls within the other requirements of the section, the justice can grant the order. If it's a third-party record — the phone records of her friends and so on, or of the third party that the child may have been in the company of — that is under section 7.

K. Corrigan: I thought it was a pretty simple question. I know that the judge will make a decision whether it's relevant or not, but what is the minister contemplating?

[1755]

Is the minister contemplating that records that are not directly related to the individual but could give information about the whereabouts of the individual…? Are those records accessible under this provision?

Hon. S. Anton: I think I've answered the question. Section 6: satisfy the justice that the record is in respect of the missing person, and if you can, you have your order. Section 7: if it's the third-party's records, you go under section 7.

K. Corrigan: I'm going to assume from that answer, then…. The minister just said that if it's a third-party record, you go under section 7. That's very specific about the types of records that it is, so I'm assuming that the minister is going back to what she said in the first place, that it has to be a record of that individual and can't be a third party. But I don't know where we are with the hotel.

Well, maybe the minister, then, could clarify what types of records could be accessed and whether third-party records…. Let's use that example that I talked about, because I think it's important. I think it would be important to a lot of people to know, if there is a situation, a missing person, whether or not the records that can be demanded include other records belonging to other individuals that may not be directly linked but would tell you about where that individual is — whether those things.

Maybe the minister could get back to me on that, because I haven't had the answer to that specific question yet. I know the minister has said that a justice would make that determination, but I want to know the minister's intent in framing this legislation. Does the minister contemplate that those types of third-party records would be accessible?

Hon. S. Anton: The only example that the member opposite has raised is the example of the friend's cell phone records. There will be records. All of these records will be in the possession of a third party: the hotel's records; the school records — I see the Minister of Education here. But they are in relation to that person. Whether or not they attended a university class that day — there may be a record of that. That record is in respect to the missing person.

To move into a whole different category…. I think the member will have to clarify her question, because the only suggestion I've heard is asking for the cell phone bills of a third party. To get the entire cell phone records of a third party altogether, the authority for that is under section 7.

There's no question that the records in respect to the missing person in section 6 may well be in the possession of the third party. They may be the hotel bill. They may be the school. They may be where the person did a certain piece of business. But that record will be a record in respect of that missing person.

K. Corrigan: I'm sure the Chair has had enough of these questions, so I'm going to spare him any more, and the minister as well, on this particular section.

I think it is an area that there are real questions about. I think that example is a good one. I could change it slightly, but I do think it's a reasonable question.

If an officer believes that there might be cell phone bills or records or text messages of close friends of somebody who is missing, but they're not part of the correspondence by that missing person but between other people and it might shed some light, I think it's reasonable to ask. But I think the minister is saying that that's a no-go zone.
[ Page 2045 ]
I think that's what the minister is saying. If the minister would just say yes to that, then I will stop asking questions about this section.

[1800]

Hon. S. Anton: I believe I've answered the question.

K. Corrigan: Actually, I think those are all the questions I have for section 6.

Section 6 as amended approved.

On section 7.

The Chair: I believe the minister has an amendment.

Hon. S. Anton: I move the amendment to section 7(3)(b), (c) and (d), standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 7 (3), by adding the text shown as underlined:

(3) A justice may make an order under this section if the justice is satisfied that

(a) the member made reasonable efforts to obtain the third party's consent, if applicable,

(b) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the missing person

(i) may be in the company of the third party, or

(ii) was last seen in the company of the third party,

(c) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the record may assist the police force in locating the missing person, and

(d) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the record is in the possession or under the control of the person.]

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Anton: The amendment is the same as the last time, which is to add the words "to believe" following the words "reasonable grounds" so that the phrase becomes "reasonable grounds to believe" each time.

Amendment approved.

On section 7 as amended.

K. Corrigan: Section 7. There were some concerns by the Privacy Commissioner that were expressed in a letter that was sent to various parties, including the minister.

In this section if a person is a minor or a vulnerable person, the police can apply for an order requiring a person to give access to a record in respect of a third party if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the missing person may be in the company of the third party or was last seen in the company of the third party and the record can assist the police force in locating the missing person.

They have to make reasonable efforts to obtain the consent of the party, but the Privacy Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, has said that there also needs to be notice of who has those records. That is another amendment that I'd like to submit in a moment. Her letter said: "Individuals should know who is in possession of their personal information and the purpose to which that information is being put."

I do have an amendment, and I guess now would be the appropriate time. I believe that the Clerk has copies of the amendment. This is about disclosure to third parties and disclosure to missing persons — 7.1 and 7.2. It's an addition to section 7.

[To amend the Act by adding the following sections:

Disclosure to third parties

7.1 (1) Third parties whose information is collected pursuant to this Act shall be mailed a Notice of Disclosure to their last known address, unless giving this notice could harm someone's health or safety.

(2) If a Notice of Disclosure is sent in accordance with (1), it must be sent to the third party within a reasonable period of time and will include:

(a) the authority for the collection of the information, and

(b) disclosure of the information collected.

Disclosure to missing persons

7.2 (1) Missing persons who are found and whose information was collected pursuant to this Act shall be mailed a Notice of Disclosure to their last known address, unless giving this notice could harm someone's health or safety.

(2) If a Notice of Disclosure is sent in accordance with (1), it must be sent to the missing person within a reasonable period of time and will include:

(a) the authority for the collection of the information, and

(b) disclosure of the information collected.]

On the amendment.

K. Corrigan: I move that amendment. I pretty well explained why it is that we've submitted this amendment. It is something that the Privacy Commissioner called for. I would say also that I've spoken to the Privacy Commissioner's office. The feeling was…. My understanding was that it should be disclosed to third parties and also to the missing person.

[1805]

This is something that the Privacy Commissioner has expressed a concern about — the disclosure of the fact that information has been gathered for both the third party and for the individual. It doesn't seem to harm anything or do anything to affect the ability, the powers, under this or do anything to affect the search for a missing person. It does nothing but simply provide more information.

For that reason, I move that motion. I don't know if any of my colleagues would like to speak to it as well.

D. Eby: I rise to support the amendment, and the reason is pretty straightforward. This act is a paradox, in that the rights of the people it protects, in terms of notice and procedure…. The only notice that's given is to somebody who refuses to cooperate with police in an emergency situation.

If you refuse to cooperate, then you get to go to court, you get notice of the application and you get to make sub-
[ Page 2046 ]
missions. But as far as the missing person him- or herself or a third party whose information is disclosed…. You don't get any notice. You don't ever get told that your information was taken, that your records were accessed.

This isn't an abstract concern. I have people contacting my constituency…. I have a person right now who's contacting my constituency office whose mental health records are in the possession of the police and who is being denied volunteer opportunities because the police check off on a little criminal record check that records may exist about this person. So they're denied volunteer opportunities, and they're denied opportunities to work.

I think it's very reasonable for the government to accept this amendment as a friendly amendment, one that respects the intent of the bill, respects the ability of police to access the information when they need it and extends the same rights to the person that's supposed to be protected as it does to the person who says: "No, I'm not going to cooperate with you, police."

In that respect, it is an entirely reasonable and practical amendment, one that's supported by an independent officer of the Legislature, a non-partisan officer. I submit it should be taken as such — as a friendly amendment — by the government, and I hope it is.

G. Heyman: I'd also like to speak on this amendment and support this amendment. It seems to me relatively straightforward. In no way would it interfere with the administration of the act or the tools needed to assist in finding missing persons.

I think the government has, in the past, taken advice from the Information and Privacy Commissioner, carefully thought-out advice that upholds the spirit of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

As my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey and my colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake have pointed out, people simply, as long as it does not interfere with the purposes for which the information has been collected, are notified within some reasonable period of time that some information has been released and what the authority for that release was.

The commissioner pointed out in her letter that a similar provision is in place in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, where section 33.1(m) discloses information if "compelling circumstances exist that affect anyone's health or safety." In that section, the public body disclosing the information must mail notice of disclosure to the last known address of the individual the information is about, unless giving that notice could harm someone's health and safety.

In that spirit, I hope the minister will consider this friendly amendment that lines up with other acts of this legislation and respects the principles of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and, obviously, has the support of the commissioner.

N. Simons: I'd just like to add my support to my colleague's amendment to Bill 3, which would do nothing but protect the rights of people peripherally, possibly, involved. I think that it's important, because this law reflects what we believe about the importance of privacy, as well as the number of pieces of information, the number of records that are potentially available for the agency collecting that information — from health records to hotel records and everything in between.

[1810]

I think that when you're dealing with that kind of information, it's important to err on the side — obviously, to find the place where it's necessary — and, if it doesn't have an impact on the ability of the agencies to do their work, at least to make sure that those peripherally involved will have their rights protected.

It obviously reflects, as well, the learned opinion of the Privacy Commissioner and I believe, as my colleagues have said, doesn't take anything away from the effect of the act. In pointing out the irony that the rights most protected are those of the one refusing to give information, in this particular case, I think third-party information could be something that's important to protect. So I think this is an amendment that clearly would be something that would improve this bill significantly, and for that reason I support the amendment.

The Chair: On the amendment proposed by the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake.

K. Corrigan: Well, I thank my colleagues for speaking in favour of this amendment. As I said earlier, this amendment, if accepted, would certainly in no way take away from the impact of the act. It would not in any way limit the police officer's ability to gather information. It would simply provide a notice to people that should have notice about the use of their records.

I'm actually quite surprised that the minister in this case would not accept this friendly amendment, particularly when you consider that the Privacy Commissioner has taken the time to write and explain what the issues are. So I'm a little surprised. I don't see what the downside is.

If the minister wants to speak on the amendment, maybe she will be able to tell us something that will explain. That's quite possible. But with that, I'll take my seat on this amendment.

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, the amendments are not agreeable, and I will not be supporting them. The reason is this. The disclosure to each of these…. There is a possibility that the records may…. There may be a risk of harm. Now, I know that the member opposite has put in "giving this notice could harm someone's health or safety," but it's not always apparent that it will harm their health and safety.

There may be other reasons why you need to keep the
[ Page 2047 ]
records. For example, if it turns into a criminal investigation, you don't want to notify the third party that you are in fact in possession of his records and that you're now in the middle of a criminal investigation. That's on 7.1. It is not always clear that there's a risk of harm — for example, when it turns into a criminal investigation. These cases can turn into that.

On disclosure to the missing person, 7.2, the missing person may have gone home, and the records are sent to their home. That may jeopardize their family situation at home. There are all kinds of ways you can imagine that harm might be caused.

I think the important section to tie to these two proposed amendments is the regulation, section 25.2(e), which is the ability to make regulations relating to the retention of records. Again, there's no question that we would be consulting the Privacy Commissioner on that regulation, because I think the Privacy Commissioner and even the members opposite are thinking that records should not be kept unnecessarily. That's the point of the regulation-making ability in section 25.2(e).

But for reasons I set out, I will not be in support of the amendments.

K. Corrigan: The amendment, as it is written, says "unless giving this notice could harm someone's health or safety," so there is certainly protection there for third parties. So I'm mystified about the idea that it could turn into a criminal investigation, because what we've heard is that this is about finding missing people. Now we're talking about things turning into criminal investigations, which was what some of us were concerned about in the first place.

[1815]

I think that the amendment as proposed protects individuals appropriately. I think it's a good amendment, and I think we should, if we are gathering information about people, provide notice to individuals if at all possible. I hope this amendment will be passed, but apparently it's not going to be.

G. Heyman: Well, I, too, am somewhat mystified with the response from the Minister of Justice. Earlier this afternoon she was accusing members on this side of the House of intolerably casting aspersions on police by allowing for the possibility that an act might be misused — an act that, as currently constructed, had a fairly large loophole in it.

Surely the Minister of Justice has more respect for the protection of the privacy of British Columbians and the opinions of the Privacy Commissioner and the principles that underlie the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act than to simply throw out in its entirety an amendment suggested by the protection-of-privacy commissioner and by the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake.

If the minister felt that the amendment as constructed didn't entirely work for legitimate reasons, let's have a discussion about that. But rejected in its entirety when it completely aligns with the principles contained in the Protection of Privacy Act seems to me to be disrespectful of the principles enshrined in that act, disrespectful of the commissioner whose job it is to oversee that act and disrespectful of British Columbians who have a legitimate right to know if their information has been collected and for what purpose and under what authority.

N. Simons: I think it's important that we talk about this in a bit of detail, because we're talking about the most personal information that's potentially accessed. That information could, under this act, be shared with other law enforcement agencies outside of British Columbia. I think we need to be very careful about that. I don't see any reference to this third-party collection of data in any other similar legislation in British Columbia, and so maybe the minister can let us know how that became part of this legislation.

D. Eby: Imagine this — that in British Columbia we take intensely personal records and hand them over to people who have been accused of the most serious crimes in a disclosure under Stinchcombe. We give them all the records. So you've been accused of a crime. Here are all the records against you, the full stack, because we believe in protecting your right to a fair trial. Yet in a matter that the minister stood up and said over and over again is a civil matter that has no criminal implications, we're not even going to tell the missing person that we accessed their records. We're not even going to tell them that. How does that make any sense? We're giving more rights to criminals than we are to missing people.

I cannot fathom that this government would ignore the Privacy Commissioner in this way. It is astounding to me. I hope the minister can provide more clarification than simply an ephemeral concern that you wouldn't even tell a missing person that their most private records had been accessed by everybody — doctors, counsellors, psychiatrists. Their most personal records have been accessed, and we're not even going to tell them, and ostensibly we're doing this for their benefit.

[1820]

The Chair: If members could take their seats for the taking of the division.

[1825]

Hon. Members, the question is the amendment to section 7 proposed by the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake.

Amendment negatived on the following division:
[ Page 2048 ]

Hon. S. Anton: With that, Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:28 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a. m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:29 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
FORESTS, LANDS AND
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Dalton in the chair.

The committee met at 2:40 p.m.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $372,345,000 (continued).

N. Macdonald: On Thursday when we left off, we'd started estimates debate. In one of the early sections I presented a media release from the minister and a copy of a study the minister used as evidence — that the government claimed was evidence — that grizzly bear hunts were being managed using the best available science.

However, I showed the minister that the claims made in the government media release are a misleading description of the findings of the study that the media release cited. The study is not evidence that the grizzly hunt uses the best available science.

Now, the minister's name was put on a media release that I think most would agree deliberately misled the media and the broader public. In his answer on Thursday the minister said that he had other proof that the government was managing the grizzly hunt sustainably. They haven't presented that.

The question I have for the minister: if there's other proof, will he table that evidence or commit to providing it?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I indicated on Thursday during the discussion, we indicated that the populations are being sustainably managed, based on the best available science. We did commit to providing the additional information, the other factors that are being used beyond the modelling study that's referenced in the report.

[1445]

I think it's important to recognize that this was one piece of the information that was used. The ministry reviews all of those estimates, including those that come from population inventories; the modelling, such as analysis in the report; and expert opinion.

For the 12 management units in question, the best estimates, as determined by biologists, in four of those cases were based on inventory; in five of the units it was based on expert opinion; and the model estimate in three
[ Page 2049 ]
of the units.

Again, it's a combination of all the information, not just one single report that is used. But the study did affirm that the grizzly bear populations in B.C. are being sustainably managed, along with the best available science.

As we agreed to on Thursday and as we committed, we will undertake to provide all the additional information that was used in each one of those units, whether it was inventory, the model, the expert opinion or the combination of all three of those in each of those units.

Clearly, the basis of the decision was based on best available science, again — that populations are being sustainably managed. That's based on a number of factors and a range of information, not just the report and the model itself.

N. Macdonald: But the problem here is that the minister is, again, referencing a study that, when one looks at it, is not aligned with what the media release says. So it's a bit troubling for the minister to again go back to that as evidence, because it's not. Everything else that the minister has said is evidence that's not in front of us.

I understand that very often we get information later. But the minister has asserted something — and they did it months and months ago — and has yet to provide evidence that backs up their case. In fact, the only thing that was put forward as evidence turns out to be inaccurate. That's troubling.

The second piece that I brought to the minister on Thursday was a report. It's called "Confronting Uncertainty in Wildlife Management: Performance of Grizzly Bear Management," and it is peer-reviewed. It does deal specifically with the issue that we're talking about. It finds in that study that grizzly bear management here in British Columbia is not being done sustainably. It raises serious questions.

Now, the minister on Thursday rejected out of hand that study but has provided no evidence. So the question I have for the minister is: can he provide the scientific information that was given to him as minister that led him to the conclusion, or led senior staff to the conclusion, that the study I cited was, indeed, something that should not be considered?

Clearly, there must be a body of scientific argument. I don't want political argument. I want scientific argument that can be presented that actually supports the assertion that the peer-reviewed study that questions the sustainability of the grizzly hunt in British Columbia is, as the minister states, something that we should discount. Where's the evidence for the minister's claim?

[1450]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, as I indicated, when the information is reviewed, we review all the information that's available. The modelling and the studies are one piece of that. We also review population estimates that are based on DNA studies, best available information from experts. All of those go into the factor. As I said, when we went through all of the units, a number of them were based on…. When the best estimates were used, the inventory numbers were used in four of those units, expert opinion in five and model estimates in three of the cases.

When those best estimates are used, the concern with the harvest rates exceeding the policy was eliminated in eight of the 12 cases. As a result — and those harvest rates are below 6 percent — in the remaining four cases the ministry responded to the new population information from the model, combined with recent mortality data, by either closing the areas to grizzly bear hunting or lowering the number of hunting authorizations and reducing the allowable mortality limits in those areas.

We can go through each of the responses through each of those areas, but again, as I said, the information is based on all the best available information. We remain confident that the population is being sustainably managed, and as I indicated, we will be prepared to follow up with the specific scientific information that was used in analyzing and assessing the report referenced by the member opposite.

A. Weaver: I must admit to being deeply troubled that a grizzly bear analysis is based on a single scientific study, from what I'm hearing — an expert. I would ask if the minister could be so kind as to please table the list of experts that were consulted to develop the opinion, in addition to the scientific analysis, if he would be prepared to do so.

[1455]

Hon. S. Thomson: To the member opposite: yes, we will provide that list. I don't have the full list with me of all the experts and biologists who would have reviewed that, but we can provide that.

I think, as the member opposite will know as well, that during the process of peer review of those studies, sometimes it is done independently and anonymously, so in those cases we would not be able to provide that. To the extent that we can provide the names of people who have provided that opinion, along with the scientific information that I have already committed to the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke to provide, we'll undertake to do that.

A. Weaver: The peer-reviewed study that was referred to was published on December 18, 2013. In the field of science a peer-reviewed study is just one study. It needs to be assessed and critically analyzed by many others.

In looking at and reading this study, I noted that in fact, it's a study that measures grizzly bear density by doing a simple regression analysis, a correlational analysis with ecosystem function and type. This hardly, anybody
[ Page 2050 ]
would say, would be the type of thing that you would base policy in terms of extrapolation on — a statistical regression analysis.

I would urge the government to take a very close look at this particular study and see whether or not, if it is the basis of their assessment and their determination of the kill, they should actually move on and find some other evidence. Frankly, one study based on statistical regression is not sufficient to base policy on.

My question is with respect to an ecosystem that there has been some analysis on. It's the Great Bear rainforest, and it's specifically asking if the minister could provide an update on the progress of the Great Bear rainforest treaty in light of the fact that industry, a number of environmental groups and First Nations communities have come to an agreement which was sent to the government for ratification.

[1500]

Hon. S. Thomson: I appreciate the member opposite's comments around the analysis. Again, just to point out that we used a variety of information in order to make those decisions and didn't rely on one specific study. But I, again, appreciate the suggestion and advice from the member opposite.

To just go to the second part of the question, which really is an update on the Great Bear rainforest agreement. As you know, in March 2009 a joint announcement, supported by First Nations, environmental groups, forest sector, confirmed that the province met its commitment to establish and fully implement an ecosystem-based management system for coastal B.C. which is reflected in land use objectives and orders for the area.

The province — along with First Nations, environmental groups, forest sector — has made additional commitments for what would be done in the following five years leading up to March 2014. One of those commitments was to review and amend the land use orders before March 31, 2014, with the objective of concurrently achieving the low ecological risk and the high levels of human well-being or, if that was not possible, to make meaningful increments towards both. This also, as the member opposite will know, has to be consistent with First Nations agreements.

Meeting this commitment by March 2014 has been delayed somewhat, due to the necessary discussion between the forest sector and environmental groups to achieve consensus on the joint solution for the final implementation of EBM to be recommended to the province and the First Nation governments.

I'm very, very pleased to confirm that on January 29, 2014, the environmental groups and the forest companies that were part of that joint solutions project submitted their joint recommendations to the province — to the ministry — and to some First Nations. A very, very significant milestone and progress and step forward in the agreement.

Again, as I've commented previously, I want to congratulate both the environmental organizations that were part of that process and the forest industry on coming to that agreement. It is a milestone towards reaching the agreement for amendment to the land use orders for the Great Bear rainforest.

As I said, they were provided to ourselves, and now we are in the process of working with First Nations on a government-to-government basis to incorporate the recommendations into the land use amendments and conclude a package that will address both the ecological integrity and the human well-being commitments in that. We have the basis of the agreement, but we do need to work with the First Nations on a government-to-government basis to get the agreement for implementation.

That process is well underway and fully engaged with the coastal First Nations — with the Nanwakolas and with other First Nations throughout the area. We're going to work as diligently and as hard as we can to bring that full agreement and implementation forward. It won't be by March 31, 2014, but in my view, we have met that initial target of having that agreement in place: the basis or the foundation on which to get that agreement.

It took a little longer than everybody may have hoped, but it was very, very significant, and the industry and the organizations wanted to make sure they took the time to get it right. There was a lot of diligent work.

Now it's into the next step, and we look forward to completing that process. We're engaged directly in government-to-government processes with the First Nations. It's not just the council and the coastal First Nations group; there are a number of other First Nations that we need to engage.

[1505]

We're going to work to complete this process, building on the foundation agreement that came between the environmental organizations and the industry.

B. Routley: I'd like to go back to the questions that we had about caribou. In the estimates process in 2013 we asked the question: what is the actual number of herds that reached the recovery objective of four in 2012-2013? The minister followed up with a response on August 12, 2013, writing: "In 2012-13 ministry staff measured five herds that had ceased declining." That's the interesting choice of words that we want to explore a little bit more. Specifically, which four caribou herds does the ministry claim to be in recovery, that ceased declining?

Hon. S. Thomson: Rather than hold up the process here too much — I did have that information, but I've misplaced the piece of paper where I had that list of the herds, because I knew that this question was coming — we will undertake to provide it very shortly here. If you
[ Page 2051 ]
want to address the next question, then I'll come back to providing that. We will have it very shortly.

B. Routley: Okay. The next question is: how does the ministry define "recovery"?

[1510]

Hon. S. Thomson: The four herds are the Nakusp, Columbia North, Barkerville and Purcells South. The member opposite asked around the recovery strategy. As we've stated, the goal is to stabilize the herds by 2014 to stop the decline and then to recover those herds by 2027 with a population target of 2,700. That's the basis of the recovery plans that are in place.

B. Routley: Does the definition of "recovery" the minister has used adhere to generally accepted criteria for recovery?

Hon. S. Thomson: As the member opposite will know, the recovery plans — there's a very, very complex set of factors and circumstances. The approach for our plans has been to set the goals in terms of stabilizing the herds, as I mentioned, by 2014 and by setting the targets for recovery to levels of 2,700 animals by 2027. The basis of that is to have that at a level that has population viability, is self-sustaining — one that responds to the management framework that's in place for those.

[1515]

While there are many definitions of what recovery may be, what criteria, those are the base and the targets that we have set in the plans, and that's the focus of the work that is being done — to work to, as I said, stabilize and then to meet those target levels that have been set.

B. Routley: I take it from that that the minister has some comfort in his definition of recovery. If the minister is now confident that he's reporting the recovery of caribou herds to cabinet and to the public, perhaps he would commit today to having the ministry's number of caribou herds reported to be in recovery assessed for accuracy by independent, third-party scientists.

Hon. S. Thomson: As the members opposite may know, the recovery process is overseen by a progress board and a science team that provide direct advice and review of the plans and the progress. I appreciate the member's perspective and can certainly review that with the progress board and the science team. As you know, that progress board includes a wide range of perspectives on the review of the plan.

In terms of the direct suggestion, I think it's something that would be appropriate to place in front of the progress board and its science team.

[1520]

N. Macdonald: Just two questions coming on wolves. The minister will have seen the article in the Tyee. It follows up on the statement that the minister made again on Thursday, where the minister asserted that wolf harvests were conducted in a clear and transparent manner by the government. But in reading the article, it talked about a media-generated freedom-of-information request that was anything but consistent with the minister's claim of an open and transparent process.

So I guess the first of two questions. The first question is: will the minister table the current wolf management plan?

Hon. S. Thomson: The wolf management plan or the draft plan was put out for public review and comment over a period of time. We received a very significant amount of input and comments on the plan. We're currently incorporating all of that input in development and completion of a final plan.

The wolf management plan is currently being finalized. As soon as that has been completed and finalized, we'll be making the plan public. At this point it's in the process of being finalized, and it will be made public. It will be fully transparent.

N. Macdonald: Just on being open and transparent…. I mean, it was a very constrained period that people were asked for input. It's been a pretty long period since that input was provided, and we haven't seen the plan. It is a long period of time that we're talking about. In the meantime things are going on.

I guess the next question I would have for you — one of the more contentious parts of it — would be around poisoning. The question I have, really specifically, is: is the government currently poisoning wolves as part of its wolf management plan? Has it in the recent past poisoned wolves? Is there any intention in the future to use poison in the management of wolves?

[1525]

Hon. S. Thomson: I hope sort of a short answer to this is, first of all, no. No poisoning is being done.

Secondly, the draft management plan. If you review, the draft management plan did not contemplate poisoning as one of the techniques or tools to be used. From my perspective, it will not be a tool in the final plan. Stakeholders and people inputting into the plan did not request that — the B.C. Cattlemen, for example, don't support that — so the answer is no and no.

N. Macdonald: We return now to where we left off at the end of Thursday, which is the TFL rollovers. I just want to pick up on, again, something that the minister gave us as an answer and, as well, to provide some background as we get started again in this debate.

What the minister will know, and what people should
[ Page 2052 ]
know, of course…. Tree farm licences, or TFLs, are a form of area-based tenures, as are community forests, woodlots. You can even have areas within TSAs. But TFLs are particularly contentious with the public because they represent a privatization of the public land.

There are three companies that I'm aware of that were pushing for TFL rollover legislation. It's West Fraser, Dunkley and Hampton. Those are the three I've heard most often. Other companies clearly would benefit but appear to be passive on pushing the government to create TFL rollover legislation.

Many companies do not want TFL rollover legislation because of the public backlash that we already saw when this legislation was presented prior to the election in 2013. The fear, of course, is that part of that public backlash would be campaigns aimed at B.C. markets for timber. Of course, that would be devastating. The TFL rollover legislation was part of the deal that Bob Clark, on behalf of Pat Bell, was making with Hampton, and it is found as action 5 in the 2012 leaked cabinet document.

The genesis for the Timber Supply Committee, of course, was the leaked cabinet document. It talked about a whole host of very contentious ideas. One of them was the idea of TFL rollover legislation. Bob Clark was candid when he came before the committee. He said, basically, that the work that he did on behalf of Pat Bell was represented by the leaked cabinet document. That seems to be the genesis of it, and it continues to be pushed, as I say, by certain companies who feel that there is a benefit to them.

From my perspective, the TFL rollover clearly will enrich a handful of private companies, but I see either no public benefit or, in fact, significant public loss. Behind the initiative, I think people need to understand, is raw politics, right? There is around it an attempt to justify something as being about forestry when it really isn't. There's an awful lot of government spin. It's part of that spin that I want to address with the minister today, because it's part of the spin that was presented in answering the question on Thursday.

On Thursday the minister stated, as he has many times before, that the idea for TFL rollovers…. We can be specific here, because we saw exactly what the government intended to do in legislation that was put forward and then withdrawn. We know exactly where the government is going with it. The assertion that the minister has made as recently as Voice of B.C. but also here on Thursday was that that came from the Timber Supply Committee.

It didn't. I'm going to walk the minister through that.

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

First, we knew — here, it's my colleague from Cowichan Valley, as well as my colleague from Surrey-Newton — before we started the Timber Supply Committee process that Hampton wanted a TFL. We knew that because it was there in the leaked cabinet document that we received.

[1530]

Then we provided to government an offer to work with government. We did the right thing there, coming to government and offering to be part of a solution. But we knew going into it that there were risks for us. One of the risks was that the government would have an agenda that they would try to co-opt us into being part of. So we went into it with our eyes completely wide open and were aware of where the government agenda was headed.

We also knew that there were some very politically connected companies, such as West Fraser, who wanted to convert some of their volume to TFLs as well. The NDP members were going into the committee work concerned about that and other parts of the government agenda.

Now, the Chair of the committee, the B.C. Liberal Chair, who's now the minister responsible for aboriginal affairs, soon made it clear that the main focus for him, and presumably for government, was the TFL rollovers. He asked at pretty well every one of the — how many meetings did we have, 30, 40? — meetings. He always asked it. He was not at all subtle about pushing that agenda.

If you look on Hansard, we consistently raised questions about what he was asserting. He was asserting that TFLs would provide a benefit that there was no evidence for. If you go back on Hansard, you can actually see where we were asking questions. We wanted evidence — evidence that TFLs actually produced the benefits that the government members were asserting.

What we were told was that there was no evidence that the TFLs provided benefits. In fact, we were told — and this is the ministry staff providing us with this information — that all they could find and produce in fact showed evidence of poorer results from TFLs. Now, we know TFLs. We know that there are some that are managed well and some that are managed poorly, so this is not to disparage all of them. It's just that the assertion that you necessarily get a better result with TFLs simply has no evidence behind it.

It was in this very room that the Timber Supply Committee, with four Liberals and three NDP, put the recommendations together that appear in the final report. Our two consultants, both former chief foresters chosen by government to help us — and they did a wonderful job — drafted the document based on conversations that they had with us over the course of the committee meetings and listening to presentations. So they had a sense of our concerns, even with the initial language that they put forward.

My colleague from Cowichan Valley, myself as well as the member from Surrey rewrote the recommendations. This is our language in the recommendations that Liberal members agreed to. So I know what we recommended. I know what we were trying to avoid the government be-
[ Page 2053 ]
ing able to do, which is to cherry-pick a recommendation and mischaracterize it as being something different than what it is.

I think that's evident if you just look at the recommendations and read it. Even if you didn't know anything about what I've said here, you could look at it and if you read it, you would realize that it is very clear that it is talking about a very slow process that is broad. It very specifically involves First Nations, very specifically involves communities, talks about science that has to be done and talks about the full breadth of area-based tenures — community forests and a whole host of tenure types.

It's certainly nothing at all that resembles the TFL legislation that was put in front of the Legislature last year and what, presumably from the Premier's letter of instruction, the Premier still intends to push forward with.

I guess what I would say is that going forward, if the minister is to characterize the committee's recommendations as being in support of that legislation, it can only mean three things. It can mean either he thinks that my colleague and I so misunderstand this file that we have inadvertently put in language that supports that government program. I don't think the minister thinks that. I don't think you would suggest that we're stupid on this file. So it's not that.

Secondly, it would have to be that I'm standing here lying about what went on, on that committee, and I don't think the minister is suggesting that.

[1535]

So if the minister goes forward from this point and makes that assertion…. I think it's something that, if you think about it properly, you won't do. It is not an argument that stands up. We did not recommend what the government is talking about, and going forward, the minister should provide instruction to the staff, should provide instruction to communications people, and I'm sure he'll take this upon himself. He should not be making that assertion. It's simply not accurate. That's where I want to leave off from, from that.

I want to go on to pick up where we left off, which was the question that, based on the fact that, in the minister's own words…. Here we go back to what the minister himself has said — that with TFL rollovers, "the ministry has no direct means of recording or comparing silviculture investments on area-based tenures to those on volume-based tenures." That's the minister saying that any assertion about more investment on the land is something that is asserted without any proof.

Secondly, the ministry has no evidence to support the assertion that forest management is better in TFLs than it is in volume-based TSAs. Those are things that are inconsistent with what is often said in pushing for the TFL legislation. That's the first point and the point that we made on Thursday, and the minister answered that.

But let's move on to the next point. The amount a tenure type is billed for waste each year is — I think the minister would agree — a good indicator of the quality of forest management. The minister may be surprised to learn that of all the different types of tenure licences, TFLs were billed $804,766 for waste in 2012-2013. So that tops the list of all 15 different types of tenure. That's significant. If waste is an indicator of poor management, TFLs are at the top of the list.

Secondly, in 2012-13 TFLs accounted for $3,347,235 in log export fees, again topping the list of all tenure types.

The minister has talked at some point about having a public consultation. During the public consultation, will the minister be informing the public how wasteful this form of area-based management is with TFLs and how it accounts for the lion's share of log export fees?

[1540]

The Chair: Forests Minister.

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you, Chair, and welcome to the chair.

I just want to start off my comments by saying, first of all, that if there was any impression that I was indicating that the members opposite don't understand the file or that I'm construing that they are being less than truthful or anything like that in the process, that's not the case.

The situation here is…. What we have committed to do is to undertake a public consultation process that addresses the recommendations and direction coming from the mid-term timber supply committee that says that area-based tenures are an opportunity to help contribute towards mid-term timber supply.

We understand and accept the concerns that the tabling of the initial legislation created. We know we need to go out and engage in that process around area-based management. We know that what we need to do is ensure that the approach that would ultimately come forward in legislation is one that meets the public interest, provides the benefit, contributes to mid-term timber supply mitigation — because that's one of the rationales for the report and the recommendations in the report — and moves forward carefully and slowly in the process.

That's why we've taken the time to make sure that, as we go into the public consultation process, we can provide all the information that's necessary for an informed consultation process. Clearly, some of the statistics and information that the member opposite just provided will need to be part of that discussion. That information is publicly available, and it will be part of the discussion process.

As I indicated on Thursday, we intend to move into that consultation process in the near future so that we can start the discussion. Just again to remind them, TFLs are just one form of area-based tenure. We do, as the member pointed out, have other forms of area-based tenure. That all needs to be part of the discussion.

[1545]

We and I believe that area-based management is one of the tools in the toolbox that could help address the mid-term timber supply mitigation through that reason. I think it's one that is worthwhile for a continued or a renewed public consultation process around the recommendations in the report, and that's what we've committed to do.

N. Macdonald: Of course I know the minister didn't mean offence to us. The relationship is very strong. But there are layers of decision-making going on here. It's a concern of what's coming out of the Premier's office. Like I say, this is politics, right? That, at the core, is what the TFL is. The minister again mixed up what we talked about in the recommendations. It was very broad and could be good public policy, but it's not what we saw in the legislation. It's not what the Premier was talking about when she gave instruction to the minister.

The facts are these: we spoke with Bob Clark, we had the chance to listen to what he said, and we understood the deal-making that was going on with Pat Bell and with Hampton and everything else that was going on there. It gives you insight into what's likely happening in other places.

You look at West Fraser, and you look at when the Premier became leader, how connected…. There are people, executives, there with her at the time that she was elected. That whole thing is going on. When that's happening, of course we are going to be suspicious about where the government is going to go on this big a file.

There are going to be concerns about the fact that, to the detriment of the broader public, we are going to see a privatization of lands. We've seen it elsewhere. We've seen government policy around B.C. Rail where a public asset was shifted into private hands. We saw Mr. McLean, the chair of CN, working very hard to get an outcome that he wanted. We see it with the IPPs, which represent those private power diversion projects. We saw the lobbying effort. We saw, in the end, a policy that's going to cost us $55 billion over 30 years.

So there is broad skepticism moving forward, and an awful lot of people deeply concerned about the direction that the government is choosing to go. What I'll do is I'll lay out a series of questions.

Let's move on, then, to the process. I'll just have the minister indicate if I'm incorrect in any of the facts that I lay out here, which are taken from briefing documents that we received as an FOI as well as other FOIs that the opposition has received. Would the minister please confirm the following. You can confirm it by identifying what is not true. That might be the easiest way to do it.

First, the main people involved with TFL rollover legislation seem to be Dave Peterson, former acting deputy minister; Duncan Williams, executive director of the tenures competitiveness and innovation division; and several people at the forest tenures branch — mainly, it looks like, Doug Stewart, Kelly Finck and Ron Greschner. That's the first thing. If I'm mistaken in that, the minister can let me know.

The second thing is the ministry staff struck up a working group in late July that seemed to be a subcommittee of what they called the Provincial Forestry Forum. From what we can gather, three of the members are the district managers for the regions Skeena-Stikine, north Island–central coast and Cariboo.

The third point is in mid- to late August the subcommittee members were working on consultations — not with all First Nations groups but targeted First Nations groups — around proposed legislation.

Fourth, Deputy Minister Peterson was talking to industry people as early as August 28, 2013 — for instance, Jim Hackett of the ILMA — and September 6 to Rick Jeffrey. Minister Thomson was scheduled to meet with Terry Kuzma, manager of Carrier Lumber, at a COFI event on September 26 to discuss locations for TFL rollovers.

Fifth, by late September 2013 the ministry had drafted a paper for industry association heads on the area-based conversion strategy.

Sixth….

The Chair: Member, can I just remind you that this has to do with estimates. It does sound like you're delving into issues beyond estimates. This may not be the appropriate venue for that.

[1550]

N. Macdonald: Well, with all due respect, in the nine years that I've been here, there's an understanding with ministers and amongst MLAs that there's a breadth to the questions to the minister. To be really specific here, the letter of direction to the minister for this year from the Premier deals with this specific issue.

Presumably, there's a breadth of cost associated with that. So it's certainly relevant to these estimates and fits within the traditions of the Legislature in terms of holding the minister to account.

The Chair: All of your questions should relate to estimates.

N. Macdonald: Okay, thank you.

So the fifth…. By late September 2013 the ministry had drafted a paper for industry association heads on the area-based conversion strategy.

Sixth, on September 27, 2013, the deputy minister was on a conference call with four representatives from COFI, ILMA and CFPA, presumably to discuss the strategy paper.

Besides confirming the ministry's sort of backdoor consultations with industry heads, associations and targeted First Nations, would the minister please provide
[ Page 2055 ]
us with the following.

First is a list of all members of the working group. So if the minister could just go back, and if I was incorrect in any of those statements, would you make a correction. Next, would the minister provide a list of all members of the working group.

Second is a copy of the strategy paper on area-based conversions that he has already used in discussions behind closed doors.

Third is a listing of all meetings since July 2013 on TFL rollovers, or area-based tenures, between the minister, the deputy minister and/or ministry staff with industry executives, with industry associations and with First Nations groups.

[1555]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to review some of the confirmations that the members opposite were looking for, I think, in terms of the key staff involved in helping develop the discussion paper and consultation process that we are going to be, as I indicated, launching shortly. I think you've got the names basically correct there. It's probably not limited to that, because this takes input from many other staff, but in terms of the lead on the process, those are correct.

The working group, the Provincial Forestry Forum, has been utilized to help provide input into the discussion paper and consultation process. The Provincial Forestry Forum is a larger group. It's one that we work with regularly on all aspects of forest policy.

We did have some initial discussions with the First Nations, recognizing that they are going to be a very, very important part of the public consultation process. We needed to make sure that we had some of the elements and concerns in as part of that process.

Throughout the process we have had an engagement with industry associations and people in the industry, because we want to make sure, when we go out with the discussion paper, with the consultation process, that we've got all the elements in there, that we've got an approach that will make sure we get that informed public opinion.

We've indicated that the consultation will be around area-based management, that there is a broad interest in this. We know that. So it will be an open consultation process: a discussion paper posted and opportunity for all stakeholders — First Nations, communities, environmental organizations, community groups, all those — to input into the process.

[1600]

We have very carefully made sure that as we work to do this…. And this is why it has taken some time. To make sure we get a discussion process that will be fully informed, that will ensure that we get the input — in order to do that, we have consulted with industry to make sure that when we go out with that, we've identified all the elements of the approach to area-based management, all the concerns that we may need to address as part of that consultation process.

I think the fact that we have talked through those groups and everything like that is an important step in the process. Now we will be moving to that full public consultation process. We recognize the challenges that came forward with the initial legislation. We want to make sure, as we go through this process, that we focus on area-based management, that we respect the direction of the mid-term timber supply committee and that we look at the opportunity for area-based management to contribute to mid-term timber supply mitigation.

That was the focus of the work. That was the focus that came through the committee report. That needs to be the focus, particularly the initial focus, of the consultation process. In my view, if it doesn't contribute to that, and it can't be a tool in the tool box in that process, we need to make sure that it's understood that it can be a tool and that it's something that can contribute to that mitigation of mid-term timber supply.

N. Macdonald: Again the talk around openness. I thank you for confirming the information that we had there.

Number 5 was that the ministry had drafted a paper for industry associations. I asked three questions at the end. Just to go back to them, all members of the working group…. Now, obviously not all the people are necessarily contributing information, but you have a core working group that we have partially listed there. If there are others, if you could give us a complete list of the core working group….

Secondly, if we're talking about openness and establishing trust, what we have so far is a process that may be benign, or it may be characterized as secret and backroom, right? One of the ways that one would dispel that is: having produced a strategy paper on area-based conversion, could the minister share that with us? It would be good if we had that today sometime so that we can generate questions from it, if necessary.

I think that more than just saying there is going to be openness, there have to be actions that go along with that. That's the second question I'll have the minister answer.

Then finally, a list of all meetings since July 2013. As the minister knows, through FOI we were able to get some of the information, but it can be a lengthy and onerous process. We don't have lists of these meetings from July 2013 complete. If the minister could answer those three questions, please.

[1605]

Hon. S. Thomson: Two quick answers. To the request for the list of the core working group: we can provide that; and for the list of meetings, we can certainly provide that, I think, based on FOI information. You probably have quite a bit of it already. We'll undertake to make sure that
[ Page 2056 ]
you have a complete list.

On the issue of the discussion paper, it's important to recognize that we have had a process in receiving some input into a discussion paper that would form the basis of the consultation process. Staff have been drafting that work. It is important to recognize that this is a staff initiative, and staff hold the pen on this. That discussion paper will be posted and available as part of the public consultation process. As I indicated, we hope to move forward with that in the near future.

The member opposite started out, in his initial comments, talking about this as Crown land privatization. It's important for me to say into the record, and I want to make clear on the record, that area-based management is not Crown land privatization.

The discussion process we're going out to do is to talk about area-based management in reference to the recommendations of the committee. That's the process we'll be doing. That'll be the basis of the discussion paper, and that paper will be part of the consultation materials.

N. Macdonald: The minister does know that this is an expansion of property rights. While the term "privatization" may be a broad term, there's no question that TFL rollovers are an expansion of property rights for the companies. That's why they want it. It's why First Nations are worried about it, why communities are worried about it. That's the reality here.

Now, the minister talked about openness. The minister controls all that goes on in the ministry. You have a strategy paper. There is concern — and rightly so, because all we've seen, really, in this discussion is propaganda — that if you enter into a community discussion on a topic that's complex, all that we're going to see, with all the resources of government, is something that's essentially propaganda. A vast majority of the population will have a difficult time discerning what the truth is.

We want, and I think the public interest is served by, an honest discussion.

[1610]

In looking for an honest discussion, the minister has agreed that the ministry has a draft paper for industry associations, and that's been shared. The first step has to be sharing that with the opposition so that we are able to provide feedback into what the minister intends to put in front of communities in what could or could not be a legitimate public consultation process.

I wouldn't have to look too far to see examples of public consultation processes that have been anything but legitimate. Maybe that's true of every government, but in the time I've been here, I can point to any number of them, so it's a legitimate question. If we're going to go forward and have the general public confident that this is genuine consultation, the first thing that should happen is we should be seeing the documents that have been put forward already to select groups in behind-closed-door meetings. Share them with us.

Again, I would ask for the minister to reconsider and table the strategy paper and other documents that have been put together and are already shared with select, favoured groups on something that is of importance to everyone, not simply industry or handpicked First Nations groups or other people. It's public land. Would you table the strategy paper and other documents that have been put together and have already been shared behind closed doors?

[1615]

Hon. S. Thomson: To reiterate or reaffirm, this is a discussion paper being drafted by staff. It's not a strategy paper. It's a paper that is intended to ensure that it provides enough technical information — all of the aspects of area-based management — for an informed discussion on area-based management as part of the public consultation process.

I recognize the importance of the public consultation process on this. This discussion paper will help form the basis of that discussion. As I said earlier, we will be releasing and initiating the consultation process in the near future.

I think this paper will help provide the opportunity for a fully informed consultation process with the public and all the groups that I mentioned before. We will be posting it. It is not complete yet, but as soon as we're ready to launch the public consultation process, we will be doing that. The discussion paper will be posted and made available.

N. Macdonald: With all respect, I think that's a huge mistake. What you are essentially saying, and what you're doing, is you have a paper that you trust and, basically, a group to look at it in secret, a very privileged group who has an interest in the outcome. They get to see it. They get to have input into the paper. But the broader public, the critic and the legislative MLAs don't get to see it.

Somehow, that's the basis that you're starting with, going forward to the public, and you expect trust to be built with that. Have you talked to environmental groups? Have you talked to a broad spectrum of First Nations? No.

What you're doing is you're going to a group that has a huge interest in it, and you're consulting them. Like I say, it is a huge misstep, in my view.

I'll repeat a question similar to one posed in July 2013. Does the minister intend to table TFL-enabling legislation in the House during future sessions of the Legislature before the next election? If so, when? What's the timeline on that? Also, has the minister drafted enabling legislation? And has the minister or his staff shared draft legislation with industry executives, association heads and select First Nation leaders?

[1620]

Hon. S. Thomson: Very quickly, first of all, to confirm. No, legislation has not been drafted. No, legislation has not been shared. Timing of potential legislation — to be determined. That's the purpose of the public consultation process — to inform that process.

I do need to go back again just to reaffirm that the discussion paper working group…. When we talk about the working group that has drafted the discussion paper, that is staff, an internal staff working group. The discussion paper has not been drafted by the impression that you're creating in terms of an outside working group or a secret group that's drafted the discussion paper or anything. This is an internal ministry working group that is drafting the discussion paper for purposes of public consultation to ensure that it has the technical information, the issues identified in it.

I think we know the issues that have been raised that need to be part of that public consultation process. That's what we intend to do. This will be an open process. I understand the need to undertake that, the need to do that.

As I said, we're going to be moving forward with that consultation process as soon as possible. Once we do that, the discussion paper will be fully shared, along with the plan around how the consultation process would be undertaken.

N. Macdonald: Does this mean that the relevant sections from Bill 8 that were removed are essentially off the table? Or are they still in play as the focus for where the minister sees this going forward?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I said, the legislation has not been drafted, not been shared. This is a process to move forward with a consultation process around area-based management. That is the undertaking, and we're going to let that process determine what may or may not come forward with the legislation.

N. Macdonald: Just to come back to the legislation piece, on page 13 of the ministry's 2014-15 to 2016-17 service plan, we find that the minister's top specific priority for the ministry is to "begin public discussion on legislation that would allow the conversion of volume-based licences to area-based licences." This priority is talking about public consultation on legislation, which is quite different than what the minister said in the House last summer.

[1625]

The minister unequivocally said that there would be a public engagement process that "would inform policy direction," which is quite different than a public discussion about legislation already scoped out and written.

I know the minister has said that that's not in place now, but as we go forward to the public discussions, the difference, I think, is important.

I'll quote from the minister, from Hansard. This is from the summer, I believe.

"As I committed earlier this spring and as is noted in the mandate letter, the ministry will launch and engage in a public engagement process this summer to raise awareness about the differences between the volume-based and area-based tenures and will solicit the feedback from communities, First Nations, the forest industry and the general public. The results of that public engagement will inform the future policy direction."

Would the minister please reassure the House, then, that he will honour his original commitment, which was to engage and consult widely with the public with respect to this issue so as to have the public inform policy direction for input to any legislation that might follow — rather than having the legislation in front of them or already completed? I would look for a commitment from the minister to have the public consultation process drive what any changes would look like rather than a fait accompli surrounded with rationales why it should go ahead.

Hon. S. Thomson: First of all, yes. And I stand by my commitment, as the member indicated. That will be the basis of the public consultation. I think, as that consultation proceeds, by necessity it will result in discussions around tenure options and things as part of that, but it is not consultation around a specific piece of legislation. We will let the consultation process inform legislative initiative.

B. Routley: In order for stumpage revenues to increase, one of three things has to happen. Either markets have to improve and, therefore, stumpage rates increase, or logging rates must increase, or the overall quality of the trees selected for logging must go up.

Last July during estimates debate the minister told the House that projected Interior stumpage revenues for fiscal years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 were $385 million, $404 million and $424 million respectively. For the projected coastal stumpage revenues for the same fiscal years, the minister provided these respective estimates: $72.1 million, $79 million and $89 million.

If those coastal and Interior estimates for the three fiscal years have changed, would the minister kindly provide updated stumpage revenue estimates?

[1630]

Hon. S. Thomson: For the estimates for total stumpage revenue for the coast: '13-14, $82 million; '14-15, $107 million; for '15-16, $118 million; and for '16-17, $126 million. For the Interior, total stumpage: '13-14, $492 million. I'm just giving you the round figures. Did you want exact figures?

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

For '14-15, $593.4 million; for '15-16 in the Interior,
[ Page 2058 ]
$622.108 million; for '16-17, $645.254. Totals for the province: $574 million for '13-14; $700.6 million for '14-15; $740.3 million for '15-16 and $772 million for '16-17.

B. Routley: Last July during the estimates debate the minister told us that a whopping 70 percent of the coastal stumpage volume and 34.4 percent of the Interior stumpage volume in fiscal year 2012-13 were collected at a minimum stumpage rate, at just 25 cents a cubic metre. The minister also told this House that the minimum stumpage rate of 25 cents a cubic metre has been in place since 1987 — a fact that, in light of the increases to B.C. Hydro rates, must irk most residents in the province of British Columbia.

Would the minister please provide comparable volume percents reported in forecasts for the coast and Interior billed at the minimum stumpage rate for fiscal years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16?

[1635]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, for the coast for '13-14 it's 57.9 percent, and for the Interior, 18.8 percent. Provincial total, '12-13, was 41.7 percent when weight by volume, and for '13-14, 29.5 percent.

For '14-15 and '15-16 we'll have to undertake to provide those numbers for you. I don't have those directly handy, but the staff, in developing the estimated stumpage revenue for those out-years, would have factored that in, so we will be able to provide it. I just don't have it directly. We do have the '13-14 numbers, as I just provided.

As you know, as markets improve, less timber will be billed at the minimum rates. Many stands are appraised lower than the minimum, based on their value, but the stumpage is increased to the minimum.

B. Routley: Okay, thank you, Minister.

I just would like to start by commenting that when I first looked at a tree farm licence, I remember it was a rotation age of some 84 years. Since that time, I've witnessed the downgrading of the rotation age from 84 years down to 40, 45 years. I think they're even experimenting with 35 years — that kind of thing. Maybe that's more so on private land. My question is…. One of the aspects of silviculture that affects revenue is the rotation length.

[1640]

Overcutting in B.C.'s forests — and the current trend of cutting the second-best-growth trees before they are fully mature — dangerously undermines the future forest economy by incremental degradation of both quality and quantity of the timber while also diminishing biodiversity, habitat and other important sectors of the B.C. economy.

The maximum capture of carbon from the atmosphere and the storage in big trees with large green crowns requires longer rotations beyond 100 years. Climate scientists and mathematics clearly support longer rotations. Many domestically value-added enterprises need higher-quality, mature heartwood — window and door manufacturing as one example. Longer rotations would also increase downstream revenue to the Crown.

Would the minister kindly inform the House as to why his ministry persists with short-term silviculture as a primary model for forest management when the reduction of atmospheric carbon is a government priority?

Hon. S. Thomson: Sorry, Chair. I'm just wondering if I could ask for a two-minute recess. I'm not taking the question on notice, but if I could have a quick recess, that would be appreciated.

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

The committee recessed from 4:41 p.m. to 4:44 p.m.

[1645]

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. S. Thomson: Rather than using rotation age, the general approach is to use minimum volume per hectare. This isn't a target but the approach that is taken to try to balance economics with carbon sequestration. In the Interior, as you know, we may need to harvest stands sooner to provide volume in the mid-term in order to keep fibre flow. So the general approach is to take it from an approach around minimum volume per hectare, ensuring that we try to balance off economics with carbon sequestration.

N. Macdonald: The next set of questions is a set of questions that are complex. I think at some point it may be that the minister will have to pull in the assistant deputy minister of stewardship, the chief forester and maybe even the director of forest analysis and inventory branch, but it doesn't have to be done right now. What I will do, with the minister's indulgence, is try to put forward in as clear a way as possible the focus of the questions.

It is, of course, very technical. We worked for a long time on these questions to try to get them so that the technical aspects were clear and understandable and the questions were in plain enough English that they would be clear. But the minister is going to, again, have to be patient as I lay this out as clearly as possible.

I guess the connection….

Hon. S. Thomson: Patience is a virtue.

N. Macdonald: It's always a virtue. Of course, yes. And we're here to test it, Minister.

The connection is that stumpage revenue is of course related to timber volume, which the ministry estimates using forest growth models — TASS, TIPSY and VDYP 7.

The ministry, in its response to recommendation No.
[ Page 2059 ]
4 in the Auditor General's 2012 audit of the ministry's management of timber, stressed the "importance of accurate yield projections" as far as B.C.'s timber base is concerned, which is essentially an acknowledgment of the central importance of knowing what our growth depletion rates are.

[1650]

Site index, which, as the minister will know, is defined as the height of the largest diameter tree on a 0.01 hectare plot at breast height, age 50, providing that it meets the suitability criteria defined on the FLNRO SIBEC website.

The site index, then, is used as a measure of productivity for forest stands and is the main driver for the ministry's forest growth models used in the determination of the annual allowable cut, the AAC.

You'll appreciate that the accuracy in the way in which the ministry estimates site index will determine whether AACs are over- or underestimated. Here overestimation, of course, would be the concern because of its far-reaching implications for the forest sector, for the provincial economy, for forest-dependent communities and for the environment.

The questions, as I say, that I will put to the minister will be in plain, simple English, but in order to provide context and background, the preamble will necessarily be somewhat technical. I'll try to be as close as possible.

We have, of course, had assistance, and we want to be as clear and as correct in describing the technical nature of the questions that follow as possible. And of course, I've done my utmost to make sure that this preamble is as understandable and as simple as possible.

In British Columbia height growth equations, sometimes incorrectly referred to as site index equations, are used to estimate site index for forest stands that are not 50 years old. Since small measurement errors can significantly affect the accuracy of these equations when applied to young trees, the growth intercept method is used to estimate site index for trees 50 years old and younger.

Height growth equations are known to underestimate site index in over-mature stands. As such, a site index adjustment is required for use in growth modelling of the managed stands that replace harvested over-mature stands.

In 1998 the ministry developed the old growth site index, OGSI, adjustment equations based on the comparison of site indices obtained from height growth equations for over-mature stands with site indices obtained using the growth intercept method from neighbouring stands having the same biogeoclimatic ecological classification, or BEC.

In 2011 the ministry initiated the development of the provincial site productivity layer, a GIS-based system to assign site index to the land base. This system is now operational, and according to the ministry's 2013 site index standard operating procedures, it will be used to replace site indices for all future harvested stands.

The GIS system used for the assignment of site index, known as the provincial site productivity layer, has two modes of operation. The first, the primary mode, uses site index values from the SIBEC database. The SIBEC database contains average site indices by species and BEC down to the site series level. The appropriate site index value is linked to the land base, the harvested area, by either terrestrial or predictive ecosystem mapping — TEM or PEM.

The second. For the secondary mode, if the land base does not have terrestrial or predictive ecosystem mapping, the process defaults to a biophysical model that predicts a five-site index from the map-based biogeoclimatic ecological classification zone, climatic variables, slope, elevation and aspect. Site index data used to derive this model are from the SIBEC database, augmented by site index data collected from previous site index adjustment studies.

The growth intercept method was used to estimate site index for the majority of sample trees used for site index adjustment studies. Four major problems associated with the system of assigning site indices known as the provincial site productivity layer include: (1) many of the sample trees used to derive the SIBEC values are from stands less than 50 years old, with site index estimated using the growth intercept method.

[1655]

A study conducted for the ministry demonstrated that for a given BEC species cell in the SIBEC database, site index estimates using the growth intercept method were consistently higher than site indices estimated with the height-growth equations. Given that the growth intercept method has never been properly validated, these higher site indices are therefore suspect and of significant concern.

Second, when the SIBEC database was initially conceived, it was envisioned that each BEC species cell would have a narrow range of site indices, thereby allowing BEC to be used to estimate site index. In practice, the ranges are much larger than expected. The inclusion of growth intercept estimates is a major factor in expanding the ranges.

Third, the average site index for a BEC species cell in the SIBEC database can be based on as few as seven trees, which is a very small sample, as I'm sure the minister would realize, on which to be basing large changes in the productivity of the land base.

Four, the majority of B.C.'s land base which has ecosystem mapping was done with predictive ecosystem mapping. The minimum accuracy that must be obtained for approval is only 65 percent, leaving this method prone to misclassification.

I would stress that the comparisons of site index estimated with the provincial site productivity layer to site index estimated using ground plot measurements show that the provincial site productivity layer consistently es-
[ Page 2060 ]
timates a higher site index. Increasing the site index of managed stands will lead to an increase in the long-term AAC and possibly to the mid-term AAC.

Now, the latest timber supply review — the minister knows the term TSR — for timber supply area 41, which is Dawson Creek, can be used to illustrate this. Since the TSR was conducted prior to the new 2013 site index standard operating procedures, the application of the provincial site productivity layer was only applied as a sensitivity test. The ministry's sensitivity analysis indicates that replacing inventory site indices with site indices estimated with the provincial site productivity layer increases the long-term AAC by a staggering 35 percent.

TSA 41 does not have terrestrial or predictive ecosystem mapping, so the provincial site productivity layer defaults to the second mode, the biophysical mode. A comparison of the site indices estimated with the provincial site productivity layer to site index, estimated with measured data from vegetation resource inventory plots in the age ranges of 51 to 120 years, indicates that the provincial site productivity layer estimates increase the site indices.

So for lodgepole pine, from 12.68 to 17.62 metres, which is a difference of 4.9 metres, or 39 percent; for interior spruce, from 9.61 to 18.79 metres, a difference of 9.18 metres, or 96 percent; for aspen, from 17.4 to 18.12 metres, a difference of 0.98 metres, or 6 percent; and for subalpine fir, from 7.66 to 15.92 metres, a difference of 8.26 metres, or 108 percent.

The same comparison for TFL 48, which is within TSA 41 but has the PEM or TEM mapping, indicates that the provincial site productivity layer estimates increase the site indices like this. For lodgepole pine, it increases it from 14.04 to 17.65 metres, a difference of 3.61 metres, or 26 percent; for interior spruce, from 13.67 to 18.76 metres, a difference of 5.09 metres, or 37 percent; for aspen, from 18.28 to 18.8 metres, a difference of 0.52 metres, or 3 percent; and for subalpine fir, from 10.2 to 14.71 metres, a difference of 4.51 metres, or 44 percent.

[1700]

These differences indicate, first, application of the provincial side productivity layer may be overestimating site productivity and, hence, AAC determinations. Second, the inclusion of growth intercept estimates in the SIBEC database seems to be driving the site index increases as indicated by the larger increases from the biophysical model that include additional growth intercept data.

It's important to note that while the TSR process conducts sensitivity analysis around input values, these analyses usually do not even cover the uncertainty associated with the input value itself. Proper risk assessments are not part of the AAC calculation for the provincial site productivity layer. A proper risk assessment would determine the AAC using the site index estimates from the provincial site productivity layer and then rerun the analysis with the same AAC, but no adjustment of site indexes to see the effects on the land base if the assumptions behind the provincial site productivity layer are wrong.

I'm sure the minister would agree that the very last thing this ministry needs to do is to be raising false hopes with inflated AACs for forest companies, for forest-dependent communities already battered by the mountain pine beetle epidemic and mill closures as a result of unsustainable AACs.

Therefore, with the apparent likelihood that the ministry might be overestimating mid- and long-term harvest levels, would the minister kindly inform the House if his ministry has conducted a proper provincial risk analysis that fully outlines the economic, social and environmental implications and consequences of overinflated AACs.

[1705]

Hon. S. Thomson: First of all, thanks for the very detailed and technical question that the member has outlined. I think, quite clearly, several challenges with estimating tree growth in inventory in AAC determination when we're doing that work. I'm advised that the intercept method does estimate higher volumes, but I'm also advised that the staff feel that it's accurate. We use information from our young stand monitoring program to assess that. The chief forester considers many technical elements when determining AACs.

I agree, as the member opposite has pointed out, that we don't want to be raising false hopes, but also we don't want to underestimate timber supplies, so we assess and validate with field samples in a rigorous process. For any area, we pick the best source of information — risk analysis, as the member stated. We do sensitivity analysis to assist in making the growth estimates and the AAC determinations — very, very technical process.

I think what would be best here, if I can offer, is a technical briefing to go through all the elements that the member opposite raised, or we can undertake and will commit to provide a detailed written technical response to the questions and the points raised, with my overview comments — whatever way would be most efficient in terms of addressing many of the specific points that were raised, either a briefing or a technical written response which we can undertake to provide.

N. Macdonald: I think there's no question that the way to proceed with something like this would be to get a written response. I think the minister would be under no illusions that a briefing to me is something that wouldn't quickly lose me in any of the jargon. We had to work a long time. This is obviously the work of people who know and are experts, as the people that surround you. A written response would be the best.

[1710]

In terms of the other issue, which is easy to understand: the impact, if it is the case that we are overestimating AAC. Some of the implications for an overestimation
[ Page 2061 ]
of site index and resulting timber volumes would be — and I'm sure the minister is aware of this — for example, holders of tree farm licences. They can monetize the right to harvest public lands on their books as if the timber were privately owned. They can trade and sell TFLs.

The ministry recently assumed responsibility for inventories on TFLs. Therefore, if the ministry overestimates site indices in a TFL, then standing timber volumes and harvest levels might be overstated on a company's books, thereby misleading investors. The same would apply to companies wishing to roll over replaceable forest licences into TFLs, because the government would shortchange the area traded for replaceable forest licences — which is, of course, not going to be a pretty outcome for the companies.

Second, the overestimation of site index would likely increase the potential amount of NSR, not satisfactorily restocked, forest land that the ministry determines to be feasible and economic to replant.

Third, overestimation of site index for managed stands could increase the amount of stemwood biomass in forest carbon offsets purchased by the B.C. provincial government with taxpayers' money to achieve carbon neutrality. This would mean that taxpayers' money really is buying hot air in addition to the carbon. Probably that's something we could look at more later on.

Fourth and perhaps most important, overestimation of site index for managed stands would increase harvest levels in the long and possible mid-terms and ratchet upward the rate of cut. AACs, annual allowable cuts, would be inflated and potentially fictional.

My questions for the minister are threefold. I'll just do them one at a time, and thank the minister first for undertaking a written response to what he so patiently listened to. I appreciate that.

The first of the three questions is this. It relates to Forests for Tomorrow. Does the Forests for Tomorrow program use old inventory site indices when it selects sites that have been disturbed by wildfire or mountain pine beetle or tree planting? Or does it use SIBEC site indices? If the Forests for Tomorrow program uses the inventory site index, then would the minister agree that on grounds of consistency, the Forests for Tomorrow program is underestimating the area that it is feasible and economic to plant?

[1715]

Hon. S. Thomson: Going back to the previous question, we will certainly provide the written response to the technical questions. We don't fully agree with the assertion that the AACs are overinflated. That's the reason we do the TSRs every five to ten years — so that we can continually monitor the AAC levels and reset with new information.

[1720]

We'll provide that full written technical response to that, as opposed to a briefing. That was the member opposite's request, and we'll undertake to do that.

In terms of the Forests for Tomorrow, we use the SIBEC information or height intercept or the best available information. We're constantly improving the coverage. What's most important here is that we ensure that we invest in the resources in the highest-productivity sites. That's because we want to create the fastest-growing areas and ensure that we get the greatest volume from the program. But the program does use SIBEC or height intercept or the best available information.

N. Macdonald: In its special report on the extent of the area of NSR within the timber-harvesting land base that is feasible and economic to plant, did the Forest Practices Board use old inventory site indices for areas disturbed by wildfire and mountain pine beetle, or did it use SIBEC site indices in its assessment?

If the board used the old inventory site indices, then would the minister, on grounds of consistency, agree that the board's estimated area of NSR might be greater than the two million hectares, had it replaced the old inventory site indices?

[1725]

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm advised that the Forest Practices Board would have used the same information that we use for site indexes. The estimates of the NSR are not overstated or understated. They would be consistent with our estimates because they've used the same information that we have utilized.

N. Macdonald: On the next question, it's possible that this is information the minister will just have to provide later. But as always, it would be useful if the minister is very specific in terms of having the staff answer the question.

As a result of replacing inventory site indices with SIBEC site indices for all future harvested stands, would the minister kindly tell us: what are his ministry estimates of the percent increase in long- and mid-term harvest levels for, first, the coast and, secondly, for the Interior and then for the province as a whole? If that's something that will take a while, that's what I would expect. So simply a commitment to provide that information when the minister has it available to him.

Hon. S. Thomson: We're having just a little bit of a discussion here, but I think, as the member opposite requested, we'll provide this in terms of a technical response along with the additional technical information that we've already committed to provide in answers to previous questions.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

N. Macdonald: Thank you very much to the minister and staff. We'll just go to growth models. It's a world, of course, as of the many items that we've talked about here…. When you're talking about models and equa-
[ Page 2062 ]
tions, it's formidable, and it's intimidating territory to the layperson.

[1730]

Again, I need to thank those that have taken the time to test these questions and to put them together in a way that gets to some of the issues we want to address. Yet AAC determinations and how well the provincial growth and yield model reflects reality directly affects the fortunes, of course, of all British Columbians — companies, investors and communities — that depend upon forestry for their livelihood.

Even within the ministry, the forest analysis section in Victoria that works with regional support on timber supply reviews and AACs is almost distinct from others. It's almost like a priesthood. The high priest, of course, is the chief forester, and the holy grail, I'm led to understand, is the provincial growth and yield model known as TASS.

The process by which the chief forester determines annual allowable cuts is rarely challenged within the ministry or from outside, as far as I know. MacMillan Bloedel was the last successful litigant to win a judicial review of a process by which the ministry arrived at an AAC determination, but, to my knowledge, no one has challenged the TASS, the provincial growth and yield model.

Before the mountain pine beetle epidemic, how well managed plantations were performing was not an issue for forest companies and the ministry because the forest sector was still living off the old-growth timber in the Interior. That, of course, has changed radically since the beetle epidemic.

Now mid- and long-term harvest levels and AACs are wholly dependent upon how well the managed stands are actually performing and on the assumptions about how they are performing, on which the TASS model is premised. The operational adjustment factors that the ministry does employ to adjust model predictions of stand growth for biotic mortality, it's been asserted, are wholly inadequate and based on guessing more than facts.

The ministry has been grossly delinquent in its oversight and monitoring of managed stands after they've been declared free-growing. Therefore, our knowledge of what is happening to these stands under conditions of rapid climate change is more wishful thinking than empirical fact. Nevertheless, in recent years, to its credit, the ministry has developed a stand development monitoring protocol and has undertaken some stand development monitoring of post-free-growing managed stands and a few TSAs.

The ministry is finding that tree mortality is confounding its expectations, assumptions and predictions about how well these post-free-growing stands are doing. Nothing challenges or upsets growth model predictions of the growth and timber yield of managed stands more than does unexpected mortality of crop trees. This is precisely what the ministry is facing as a potential challenge to the reliability of its timber supply reviews and AAC determinations.

The challenge to how well the provincial growth and yield model is performing comes not from litigants in the court but from the ministry's own scientists in peer-reviewed articles entitled "Are Biotic Disturbance Agents Challenging Basic Tenets of Growth and Yield and Sustainable Forest Management?" That was published in February 2013 in the Journal of Forestry, which is, of course, as the minister knows, an international journal of forest research.

The last two sentences of the abstract to this scientific paper read:

"The assumptions driving the traditional forest growth models were developed largely in the absence of biotic" — which means insects and disease — "and abiotic" — which means drought, wind and flooding, etc. — "damage agents and certainly prior to the knowledge of climate change. The combined influence of these two drivers must be better accounted for in growth models through more intensive stand and forest level monitoring."

My questions for the minister are: first, what steps is the minister taking to heed the conclusion of the ministry's own scientists and to improve and increase funding of pest management monitoring and stand development monitoring of managed stands? Or is this going to be another case of the ministry ignoring best science that doesn't accord with the government agenda for ministry downsizing and privatization?

[1735-1740]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to advise the member opposite, the forest analysis and inventory branch has implemented a young stand monitoring program to check the accuracy of growth and yield projections. To date 400 plots have been established. The status is very valuable in terms of the development and the review of stocking standards.

Our FREP program has been monitoring the performance of young stands, using the stand development monitoring protocol. We've established 718 plots. This information is being used to assess the appropriateness of the existing stocking standards at the time of plan submission.

We've recently posted 32 reports. We will be following that up with a provincial report, summarizing for each area — for the north, the south and the coast. The FREP program now looks at multiple values in that process. This has been a very successful program. We will be carrying on with it. We have every intention of continuing this successful program.

N. Macdonald: The assertion that's often made is that the minister is ignoring repeated recommendations from entomologists, forest pathologists and scientists. They're calling on government, of course, to increase expenditures on forest health monitoring under the resource stewardship model so that the ministry's growth models and AAC processes can rely upon fact, rather than what they often characterize as a professional guess.

What do you say to those sorts of assertions — that the years of cutbacks have put us in a place where increased expenditures in these areas are absolutely needed?
[ Page 2063 ]

[1745]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, we are supporting and funding the young stand monitoring program through the inventory program. That's the program where we've committed a ten-year inventory program — $8 million per year. Also, in 2014-15 the province is spending $6 million on priority forest health activities, an aerial overview survey and bark, beetle and budworm management. This is $2.5 million more than in '13-14. We spend about $1 million in provincial surveys to monitor forest health issues to identify current areas that may be of concern.

This past summer we surveyed 90 percent of the province's forests, which is a new record. This year we're planning to spend almost $5 million to treat the highest priority areas for pests. I think another key point is that while we can never rest on our heels in this area, all major damaging insect populations are currently in decline, partly due to effective treatments.

N. Macdonald: In early January 2008 the chief forester signed a terms of reference for entomologists and forest pathologists to investigate and report on the implications of climate change to forest health, with recommendations for forest management policy. The final policy report entitled The Implications of Climate Change to Forest Health in British Columbia came out in March 2009. It was not widely circulated and appears to have remained internal to the ministry. The report was, however, morphed into a scientific paper entitled Forest Health and Climate Change: A British Columbia Perspective. It was published in the Forestry Chronicle in 2010.

The ministry has initiated and supported some good science related to climate change, but when it comes to transforming the science into policy legislation and action, many would characterize the ministry's record as abysmal. Nothing illustrates this point better than the sanitizing of the policy report, The Implications of Climate Change to Forest Health British Columbia from, as I referenced earlier, March of 2009, and any associated implementation plan and the subsequent morphing of both into a science publication devoid of policy recommendations and a plan for implementation.

I've got a couple of questions for the minister related to that. First, why wasn't the report shared widely within the forest sector, especially with industry? Secondly, why did the ministry apparently choose to ignore the report's findings and recommendations as exampled by repeated budget cuts to pest management monitoring?

Third and finally, would the minister agree that, if he had relied upon the advice of forest professionals on the need for additional funding for inventory and forest health monitoring of managed stands, the reliability of the ministry's provincial growth model, site index assignment to harvested areas and of the AAC process, the AAC process might not now be in question?

Just on top of that, would the minister please provide me with a copy of the internal policy report and any associated implementation or action plans?

[1750]

Hon. S. Thomson: First of all, the member opposite made some assertions again around the validity of our AAC determinations. Certainly, as I've stated earlier, I don't agree that they are, as I think he asserted, way out of whack or whatever approach he wanted to assert there.

Just to point out a few things, first of all, climate change is integrated into all our forest policy decisions. That's why we have work underway with type 4 silviculture strategies, with species monitoring reports, with climate-based seed transfer, with tree species selection tool, new stocking standard guidelines, climate change adaptation training. It is an integral part of all of the policy work.

[1755]

In terms of the forest health risk, as I pointed out earlier, all of the major trends or all of the forest health agents are declining. Douglas fir beetle, spruce beetle, western spruce budworm, Douglas fir tussock moth — all declining significantly. The Douglas fir tussock moth population has collapsed.

We continue to work with all of these — the forest health program and the investments we've made in that area. Also, in terms of the silviculture strategies, they all take into account the climate change information in all of those initiatives.

In terms of the report that the member opposite referenced, we'd be pleased to and will undertake to provide the member with a copy of that report.

B. Routley: I'm going to turn now to concerns of overcutting of the annual allowable cuts. Overestimation of harvest levels and inflated AACs are one thing, but persistent overcutting of the AAC is quite another. The whole point of the chief forester setting an AAC for a management unit is to ensure that the rate of cut is regulated, that partitions are not overcut and licensees do not exceed their apportionment of the cut.

Would the minister please tell the House who in his ministry is responsible for monitoring and ensuring that the cut in partitions is not exceeded and that total harvest in each of the province's timber supply areas, or TSAs, does not exceed the AAC?

[1800]

Hon. S. Thomson: The responsibility for monitoring the harvest is the district manager's, and the district manager would report up through the regional executive director and, ultimately, from there to the deputy minister and then through to the minister.

B. Routley: In February of 2008 the chief forester wrote:
[ Page 2064 ]
"The most significant forest management objective in the beetle-impacted TSAs is to manage both pine and non-pine stands in such a way as to protect the mid-term timber supply. If there is no stand, type or species partition that restricts the amount of non-pine harvest in the short term, mid-term harvest levels can be impacted if the licensees choose to harvest significant non-pine volumes."

On page 39 of that 2008 rationale for the AAC determination in the Morice TSA, the chief forester indicates that only 25 percent of the volume can come from non-pine species in order to protect both the mid-term timber supply and non-pine timber profile of the TSA. The ministry estimates that this percentage volume equates to 550,000 cubic metres a year.

Again, would the minister confirm that since February 2008, the AAC for the non-pine partition in the Morice TSA has been overcut for five years in succession by an outrageous amount that his ministry estimates to be at least 928,000 cubic metres? Would the minister also confirm that the total harvest for the TSA was above the AAC for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012? And would the minister also please tell the House by what percent the AAC for the Morice TSA is overcut since 2008?

[1805]

Hon. S. Thomson: The ministry is monitoring licensee harvests very, very closely in this area to ensure that licensees continue to focus their harvest on pine to help preserve the mid-term supply. We did identify an increased harvest of non-pine around 2011. The ministry took a series of steps to ensure the licensees focused their harvest on pine.

This included directing the licensees to produce a harvest plan that demonstrated that they're working to preserve as much non-pine as possible. That plan has been in place for six months. As a result of the plan, licensee performance is being monitored closely.

If there's a deviation from the plan, the minister may consider an order that would implement substantial fines for non-compliance. I'm advised that the licensees are compliant with the plan at this time.

A new timber supply review for the Morice is currently in process. In terms of the specific numbers requested, we can undertake to provide that response. But just to be clear, the licensees in the Morice are being very, very closely monitored based on harvest plans, and those harvest plans have to demonstrate that they're working to preserve as much non-pine as possible.

B. Routley: The two major forest tenure holders in the Morice TSA are West Fraser Mills and Canfor. About 27 percent of the AAC is currently apportioned to West Fraser Mills and about 43 percent to Canfor. Since 2008 some 28 percent of the total non-pine harvest is attributed to West Fraser Mills, and 57 percent went to Canfor.

The ministry considered the overharvesting of the AAC non-pine partition to be so flagrant, as I think you've just said, that on March 4, 2013, it issued a ministerial order under section 75.02 of the Forest Act. The order carries a monetary penalty of triple stumpage for volume harvested in excess of the volume limit for the non-pine partition.

My question to the minister is: would the minister confirm that the penalty of triple stumpage levied against West Fraser Mills and Canfor applies to the overcut of the non-pine partition since February 2008?

[1810]

Hon. S. Thomson: With respect to this particular situation, the company's…. We considered the order. The order was not implemented. The company came back with a harvest plan to ensure that they were compliant with the non-pine apportionment and harvesting.

[1815]

It's monitored strictly and regularly. On ensuring compliance, as I said earlier, they are in compliance. In our view, this was the most appropriate way to ensure that we had the overall compliance. As I indicated also, we're moving ahead with the timing of a timber supply review, a TSR for the Morice. That'll be in place before the end of the year.

B. Routley: I have to compose myself, Mr. Chair. One might want to burst out laughing. Anyway, sorry. Just give me a moment.

Would the minister please tell the House how he justifies to the public and the local community, already concerned about mid-term timber supply from the Morice, his letter of April 8, 2013, one month before the May election, to the tenure holders, in which he indicated his willingness to consider relief from the partition order?

Why should those companies that blatantly abuse their social licence to harvest Crown timber be extended any relief whatsoever? How is the minister's letter in the public interest?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I indicated, relief from the order was provided on the basis of submission of a harvest plan that brought them fully into compliance. That plan is being monitored strictly and regularly to ensure the focus on the non-pine harvest, and they are currently in compliance. If they don't maintain compliance with the harvest plan, then they are aware that — and I've made it clear to them — an order is a step that would be taken.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:18 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 © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada