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)

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 2

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

TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Lake: In Committee A, Douglas Fir Committee Room, we continue with the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, followed by the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

In this chamber we have committee on Bill 3, the Missing Persons Act, followed by the Park Amendment Act and, if time, the Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act.

[1335]

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 1:36 p.m.

M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Farnworth: In the precincts today we have someone of considerable importance not only in my community but in Metro Vancouver. That is Greg Moore, who is the mayor of Port Coquitlam and the chair of Metro Vancouver. He's over here today for a number of meetings.

I just wanted to say that he has done a terrific job of representing our city. I'm quite sure that he will have no trouble getting re-elected in November. Anyway, would the House please make him most welcome.

Debate Continued

On section 7 (continued).

K. Corrigan: I'm going to, one more time, just ask a question about section 7(3)(a).

Maybe before I do that — just for the vast viewing audience, and we have a few people up in the gallery today — this bill is the Missing Persons Act, which gives police officers the ability to seek an order for access to records when somebody is missing — records like cell phone text messaging records, browsing history, and so on. It's an important expansion of police powers.

We're supporting the bill. It's a bill that will help police get information through civil channels rather than criminal channels if somebody is missing. On the other hand, it involves a significant expansion of police powers and potential invasions of people's privacy. I think everybody in this House agrees that we want to find the right balance, when you're saying that you will have access to missing persons or third-party records in the case of when somebody has gone missing.

We're on section 7. With regard to 7(3)(a), which says that a justice can make an order under this section. This is when we're dealing with people who are minor or vulnerable and who are either with a third party or were last seen in the company of a third party. "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."

My question to the minister: whether a third party had or had not been found, would not the member have to make reasonable efforts to obtain the third party's consent?

[1340]

L. Reimer: I'd like to request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

L. Reimer: It's my pleasure today to introduce a man who has spent many volunteer hours in the community of Coquitlam, a man who is currently president of the Coquitlam Sharks swimming club: Mr. Carl Trepanier. Would the House please make him welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. S. Anton: If the person is present and available, the officer makes reasonable efforts to obtain their consent. That is when it's applicable.

If the person is not present, can't be found, it's not applicable. The police officer may make reasonable efforts to find the person, but if they actually cannot find them, can't get their consent, then that's the end of it in terms of finding their consent, and they go to the justice and make their application accordingly.

K. Corrigan: If the person was not to be found, is it not true that the member would have to have satisfied the justice, in the application for the order, that they had made reasonable efforts to obtain the third party's consent?
[ Page 2086 ]

Hon. S. Anton: The answer is yes.

K. Corrigan: Then, what the minister is saying is that the member would have to demonstrate to the justice that the member had made reasonable efforts to obtain the third party's consent. So that section would be applicable. To me, it is redundant. It is redundant. I guess I'll just say that for the last time.

I do not understand. In that example, the minister has just said that the member would have to demonstrate that reasonable efforts had been made to obtain the third party's consent. Therefore, it would be applicable in that case where the person wasn't found. Therefore, the one situation where the minister has talked about as why you would need those two words…. It wouldn't apply in that case. I don't see any reason to have those two words in there.

One situation where maybe the words "if applicable" could be there would be if the third party had died. Would the minister agree?

Hon. S. Anton: If the third party is deceased, we're in the second part of 7(1)(a), which was that the missing person may have been "last seen in the company of the third party." The third party is now somehow found deceased. Obviously, the police officer is not going to get their consent at that point, and they will go to the justice and make their application accordingly.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask a few questions about subsection 7(4). That says that in granting an order for access to records of a third party, a justice "may impose any of the following that the justice considers appropriate: (a) restrictions or limits on access to a record specified in an order under this section; (b) terms and conditions on an order under this section."

[1345]

I'm wondering if the minister could just give me an example of what is contemplated in terms of types of restrictions that might be imposed.

Hon. S. Anton: The kind of order that a justice would make, I would anticipate, would be, for example, to determine that the scope of the access requested by the police officer was consistent with the need of the police officer in the course of the investigation.

K. Corrigan: That certainly makes sense, but it's not explicit. Would the minister assume that the judge or justice that is making the order would understand to limit that in order to not unduly invade privacy? Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. S. Anton: The justices who would be taking the applications under the Missing Persons Act are the same as the justices who give out search warrants, for example. This is their area of expertise. They will limit the scope of the order as appropriate — for example, in terms of time, in terms of which records and those kinds of things.

I don't want to put a limit on it here, because there may be other things that they conclude are needed. But it's their job to balance the different interests and to make sure that the order is appropriate for the request which is made.

K. Corrigan: In framing this bill, did the minister contemplate or receive advice about the possibility, for example, that a justice would order that the information be destroyed at some point?

Hon. S. Anton: Section 25(2)(e) is the regulation granting authority so that the regulations can determine how long and how records should be kept. But that will not limit the ability of the justice, under section 7(4)(b), to put terms and conditions on their order, and their order could very well contemplate that the records only be held under certain circumstances or whatever terms and conditions the justice determines to be appropriate at that time.

[1350]

K. Corrigan: I'm asking this question now, and I will ask more questions related to this topic when we get to section 20. We know that section 20(2) says: "For certainty, this section does not prevent information in a record accessed under this Act from being used for the purpose of a related criminal investigation."

We'll get into discussion later about what "related" means, but I think it's important to understand, to get a sense of, what justices may be looking at in terms of the things that they are considering, the orders that they're making, the limits that they're placing in those orders on access to or use of information. The implications for individuals whose records are being accessed could be fairly serious, particularly if it does turn into, at some point, a criminal investigation.

I know that these are two separate processes, but we have talked about — the minister has talked about, as well — the possibility, with regard to a couple of different sections, of it turning into a criminal investigation.

Does the minister anticipate or expect that the issue of whether the investigation, the search for the missing person, could turn into a criminal investigation…? Would it be expected that the justice would be taking that into account?

Hon. S. Anton: I cannot presuppose all the different sorts of circumstances that a police officer might present to a justice, but it is the justice's job to consider all the information that is given to them and all the information, indeed, that they seek before they make their order.

I will once again emphasize that if it's a criminal inves-
[ Page 2087 ]
tigation, it's not under this act. This act is for a civil investigation. The justice will have that in mind, presumably. Because justices are trained, they know how to apply the different kinds of considerations that they need to think about in terms of the orders that they grant.

K. Corrigan: Well, I'll ask the minister this. In terms of preparing this bill, doing the analysis and research on it, did the minister or staff think about whether or not there would be, quite often, times when an investigation that started out as a missing-person investigation involving a request for access to records would then change into a criminal investigation? Did the minister contemplate that?

[1355]

We've talked about it, but I don't know whether there's any analysis that says, you know, we think in 20 percent of missing-person cases that it's going to turn out that there's been an abduction — I think that number is probably very high — and then it's going to turn into a criminal investigation. Was that kind of analysis done?

Hon. S. Anton: It has always been recognized that some of the missing-persons investigations may well turn into criminal investigations, but there is no estimate as to how many of them might be of that nature.

K. Corrigan: Well, I find that a little disturbing when one considers the impact that could be felt by an individual and the powers that the police have. I think we've covered this ground in different ways several times. Police powers are being significantly expanded here, and to me, it seems that there would be a significant number of cases that would start off under the civil act and then turn into a criminal investigation.

The act contemplates that. The act, in section 20, says that nothing prevents information in a record accessed under this act from being used for the purpose of a related criminal investigation. Surely, it was contemplated — the impact that that could have on individuals if that information is used in a subsequent criminal investigation, whether it's of a third party that was with the person, an abductor…. Or possibly — we'll get to exactly what "related criminal investigation" means later — it's the victim themselves, although my understanding is that's not the intent in this bill.

The powers are great, and the impact of accessing that information is important. We're not clear whether the powers are greater than the powers under the Criminal Code. But I just want to make sure that this won't end up being used — or find out whether it can be used; maybe it's perfectly appropriate — as a vehicle for police to access information that they otherwise wouldn't be able to in a subsequent criminal investigation. That's why I raise it. I don't know if the minister has any more comments on that.

Hon. S. Anton: I have spoken several times on the difference between the civil remedy and a criminal investigation, and I have nothing further to add to those comments.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

K. Corrigan: Section 8 gives an obligation to comply with a missing-person record access order and third-party record access order. It imposes an obligation. It says: "A person against whom an order is made under section 6 or 7 must, within the time specified in the order, (a) give access to the records specified in the order, and (b) if the person is unable to locate a record specified in the order, provide members of the police force with a description of the efforts made by the person to locate that record."

I'm wondering if the minister could let me know: what are the penalties or enforcement mechanisms if somebody does not provide access to the records?

[1400]

Hon. S. Anton: The offence section is in section 24, and it is an offence to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with section 8.

K. Corrigan: I had read that previously. Frankly, I hadn't read it for a while, so thank you for that.

I wonder as well, on section 8, what the minister would contemplate in terms of what would be necessary in terms of "a description of the efforts made by the person to locate that record."

Hon. S. Anton: The second part of section 8(b) is the description of a person's efforts to find a record. It's really a matter of evidence, in terms of the offence, whether or not the efforts are reasonable. It would be impossible to define them at this point. In fact, if an offence was charged, it would obviously be a matter for the court to decide whether or not the efforts were reasonable.

K. Corrigan: I was trying to get more of a practical sense of what that description would have to entail. I guess it could just be a letter back saying: "We couldn't find it." I'm just trying to understand the practicality of the application of section 8(b).

Hon. S. Anton: This would be very fact-specific, depending on the nature of the order, the terms in the order, what the person was able to do, what the person was able to communicate to the police officer. It would be a question of fact on the occasion.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister has con-
[ Page 2088 ]
templated, in terms of being required to provide access, whether there are circumstances that the recordkeeper — a cell phone provider or GPS records, and I have no idea where GPS records are kept, or any number of things….

[1405]

Has the minister either consulted with some of those industry organizations or thought about whether or not there are situations that the person who has the record would not want to provide it and might kind of balk at being required to do that?

Hon. S. Anton: Staff consulted both with police and also with other jurisdictions as to their experience with this act, and generally, there don't seem to be any issues around this section.

People know what records they have and know whether or not they'll give them up. I expect there are some organizations that give them up fairly willingly, and there may be others who are less willing, but that's how life unfolds.

K. Corrigan: I could probably ask this question in either this section or section 9. I'm concerned about extraterritorial records. Would this act compel, for example, an American houser of information and records to provide that information if there was a B.C. order that ordered that?

[1410]

Hon. S. Anton: The order is not generally enforceable in other provinces or in the United States. If any company in one of those other jurisdictions had a branch office here, the order would be enforceable against the branch office. Where other provinces have similar legislation, it may be that an order from this province would allow them to obtain a similar order in their province, in the other province — Alberta, for example.

K. Corrigan: So the minister is saying that if there is similar legislation, say, in Alberta, then the police from here could go — or by telephone — and get an order for the production of records under section 6 or 7 because the act is similar, but not other provinces that don't have similar legislation. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. S. Anton: The police here would need to seek the assistance of the police in another province — say Alberta — and use the legislation of that province to obtain an order. We're not in a position here to define what that legislation might be across Canada, but what provisions the other provinces may have are the provisions that would be able to be used.

K. Corrigan: The minister said that if there were records — I'll use the United States as an example — that were kept housed in the United States…. The minister said that with respect to records from elsewhere, including the United States, if there was a branch office, they could be accessed.

What are the obligations, then, of a company like that to provide that information, particularly if it's very personal information where there might be privacy concerns about it? Would that company not possibly say, "Look, we have this information. It is not subject to your order. But also, our branch plant is not a place that we are willing to provide this very private information," even though there is a presence in British Columbia?

Has the minister thought about those kinds of scenarios and problems? I'm wondering if we could get any more light shed on that.

[1415]

Hon. S. Anton: Companies in British Columbia are subject to British Columbia laws, but that being said, there may be challenges. There may be companies that are unwilling for some reason or another to comply with the order. The police will work with those companies. We expect them to be good corporate citizens. But at the end of the day, if they refuse to disclose it, then we're back in section 8 territory.

Whether or not it is an offence for them to refuse to give up the information would, again, be an evidentiary issue if it were to go to a prosecution.

K. Corrigan: I am wondering if the minister has considered, in framing this bill, what, if any, impacts there could be from the American Patriot Act.

Hon. S. Anton: I'm not going to purport to be an expert on the American Patriot Act, so I do not have an answer to that question. It's a legal issue, and I will not be answering that question today.

K. Corrigan: I would think that when the minister is framing a bill to bring to this House that has significant implications for the use of and access to information in a missing-person case, that would have been something that was thought about.

Obviously, information is something that is fluid. It can travel all around the world in seconds. There are certainly laws in other jurisdictions, apparently, that could impact access to the information.

What I was asking about was whether the minister had explored this — not whether or not the minister was an expert. So I guess the question, again: were the implications, if any…? Was there a thought given to whether or not the Patriot Act could have any impact on the access to information that could be accessed under this act?

Hon. S. Anton: The extraterritorial application of this act may look different in every country. Again, I am not going to purport to offer advice as to what its application
[ Page 2089 ]
would be in other countries.

What we're worried about is how it is used here. We know, from consulting with other provinces, that an order given here could be used as a basis for an order in a second province. But that's as far as it goes with extraterritorial application.

[1420]

K. Corrigan: Well, I don't purport to be an expert on the Patriot Act either, but I'm just trying to get a sense of what kind of exploration, what kind of thought, what kind of analysis went into this bill and whether or not there were concerns about the fact that information can be stored in various places and now, in an instant, can be accessed.

When the laws being applied are local laws, are B.C. laws, it could create a problem. I was interested, really, in whether or not those concerns had been explored.

I know, certainly, that with regard to B.C. government decisions about storing of information and so on, much of the information that would likely want to be accessed under this act probably would be government information, like drivers' licences and many other pieces of information in records.

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask about it and to find out whether government has contemplated…. Even, eventually, maybe questions about where information is housed may make a difference in terms of the government's decisions about where to house that information. I was just asking the question about whether there had been consideration of that or not.

I understand that the minister isn't an expert on the Patriot Act — nor am I — but the impact that extraterritoriality has, to me, seems like a reasonable thing to consider in framing this act. I think often the records…. We will find that when an application is made for an order…. I don't know what percentage of the time, but I would imagine that a lot of the records are going to be housed in different jurisdictions and may not be easily accessible.

Remember, the minister has said many times that the purpose of this act is to find missing persons. Usually there's a fair amount of urgency, and I'm just trying to get a sense of what kinds of barriers there might be, what has been contemplated and whether the minister has thought out what those barriers are going to be and how they could be dealt with.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

K. Corrigan: Section 9 describes the types of records that can be subject to a missing-person record access order and third-party record access order. These would be the records of either the third party who was last seen with the missing person or the missing person themselves, and they include "records containing contact information."

I know we've had a discussion about this before, but I just want to ask the question again. When this talks about contact information, must it be contact information of the missing person?

[1425]

Hon. S. Anton: The first part of the section says: "The following records in respect of a missing person or a third party…may be specified…." The "records containing contact information" does apply to records in respect of the missing person or the third party.

K. Corrigan: Yes, I didn't mention the third party — the missing person or the third party. But we get back to that, to me, somewhat nebulous term "records in respect of."

With regard to records of either the missing person or a third party — or "in respect of a missing person or a third party" — containing contact information, could it be contact information of somebody else who is not the third party or the missing person, if that contact information could lead you to the missing person?

Hon. S. Anton: The section 9(a) is intended to refer to the missing person or the third party, but I would note as well that section 9(n) gives the justice power to consider other records as appropriate, which could, hypothetically, be for another party altogether whose contact information might be helpful to the investigation.

[1430]

K. Corrigan: I appreciate the minister's answer. We had a lot of discussion yesterday where the minister, frankly, refused to acknowledge that there could be records that were another party's.

We now have an acknowledgment that under "(n) any other records that the justice considers appropriate," it could be something other than the records of the missing person or the third party, which is different than what we heard when we went through a long discussion of this yesterday. We didn't really hear anything clearly.

I guess I'll give an example and just get a confirmation from the minister on this. Say Ann goes missing, and Ann is, maybe, a young woman. Ann was last seen with Bob, and Bob has also disappeared. So that would be the third party. But a third person, Joanne….

Through the investigation, the police officer, in trying to find this missing person, learns that the third person, Joanne, has a daybook at her house which contains notes that had to do with her discussions with Ann, who is missing, about where it was that she was going to go and that she was going to go somewhere with Bob — maybe the address of where they are going to go, because she's a very good friend of Ann's.
[ Page 2090 ]

Is that the type of information that it is possible a judge is going to provide access to? It is not the information or the record of either Ann or Bob, but it is the record of Joanne, who is neither the person nor the third party. Could that be the subject of an order under this section?

Hon. S. Anton: Let's not lose sight of the purpose of this act. The purpose of the act is to find missing persons. It can be a person, perhaps, who has been missing for a while or a person who's just been missing for a few hours. The police, under this act, have civil authority to go and look for that person. However, in terms of finding records, they do it under the supervision of a justice or under the order of a justice.

The records that they may look at or may apply for are listed in section 9. Section 9 has a general section at the end: "any other records that the justice considers appropriate." The justice will consider a record appropriate if it is helpful to finding the missing person. I would expect that that would be the test that the justice would apply.

K. Corrigan: Is that a yes?

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: The minister just said she's not going to answer the question.

Hon. S. Anton: I answered the question.

K. Corrigan: I'm just trying to be very clear about the extent of the powers under this act. I still am not convinced that the words "in respect of" in "The following records in respect of" would preclude access without having subsection (n) in there. But now it's very clear — to me, at least — from what the minister said, although she will not confirm it. I was trying to reframe, in practical terms, what it was that's said — that it could be "any other records."

I'm going to assume that other parties…. Not the person that's missing, not the third party but records of other parties would be accessible under this act. If the minister wants to disagree with what I've just said, I offer the minister the opportunity to stand up and say that's not the right interpretation.

[1435]

Hon. S. Anton: The answer remains the same, which is that section 9(n) says: "any other records that the justice considers appropriate." Those will be records that in the justice's wisdom are needed by the police, presumably on application of the police, to find the person, because the point here is to find the missing person.

N. Simons: Thank you to the minister and staff for answering questions on this.

I just wonder, with the part of this act that relates to third parties and, I guess, in this case now, fourth parties…. Was that part of legislation from Alberta or Manitoba?

Hon. S. Anton: The acts between Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and British Columbia are similar. They're consistent in their intent, There are differences between the four of them — but generally consistent in what they're attempting to achieve and in the direction by which they get there.

N. Simons: Specifically, do any of the acts in the provinces the minister has just mentioned have provisions for accessing third-party records without notifying those third parties? And do they have access to any other record of any other person? I understand the minister just said the answer was yes. It just seems to me that we're going a few steps further than other legislation. Am I incorrect in that?

[1440]

Hon. S. Anton: Section 9 is very similar to section 3 of the Alberta act.

N. Simons: I just need to have some clarification. Forgive me if it's repetitive, but does section 9(n) apply to any other records belonging to any other person heretofore unmentioned in the act?

Hon. S. Anton: Yes. As I have answered previously, section 9 gives a power to the justice — "any other records that the justice considers appropriate." Again, this will be by application of the police officer to the justice and then the justice's decision-making to decide what records would be helpful. Obviously, the records — it's not a fishing expedition — need to have a demonstrated purpose to find the missing person. The goal here is to find the missing person.

N. Simons: Well, I appreciate that it's not a fishing expedition, but then why give out a boat and five fishing rods? What is fundamentally at issue here is not how the law will be applied but whether the law allows certain applications to take place.

Can the minister inform us of any other legislation that allows third- or fourth-party records to be…? We're talking here about not just location or a phone number. We're not talking about googling them and finding their postal code. We're talking about identification information — physical descriptions, distinguishing marks, telephone, cell telephone records, text messaging, Internet browsing history, GPS tracking.

This is potentially people who may not know or…. I'm kind of surprised I'm even asking this question. Video records, school records, health records, employment, ac-
[ Page 2091 ]
commodations, financial, banking records — everything. We're potentially allowing the police to apply to a court for access to a party who, in fact, may have no notice that their records are being requested. I don't see anywhere where that would be addressed.

We have third-party records that that third party may never know were accessed, and now we have what looks to me like yet another subgroup of people who could, potentially, have their entire personal history accessed without ever knowing it. Am I missing something?

Has the minister considered any of the privacy issues involved in this particular part of the legislation? If so, what were the issues that the minister considered, and what were the trade-offs that were arrived at in order to come up with section 9 — (n) in particular?

[1445]

Hon. S. Anton: An order made by a justice under this section is subject to relevance, and it is subject to the goal of finding the missing person. The goal is to find the missing person.

N. Simons: I appreciate the Attorney General would like to remind us that the title of the act left alone would allow for a great deal of discretion among police. I think that would, ultimately, perhaps, provide more leeway and more latitude and more discretion than the minister is allowing under this current act.

If we actually eliminated most of the sections out of the act and just said, "Do whatever you need to do to find a missing person," without any limitations or any sort of oversight or due process…. These are the fundamental values that we're talking about.

First of all, I couldn't find the reference in the Alberta legislation to third-party information. Maybe they had it planned, but I have failed to see it. Maybe I misheard. But I think that what section 9(n) does is sort of open up a brand-new door, potentially a fishing expedition. But who's to decide whether it's a fishing expedition, if you catch anything or not?

Obviously, I completely agree with the goal of the legislation. I'm just concerned that the tool being used might be the wrong tool, or in some situations the wrong tool. I wonder. If people subject to section 9(n) have their records accessed, is there any requirement that they are informed of this?

Hon. S. Anton: We covered this under sections 6 and 7, the notice requirements.

N. Simons: Maybe I missed it. Maybe I haven't read Hansard thoroughly. Maybe I haven't read the Blues completely. But I don't remember any discussion about records pertaining to section 9(n): "any other records that the justice considers appropriate." I don't know. We haven't talked about whose records they are or how they are justified in being considered appropriate, whether they are told that their health records will be accessed, whether they'll be told before or after.

[1450]

Is it possible that there's a gap in here, in that? Maybe that needs to be looked at again to ensure that their opportunity….

I understand the importance of discretion. Police operate with discretion, and I completely respect that, but when legislation allows for complete interpretation, that's different than discretion. Police forces operate within the fairly strict margins of the law. Here it's just that the margins are opened up wide.

I just think, in the interest of protecting privacy or at least the perception that we're protecting privacy, that this seems to contradict that. I worry that the minister's response will be that she answered this already. If she said that, could she point to a specific answer to a question as to whether or not the records or the people involved who are impacted by section 9(n) are going to be told that their records are going to be accessed before or after the conclusion of a missing-persons investigation?

Hon. S. Anton: Section 9 is used by sections 6 and 7. We have gone through in some detail about section 6. It's about the missing person. They're missing altogether. They don't get noticed, because they're missing. On section 7…. There are no discussions in section 7, and we did canvass those earlier in these proceedings.

[1455]

K. Corrigan: When we were discussing section 6 and section 7, the minister was very loath to agree that a search or a demand for records could apply to somebody other than the missing person or the third party who may be in the company of or was last seen in the company of the missing person. We got equivocal answers on that.

I believe that it applies to other records, records of other people, but now, under section 9, I believe we have a very clear answer from the minister. I'll have to look back at Hansard later, but I believe we had a clear answer under that with regard to section 9(n) — that there was a power given under that section to the justice to allow access to any records of anybody if they would lead to the missing person.

The minister seems to be making more of a commitment that those kinds of records would be accessed under section 9(n), where the power of the justice will allow access to records that the justice considers appropriate. If that is the case, if that piece is widening the definition of whose records can be accessed, then I think the questions that my colleague has brought are perfectly legitimate. It opens it way up, and then it certainly raises the question again about notice, because notice is only referred to with regard to section 7.

It would seem to me that there's nothing that says
[ Page 2092 ]
that if records are going to be accessed under section 9(n), there has to be any notice to anybody. The only notice talked about is in section 7, where you have to try to make reasonable efforts to obtain the consent of the third party, and then no notice is required.

Unfortunately, as we've said earlier, our amendment would have required that notice be given to either third parties or individuals whose information had been accessed.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I do think that section (n) certainly does seem to widen the scope of what kind of information can be accessed. It may or may not, but certainly, the minister's answer would indicate a widening of the scope. That would be my interpretation. Am I correct?

Hon. S. Anton: I'll just draw the member's attention to the first part of section 9, which is that the record is always in respect of the missing person or the third party. The order is given by the justice. The justice puts the appropriate terms on the order.

Certainly, the intent of section 7 is that reasonable efforts be made to get consent, actually, of the third party, if applicable, but sometimes the third party may not be around. That may be the issue, which is that the missing person was last seen in the company of the third party and the third party cannot be found either.

[1500]

The records must always be in respect to the missing person or the third party.

K. Corrigan: I did see that part of the section. I guess the problem that I'm having is we seem to have a bit of a moving target here from the minister in terms of whose records can be accessed. I'm going to enjoy reading Hansard over the next couple of days to try to pin this down.

It does seem that the minister is now saying that it could be some other party who has their records accessed. I would assume the minister is then saying that other party, not the third party and not the missing person, would have the same requirement for notice. I'm not really clear, but I am going to read the Hansard later to try to get a better idea.

I wanted to ask some more in-depth questions about the types of records that can be accessed under the Missing Persons Act. Just to get an idea, records containing contact information — I assume that would be things like drivers' licences, copies of drivers' licences, maybe bills with addresses. What kinds of things are we talking about there? Just a couple of examples.

Hon. S. Anton: I think those examples are good ones. A driver's licence may have an address on it. B.C. Hydro may have a bill with a person's contact information on it. It'd be that kind of record.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to find out specifically, with regard to video records, including closed-circuit television footage…. The minister has said several times that this is not to be a fishing expedition.

To try to get a sense of what is contemplated — I understand that the justice will be making the decision — would the minister expect, when we're talking about CCTV…? Say somebody believed that the missing person might have gone downtown. That was the last place they were seen — maybe seen on SkyTrain going downtown or getting off at a particular SkyTrain stop in Vancouver. Let's say they're in Vancouver.

Would the minister contemplate that it would be appropriate or expected that the police could apply to a justice to have a look at all the CCTV tape for downtown Vancouver, for example, in order to see if they could find that person?

Hon. S. Anton: I think it would be rather challenging to look up the video records of every camera in downtown Vancouver. I don't suppose even the most diligent police officer would necessarily want to do that.

It's important that these records…. They need to be established to be relevant, and they need to be established to do something to further the investigation towards the missing person. How exactly video records would be sought, including the closed-circuit television footage, would be a question of fact, really, for the officer to give to the justice and for the justice to rule accordingly.

K. Corrigan: Well, I appreciate that, but sometimes judges, in making their decisions, particularly on appeal, go back to the record of this House and the discussions and the debate to get an understanding of what the intention was.

[1505]

While I agree that it would be a judge that would be making that decision, the intent of this House is relevant or could be relevant in terms of determining exactly how wide-ranging the power would be and what could or would be allowed. Part of the problem that we have, using that example of closed-circuit television footage, is that relevance is tough to determine until after the fact. A police officer could say: "Look, we think somewhere on this tape…."

I don't know how many cameras there are downtown. Probably many in downtown Vancouver. I just don't know. But if the police officer could say, "I think that this person might be found on tape; we don't know," that's somewhat of a fishing expedition until you've seen the tape. Once you've seen the tape and they're on it, it's completely relevant. I'm wondering if the minister grappled with those kinds of issues — balancing privacy with
[ Page 2093 ]
wanting to access any relevant information.

Remember, we're talking about people who are missing. A police officer might in fact think that in order to find a loved one who is missing, it is worthwhile to go through all the CCTV tape. I'm wondering if the minister could tell me about how much thought has gone into trying to figure out exactly what that means and what the minister would contemplate would be a reasonable boundary for an order.

Hon. S. Anton: I refer the member back to sections 6 and 7, which of course refer forward to section 9. In sections 6 and 7, in each case the officer has to establish that he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that the record "may assist the police...in locating the missing person" in each case and that the record is "in the possession or under the control of the person" in each case. That test is obviously a test that has to be established before the justice in applying for the order.

N. Simons: I tried to find any reference to third-party information in the Alberta legislation, in the Nova Scotia legislation and in the Manitoba legislation, and I was unsuccessful. Could the minister please repeat what sections of these acts refer to third-party access to information and disclosure to those third parties about the access to their information?

Hon. S. Anton: In the Alberta act they use the words "another individual" rather than the words "third party."

[1510]

N. Simons: Well, I guess I missed that. There doesn't seem to be any reference to notification that the other person's records are going to be accessed and whether or not they have the right to be told that their personal information has been accessed during a missing-persons investigation.

Hon. S. Anton: I think I have the question right. The question is whether or not there is a notification provision in the Alberta legislation. Perhaps I can get a nod from the member. Yup, that was the question.

The answer is that in subsection 3(4), I believe it is, of the Alberta legislation it says: "…another individual, the justice of the peace may make an order under subsection (1) requiring a person to make available to the applicant, or to provide the applicant with copies of, any records…in respect of that other individual…." But there is no notification or notice requirement in that section and, I don't believe, in other sections as well.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask about subsections (k), (l) and (m). I suspect I know the answer, but I want to ask the question anyway. Why is the type of employment information, health information and financial information not restricted, like it is under section 15, where there is an emergency demand for records — in other words, when they're not going before a judge or justice?

I'm wondering whether the minister could explain why there is a difference between the two sections in terms of the limitations on the type of information that can be accessed.

Hon. S. Anton: The question is judicial authorization. In section 9 there is judicial authorization. A justice decides the relevance of the record and the use of the record. Section 15 is under the emergency demand. There is no prior judicial authorization, so the scope of the request is narrowed.

K. Corrigan: I suspected that that would be the answer, but I just wanted to check on it.

[1515]

This section also says that the type of information that has been…. Information is listed — all those different subsections, all the different types of records. Then at the end, after it says, "any other records that the justice considers appropriate," it says: "any prescribed records." That means that there could basically be a regulation and that other records could be included in that long list.

I just want to say that I find it troubling sometimes when legislation does not contain a complete list. This is very wide-ranging already. Of course, the judge has the ability to authorize the access of any other records, so it's already pretty wide open. But I wanted to make that point.

Maybe if the minister could confirm that what we're talking about when we say "any prescribed records" is anything that there might be regulation for in the future. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Anton: The "any prescribed records" does give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the ability to add to the list in section 9. Obviously, a regulation is public. One of the examples of something that might be added to that list would be emerging technologies.

K. Corrigan: The list of records which can be specified in an order for access under section 6 or 7 includes "telephone and other electronic communication records including, without limitation, (i) records related to signals from a wireless device that may indicate the location of the wireless device, (ii) cellular telephone records, and (iii) text messaging records."

I've got a couple of questions about this, because it's a lot of information that is potentially accessed. When there's a reference to text-messaging records, is there a limit to that? Could that include a demand for the actual text copy — I don't even know if it's possible to get that — the text messages back and forth between individuals?
[ Page 2094 ]

Hon. S. Anton: If the question, which I think it is, is asking, "Could this apply to the content of the text messaging records?" the answer is yes.

K. Corrigan: It's interesting that this has been framed…. When you're talking about signals from a wireless device, it seems to be restricted to signals that may indicate the location of the wireless device. The text messaging is pretty wide open, but the wireless device is restricted to just simply the location.

Is there other information on a wireless device that might be relevant and useful which would be, then, questionable in terms of accessibility because of the narrowing of the information that can be accessed with regard to wireless devices under subsection (i)?

[1520]

Hon. S. Anton: Section 9(c) is fairly broad: "telephone and other electronic communication records including, without limitation, (i) records related to signals from a wireless device that may indicate the location of the wireless device." It's fairly broad as to the information that may possibly be available from a wireless device. If it's helpful to finding the missing person, it could then be used.

K. Corrigan: Is the minister saying that if there are signals from a wireless device, other information that doesn't fit within that definition — i.e., finding the location of the wireless device — that it would be accessible because of the way the first part of the sentence is read?

Hon. S. Anton: I'd like to ask the member opposite to give an example of what she is asking.

K. Corrigan: What I'm asking is…. I don't know whether there's other information, other than location, that would be useful information to access from a wireless device. I'm wondering if…. I don't have an example. I don't know whether there's other information.

In terms of interpreting that section, I'm trying to find out whether the beginning, where it says "telephone and other electronic communication records including…" is wide enough that it means if there's something else that's useful from a wireless device, other than finding the location, that that would be accessible. Or are we limited to just information from a wireless device that would indicate the location of the wireless device?

Hon. S. Anton: No matter what answer we give now, the answer might be different a year from now because these technologies evolve, and the intent in 9(c) is that it be relatively broad. But again, these are under the order of a justice. If there is additional technology in the records that is helpful, or if the records relate to additional technology and the device — I should put it around that way — then that could be found to be relevant, and the order for disclosure of that information could be made.

K. Corrigan: Subsections (d) and (e) allow access to Internet browsing history records and global positioning system tracking records. Similarly to what we talked about earlier in terms of trying to find the limits in terms of a fishing expedition, would it be possible, do you think, for an order to basically be allowed or given that the police simply go through the whole Internet browsing history, whether or not they have any idea whether the individual who is missing has had any kind of communication that would indicate where they are?

[1525]

Similarly, with global positioning system tracking records, would that be something that could be ordered access to whether or not there was any indication that global positioning system tracking records would have any information that would be helpful to find the missing person?

Hon. S. Anton: The Internet browsing and all of the other records in section 9 are subject to the limitations put upon them by the justice.

K. Corrigan: Well, I know we've gone over this territory before, but not particularly with respect to getting somebody's Internet browsing history or the tracking of their GPS. I'm trying to establish….

Surely the minister and ministry staff would have thought seriously about what the extent could be of these records. I know absolutely that the minister is correct that a justice or a judge will be making the decision about what can be accessed. But it is the enabling legislation that prescribes any limits that there could be, so I think it's quite relevant.

Yes, the justice is going to be making the decision, but this legislation is written by this minister. The minister surely must have contemplated the extent to which information would be accessible.

It doesn't give me much comfort that what we're told is the judge is going to decide it: we're not sure what we meant or how far we wanted this to go, but the judge is going to decide it. If the minister wants to add anything to that, I would appreciate it.

It's is a pretty wide power, particularly when you consider that we're talking about records of the missing person and about records of a third party. We seem to now be talking about records of other parties, as well, if it's believed that they can lead to the missing person.

Looking at the Internet browsing history of all of those people may be perfectly appropriate, but has the minister given consideration to what limits there should be on that information being accessed?

Hon. S. Anton: We have justices in British Columbia
[ Page 2095 ]
who do this job. They apply their judgment to the materials brought before them by the police department. The police have to have…. I'm looking for the exact phrase: "…the member has reasonable grounds to believe that the record (a) may assist the police force in locating the missing person."

There's a fairly strict regime there. Justices are experts at applying this. They put the limits on the records that they deem to be appropriate. I have confidence in the system that we have. It's been in place for many years now, and it works well.

K. Corrigan: I have confidence in the judiciary as well. I have a lot of respect for the judiciary. I share the same professional background as the minister.

However, this is going to be interpreted. I guarantee that there will be court decisions in the future on exactly what we're talking about right now. I guarantee that there is going to be discussion and argument.

[1530]

So as much as we can get this tied down now — what is contemplated, what is expected — I think is important to do. If there are future cases — and I'm quite sure there will be — it is possible that judges will be taking a look at the conversation we have today in this Legislature to try to interpret what the intention of the minister was in bringing this legislation forward. I'm just trying to help.

With that, I don't have any more questions about section 9.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

K. Corrigan: Section 10 deals with the third-party record access order and a person at risk. It says: "If a missing person is a person at risk, a member of a police force may apply for and a justice may make an order under section 7." Then it has some more about being required to give the records and about the order as well.

I'm wondering if the minister could explain why it simply wasn't included as a part of section 7. In other words, "Subject to subsection (2), if a missing person is a minor or a vulnerable person" or a person at risk…. I'm wondering if the minister can explain why we didn't include section 10 in with section 7.

Hon. S. Anton: The person at risk has not been defined. That was the discussion we had around section 1. "An individual assessed, in accordance with the regulations, to be at risk." It is preferable in the legislation to separate out the pieces dealing with the person at risk. They can be brought into force later on when the definition is fully created.

K. Corrigan: But there is reference to persons at risk in other sections. I'm not sure how the definition of "person at risk…." Essentially, exactly the same thing is happening under section 10. It's just saying getting "an order under section 7." I'm not really sure why it needs to be in a separate section, because all we're missing is the definition. But I guess I'll leave it at that.

I will ask another question. Can we go back to what type of person is expected to be covered by this section?

Hon. S. Anton: We dealt with this under section 1. That definition is not yet made, because we're going to do consultation. It will become a regulation before this section 10 is implemented.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

Hon. S. Anton: I move the amendment to section 11(2) standing in my name in the orders of the day. That is, again, to add the words "to believe" after "reasonable grounds."

[SECTION 11 (2), by adding the text shown as underlined:

(2) A justice may make an order under this section authorizing members of a police force to enter, by force if necessary, a private dwelling or other premises or land and search for a missing person if the justice is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the missing person may be located there.]

Amendment approved.

On section 11 as amended.

[1535]

K. Corrigan: Section 11 in division 3 deals with search orders with respect to a minor or vulnerable person. It says: "If a missing person is a minor or a vulnerable person, a member of a police force may apply for an order authorizing members of the police force to enter, by force if necessary, a private dwelling or other premises or land and search for the missing person if the member has reasonable grounds to believe that the missing person may be located there."

Then subsection (2) says: "A justice may make an order under this section authorizing members of a police force to enter, by force if necessary, a private dwelling or other premises or land and search for a missing person if the justice is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds that the missing person may be located there."

I read that out because, again, these are fairly wide powers — the ability to go into a private dwelling or other premises and search for somebody. We think it's important that that power be there. We support it. But it is a fairly wide power, the ability to search.

I guess my question is: what is the interface with the Criminal Code of Canada? My assumption is that when
[ Page 2096 ]
somebody is going to search, there are many similar powers under the Criminal Code of Canada. Maybe just a little bit of a backgrounder on that from the minister would be helpful.

Hon. S. Anton: This is a search for a person where there is no criminal offence suspected. Of course, under the Criminal Code, the police do have many powers of search, but this is the power under the civil remedy for police officers to look for a missing person.

K. Corrigan: Well, when you're searching somebody's property — and I appreciate that this is a civil remedy — there are protections under the Charter. Would those Charter rights apply in this case, in this civil remedy? I would assume that they would.

Hon. S. Anton: Perhaps the member could clarify whose Charter rights she's asking about in particular.

K. Corrigan: Well, for example, you're saying a private dwelling. So let's say the private dwelling belonged to somebody…. I don't know who it belongs to. It could be a third party as defined under the act, or it could be just another party, or it could be the home of the individual, the missing person — anything. Do Charter rights to the right to have property rights…? Do they apply in this case?

[1540]

Hon. S. Anton: The Charter applies to the laws of Canada, and the Charter applies to the actions of the police.

K. Corrigan: I guess, then, the Charter would apply in this case because, presumably, it is the police that are entering.

I guess the question for the minister is: has the minister, in framing this bill, considered whether there could be invasions of privacy or that there could be Charter rights that are infringed under this section or Charter challenges under this section? I know the minister has said that each and every section of this act was looked at by the legal team.

I asked at the very beginning about whether or not there was concern about Charter challenges and so on. I want to ask specifically: was there consideration to the possibility of Charter challenges of this section when the bill was being framed?

Hon. S. Anton: I think I just have to go back to the purpose of the section itself, which is that the justice makes an order for the police officer to enter the premise. The justice has to be satisfied that it's appropriate.

The member has to have reasonable grounds to believe that the missing person is located there. The justice has to accept the terms of the officer and put the appropriate conditions on it. This is an order made by a justice. It's not made on the police officer all by himself. It's under the supervision of the justice.

K. Corrigan: Yes, I appreciate that, and I'm pleased. I think it's a necessity that there has to be an order, and I think it's a good safeguard. But the question was, really, whether the minister had considered the possibility of Charter challenges in framing this bill or whether there was any advice or any parsing of the words in order to make sure that it was appropriate in terms of Charter rights.

[1545]

Hon. S. Anton: In development of the bill, we received legal advice, including constitutional advice.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if, under section 11, there are any powers of the police, if an order was given, in terms of what they could do in terms of entering, even by force, a private dwelling to look for the missing person. Are there more powers given to the police under this than under the Criminal Code, when they are seeking evidence or there's a criminal investigation into a missing person? I'm just trying to get a sense of the balance of the two. Does it go as far or farther than the Criminal Code?

Hon. S. Anton: Whether the order is under the Criminal Code or under this section, the justice puts the appropriate terms and conditions on the order.

K. Corrigan: Well, I'm sure the justice does, but that's not what I was asking. I was asking if the powers that police have under this section to enter, by force if necessary, a private dwelling or other premises or land — whether or not the powers that are in the authorizing statute are broader or more extensive than the powers that police have, on the face of it, under the Criminal Code of Canada?

Hon. S. Anton: The answer is no. Both have prior judicial authorizations.

K. Corrigan: Both have prior authorizations. I'm just wondering if the wording in the Criminal Code — I haven't taken a look at it — is similar, then, authorizing police to enter private dwellings, search private dwellings. Is the legislation similar in how it's worded?

The Chair: The committee will be recessing for five minutes — seven.

The committee recessed from 3:48 p.m. to 3:59 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
[ Page 2097 ]

K. Corrigan: Actually, I don't have any more questions on section 11.

Sections 11 as amended and 12 approved.

On section 13.

K. Corrigan: Section 13 deals with an emergency demand for records.

[1600]

This is if a police officer…. Police officers have to go to a judge, as we know, in order to get access to records related to missing persons, unless they believe that the time required to get an order "may result in (i) serious bodily harm to or the death of a missing person, or (ii) destruction of the record." In that case, they can make an emergency demand for the records but then must file a written report, filed with the officer in charge.

I have some concerns, and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner also had some concerns. But I'm actually going to sit. I think my colleague has some questions.

G. Heyman: I share the concerns that were expressed, with respect to emergency disclosure demands, by the Privacy Commissioner in a letter to the minister dated February 14.

This goes to some of the answers that were provided by the Justice Minister in response to previous questions. In many cases where we expressed concerns, the minister answered to us that the request had to go to a justice. The justice would look at the demand and make sure it was reasonable, would look at the scope of the demand and make sure it didn't go further than it needed to.

But in the case of an emergency disclosure demand, none of these controls are particularly present. The bill does require that when a member makes an emergency demand for records….

We understand the need for emergency demands. I don't want to in any way question that. There are times when time is of the essence, and if somebody's life is potentially at stake, then things need to move forward quickly. But it is also true that the emergency demand is not subject to the same, or any, level of judicial oversight or controls that would be contained in other sections of the act.

"The bill would require that the member file a written report with the officer in charge as soon as practicable and that the police force report annually on the number of emergency demands that are made by its members." The Privacy Commissioner states: "I believe the ability of the state to compel the production of records about its citizens is a significant intrusion on the privacy of those citizens. It is not an action that should be taken lightly, which is the reason why such action is generally associated with some level of oversight by the judiciary."

Now, I think we all share that view, just as we understand that there will be times when oversight by the judiciary simply would interfere with the very important purposes of the act with respect to the safety and security of someone who's missing.

The Privacy Commissioner has suggested an amendment, an amendment that wouldn't in any way interfere with the speed with which an emergency demand for disclosure could take place but that would provide some greater level of oversight than a simple annual reporting of numbers by police forces.

She suggested that her office be notified after an emergency disclosure demand is made, not as an approval mechanism but just simply to monitor the use of emergency demands — presumably in terms of frequency; in terms of situation, perhaps; in terms of scope; and to evaluate over time "whether they are being undertaken in an effective manner that is proportional to the privacy impacts on the individual whose records are disclosed," in her own words.

I believe that if the Privacy Commissioner had concerns, she would likely raise them first with the Justice Minister. In fact, I'm quite certain about that. It would only be if those concerns were not addressed that she might then actually raise them with members of the Legislature and, through the Legislature, of course to the public.

It seems to me to be a reasonable proposed amendment, one that would give the public some sense of security that somebody was looking at the use of these demands when they're not being made through the judiciary. As she has said, the notification could occur when the member files the written report with the officer in charge. That's already required by section 13(2). It would simply be, I guess, another copy.

[1605]

It would be a fairly simple amendment. She suggests requiring the officer in charge to forward a copy of the written report to her office. She draws a similarity to that contained in section 25 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and in that case her office is simply advised by the police force that it has issued a notice that a dangerous offender has been released from prison and the reason that the notification is in the public interest.

That seems like a reasonable proposal from the Privacy Commissioner. I would hope that the Minister of Justice is seriously considering such an amendment. It would seem, in my view and those of my colleagues on this side of the House, to be respectful of the concerns and the integrity of the protection of privacy for which the commissioner is responsible.

It does not, in any way that we can see, interfere with the administration of the bill or with the ability of police to make an emergency demand for disclosure and subsequently to protect, if it is still possible to protect, some-
[ Page 2098 ]
body who is missing or simply find them before they do some harm to themselves or they come to some harm.

So I would be interested in hearing from the Justice Minister and request from her whether she has given some consideration to this proposal from the Privacy Commissioner — or some other mechanism, although it's hard to imagine a simpler one than this, that would allow some form of oversight of the use of emergency demands that do not require judicial approval.

The Chair: The member for Burnaby–Deer Lake has circulated an amendment. Is this proposed amendment officially tabled?

K. Corrigan: I'm absolutely happy to move that amendment at any point. If the minister wants to answer the question first, that would be fine, and then I'll move the amendment.

Hon. S. Anton: Section 18 refers to an annual report made by police forces respecting emergency demands for records made by that police force. The police force must provide that to myself, and I must make that annual report public.

That would be a comprehensive reporting of all of these kinds of orders which are made during the course of a year. It is our belief that that is sufficient in terms of monitoring the application of the Missing Persons Act and the emergency demands for records under the Missing Persons Act.

[1610]

K. Corrigan: I would like to propose an amendment to section 13 of the act. It's an addition. I'm not going to read the whole section, because it's very long, but the proposal is that after section 13(2) a clause be added that reads:

[To amend Section 13 as follows by adding the text shown as underlined:

13 (1) A member of a police force may make an emergency demand for records requiring a person to give access to a record set out in section 15 if the member has reasonable grounds to believe that

(a) the time required for applying for an order under section 6 may result in

(i) serious bodily harm to or the death of a missing person, or

(ii) destruction of the record,

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

(c) the record is in the possession or under the control of the person.

(2) If a member of a police force serves a demand under this section on a person, the member must, as soon as practicable, file a written report in the prescribed form and manner with the officer in charge that sets out the circumstances in which the demand was made.

(a) The officer in charge must forward a copy of the written report to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

(3) In this section, "officer in charge" means as follows:

(a) in relation to the provincial police force referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition of "police force" in section 1 of this Act, the commissioner as defined in the Police Act or an individual designated by the commissioner;

(b) in relation to a municipal police department referred to in paragraph (b) of the definition of "police force" in section 1 of this Act, the chief constable as defined in the Police Act or an individual designated by the chief constable;

(c) in relation to a prescribed entity referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of "police force" in section 1 of this Act, a prescribed senior official or an individual designated by the senior official.]

I move that amendment. I believe you have copies of that.

On the amendment.

The Chair: Any discussion on the amendment?

G. Heyman: I rise in support of the amendment. I note the answer of the Justice Minister to my previous question, and with respect, I think there is both a quantitative and a qualitative difference in the provisions of section 18 to what is proposed in an amendment for section 13.

First of all, a year is a long time. It makes sense when we're dealing with something as fundamental and critically valued by British Columbians as the right to privacy, a value that's enshrined in British Columbia law, in Canadian law, in laws in virtually every democratic country around the globe.

It is a right that is highly, highly prized by individuals to know that there is some oversight that takes place on more than an annual basis about the extent to which that right is being respected in emergency situations — we've already admitted that missing persons are an emergency situation — or whether that right is being infringed upon in an unnecessary or perhaps inappropriate way.

If we accept the argument that a review once a year is sufficient, that doesn't quite square up with the requirement in non-emergency demands for disclosure for judicial oversight and judicial approval.

On a qualitative basis, with the utmost respect to the Justice Minister, it makes more sense that the commissioner, the independent officer of the Legislature who is charged with protecting the privacy of British Columbians and whose office is established to protect and advise on the personal privacy of British Columbians, be in a position to monitor on an ongoing basis, particularly in the early stages of the implementation of a new act like this.

It has the potential…. I mean, it does infringe on the privacy of individuals. The question simply is: when is such an infringement on the privacy of individuals justified, and when is it not?

It would allow the commissioner, on an ongoing basis, to monitor the usage of emergency demands, to communicate to the Justice Minister and, if necessary, to
[ Page 2099 ]
legislators in this House about whether the use is proceeding as envisioned, as appropriate and in a way that is properly balanced with the privacy rights of British Columbians.

With respect to the Justice Minister, I think the amendment proposes what section 8 does not, and that is that there would be an ongoing monitoring of the use and not simply a cumulative assessment at the end of every year — which allows possible abuses that could be mounting up to be addressed in a, hopefully, collegial way through a discussion with the Justice Minister at an early stage.

It also allows that monitoring to take place by someone who is an independent officer of the Legislature charged with protecting the personal privacy of British Columbians, not by the cabinet minister who was responsible for introducing the bill in the first place.

I understand that the report will be made public. I understand that the Privacy Commissioner would be able to comment on the contents of the report on an annual basis, but frankly, I don't think that is good enough. I don't think that meets the sense of security that British Columbians would like to see applied to disclosure of a whole range of their personal information, particularly with respect to some issues I raised this morning about the scope of a request for disclosure.

[1615]

The answer in the case of an application to a justice is that the justice is empowered to limit the scope of disclosure of, say, texting records or Internet browsing history or cell phone records to the case at hand. In the case of an emergency demand for disclosure, it's not at all apparent to me — or, I suspect, to anyone else — just exactly how that limitation will take place.

To wait a year for assurances that it won't be inappropriate seems to me to be too much. It certainly seems to the Privacy Commissioner to be too much. It does not appear to be sufficient to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, all of whom work on a daily basis to protect the human rights, the privacy rights and the rights to information of British Columbians.

I would simply submit, in support of this amendment and in requesting that the Justice Minister take a hard second look at the content of our amendment and how it differs from section 18 — and to members opposite…. Take the recommendation of the Privacy Commissioner not as a challenge to authority but as a legitimate safeguard of the rights of British Columbians that in no way whatsoever intrudes on the application and implementation of this important power that is given to police to gather private information to further the finding of a missing person who may be at risk.

It does not interfere in any way whatsoever with that primary function of the act and, as such, should be an amendment that the government is willing to entertain.

K. Corrigan: On the amendment, I obviously, having submitted the amendment, will be supporting it.

I wanted to go back to the report of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, which the minister has said was the impetus for bringing in the Missing Persons Act. In fact, Commissioner Oppal did recommend that there be an act, so this is said to be in fulfilment of the act.

One of the statements that the commissioner made in the report was: "I recommend that the provincial government enact missing-persons legislation to grant speedy access to personal information of missing persons without unduly infringing on privacy rights."

"Without unduly infringing on privacy rights." So the commissioner, while supporting the act, was fully aware that there could be a concern about privacy rights and made the specific point that the act should not unduly infringe on privacy rights.

The Privacy Commissioner has recognized the importance of and how sensitive it is that we intrude on the privacy of citizens when she said:

"I believe the ability of the state to compel the production of records about its citizens is a significant intrusion on the privacy of those citizens. It is not an action that should be undertaken lightly, which is the reason why such action is generally associated with some level of oversight by the judiciary. In authorizing police forces to make emergency demand for records, the bill would remove this judicial oversight without providing adequate alternative measures for transparency and accountability."

Then she goes on to say:

"I recommend that my office be notified after emergency disclosure demand is made. This would not be designed as an approval mechanism but would enable my office to monitor the use of emergency demands and evaluate over time whether they are being undertaken in an effective manner that is proportional to the privacy impacts on the individual whose records are disclosed."

Taking the comments of Commissioner Oppal and the Privacy Commissioner together, I think this is a perfectly reasonable addition which would not impose significant workload — simply forwarding a copy of the written report to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

[1620]

Just forwarding a copy is all that is required and all that the Privacy Commissioner requested. I'm pleased to have this. Frankly, I don't understand why the minister would not support this, and perhaps the minister is going to support this amendment.

Section 18. I would agree with my colleague. Section 18 does not provide the same level of oversight as the Information and Privacy Commissioner. It's an annual report. What the commissioner is asking for is individual reports, simply the reports in individual cases as opposed to an after-the-fact annual report, which presumably would not have the level of detail in it as would individual reports forwarded to the Privacy Commissioner.

We've talked repeatedly about the infringement of privacy rights and Charter rights with regard to this act. It is a real increase, a significant increase in the power that police have that can invade the privacy of individuals.
[ Page 2100 ]

We are doing it and supporting it because it is justifiable in the situation where somebody is missing and we want to make sure that lives are saved, people are protected and people are found. We've had some tragedies in this province over the last couple of years. Perhaps if this legislation had been in place we might have had more success in terms of finding some people — maybe, maybe not.

We are certainly supportive of it, but we also want to be very clear and very sure that we're finding the right balance. I think without the suggestion that the Privacy Commissioner made in place, simply to monitor, that we are not finding the right balance. For that reason, I am supporting the amendment.

D. Routley: I'd like to speak briefly to this amendment in support of it. The right to privacy is as essential to a citizen as the right to a fair trial or the right to the presumption of innocence. If this House were to tamper with those essential rights, I think the people of B.C. would expect that there would be considerable and formidable backstops, structure and framework to ensure that that tampering or adjustment to those essential rights would not lead to harm.

This is the issue between the principle that's being pursued and the prescription that's being offered. A priest can promise that sin will be punished; a judge can dictate it. The sinner may believe the priest, but he knows the determination of the judge, and he knows that because of prescribed rules and regulations.

It is important whenever we consider adjustments to such essential rights as the right to a fair trial or the right to the presumption of innocence or the right to free speech or the right to privacy that expediency not be our sole and determining motive. When we make these adjustments in the interests of expediency for the police or for our bureaucracy, we have to ensure that the principles for which those rights stand are protected.

It's important, I think, and it's essential that in supporting a justifiable act that is attempting to answer an extremely serious consideration — the safety of persons of this province — that we feel is justified, a strict framework controlling and backstopping the limits of those intrusions should be established by this government.

I think the least the government could do would be to support an amendment that would merely involve the Privacy Commissioner, should there be such a request made.

[1625]

N. Simons: I just want to add my support to the amendment. I think it's entirely reasonable, and it could safeguard against breaches of privacy. It could also allow for the public to know that their government, our government, takes this issue seriously enough to simply put in a little safeguard that has absolutely no material impact on anything other than perhaps the officer in charge having to forward a form.

If the amendment is denied — a lot of times we see that happen in this House — I'm wondering if the minister will be able to explain why this safeguard is unnecessary. In the meantime, I support the amendment, and I believe all my colleagues do as well.

Hon. S. Anton: I will not be supporting the amendment. The act is appropriately balanced. The earlier sections — on looking for the records of the missing person or the third party looking for the orders to go into a home or into a dwelling or into a premise to look for somebody — all of those, of course, are under the order of a justice.

This is an emergency order, so it is slightly different. That is why the police officer must report to the officer in charge. The officer, the police department, is obliged to maintain that information and provide it through to myself every year, and that becomes a matter of public record. I believe that that is sufficient safeguard in terms of determining the use of this act. I would note, as well, that it is consistent with Alberta and Manitoba. Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, as a matter of fact, do not have this particular emergency demand.

I would also observe that section 18, the annual report section, requires that the annual report "must include the following information: (a) the number of missing-person investigations…; (b) the total number of persons…served with a demand; (c) any prescribed information." Again, part (c) there will be the subject of consultation. In particular, it will be a subject of consultation with the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

It is my position that there is sufficient safeguard in this section and that the amendment is unnecessary.

N. Simons: What the minister just said is that she disagrees with the Information and Privacy Commissioner?

G. Heyman: I appreciate the minister essentially repeating the same answer that she gave earlier to my question, but I did understand her answer the first time, and I would submit that we're in a fairly significant disagreement here.

The minister believes that the oversight of the officer in charge of an annual report is a proper substitute for the very serious concerns that were raised by the Privacy Commissioner, an independent officer of the Legislature who
[ Page 2101 ]
specializes in protecting one of the most fundamental rights of British Columbians.

Even if there was no resolving that disagreement between myself, my colleagues and the Justice Minister and the Justice Minister's staff, what the Justice Minister has failed to answer in any meaningful way is: what possible harm could come to the administration of the purposes of this bill by accepting a recommendation for amendment by an independent officer of the Legislature who is thoughtful, well regarded nationally and an expert in the protection of privacy? What possible damage to the ability of the police to find and protect missing persons would be done by accepting this amendment? She has not spoken to that at all.

It seems to me that in the interests of British Columbians, in the interests of assuring British Columbians that this government has the highest regard for the sanctity of their personal, private information and will only allow it to be breached in emergent situations, this government and this minister would want to take the extra step. The extra step in this case is heeding the advice of an expert, independent officer of the Legislature.

[1630]

I understand why the minister and the government don't want to accept an amendment put forward by the opposition, although I do consider it a sign of an unreasonably stubborn attitude to what should be collegial discussions in this House about making legislation the best it can possibly be.

But I simply do not understand why that stubbornness would extend to a suggestion from a highly regarded independent officer of the Legislature whose job it is to protect — before the fact, as often as possible and to the greatest extent possible — the sanctity of people's private information. It's a sanctity highly valued by British Columbians, a sanctity that's considered a human right and should only be breached in the most urgent of situations.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

To allow an independent officer some level of after-the-fact oversight of the application of this bill seems to me to be entirely appropriate. What is inappropriate is the inability of this Justice Minister to separate herself from the bill that she has taken responsibility for and allow it to be improved or, at the very least, allow it to be seen by British Columbians to be a bill that includes every possible safeguard of their private information.

For that reason, I will be supporting the amendment, and for that reason, I and my colleagues will be voting for it.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers to the amendment, I'll put the question. The question is on the amendment proposed by the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake.

[1635]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

The Chair: The committee will take a short recess for the return of staff.

The committee recessed from 4:39 p.m. to 4:42 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

The Chair: We're currently dealing with section 13.

K. Corrigan: I'm disappointed to see that we did not get support for the amendment to have the officer in charge forward a copy of the written report to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. However, I do have several other questions on section 13, which has to do with an emergency demand for records.

I'm wondering if the minister considered other mechanisms in order to get records, other than an emergency demand. One of the suggestions has been telewarrants and so on. Were those types of alternative remedies considered rather than an emergency demand for records?

The Chair: Could the member repeat the question?

K. Corrigan: Yes. The question was: did the minister, in framing this act, consider other mechanisms, alternative mechanisms, to the emergency demand for records, which is a fairly significant widening of police powers
[ Page 2102 ]
and without, of course, judicial oversight? An example would be the alternative of using telewarrants instead of an emergency demand for records.

[1645]

Hon. S. Anton: The point here, of course, is that the demand for records is made in this case, where, if there's time taken, it may result in serious bodily harm or destruction of the record. The time taken to obtain an order might be too long.

As to a telewarrant, most of the orders under this act could be obtained by telephone. That's simply one of the ways that police officers, at the moment, can obtain an order, particularly in more urgent circumstances. The fact that it's a telewarrant doesn't really take us anywhere. We just have to remember the purpose of this section, which is when there is urgency.

D. Eby: I don't understand what this section adds to the abilities of police officers. Surely, a police officer can approach anybody and ask for records, and the person can hand them over to the police officer. What this does seem to do, though, is it adds an additional obligation on a police officer. If they ask for records in connection with a missing-person investigation — or not even an investigation; they just want to see what is going on — now they've got to file an additional written report.

Can the minister clarify that this isn't simply adding an additional bureaucratic obligation on police officers with respect to a power that they already have and would be recording in their notebooks as part of their regular duties?

Hon. S. Anton: This does add additional authority to police officers in emergency situations, which is the authority to make a demand for records. For example, let's take a telephone record. If you go to Telus right now and say, "I want so-and-so's record," they're not going to give it to you. What this does is give the police the authority to create a demand and take it to Telus and say, "Look, I need so-and-so's records," in which case Telus is probably going to comply. But the demand itself gives them the additional emergency authority that they would not otherwise have.

D. Eby: Is there any indication that the minister has had from Telus, Shaw or any other of the major Internet service providers that they don't already voluntarily provide this information to police officers? It's my understanding the practice of many major Internet service providers is that, on written request from a police officer, they will provide these records, and if they have privacy concerns, they'll ask them to go get a warrant.

But that section already exists. The police officers can go and get a warrant. I just don't…. Under 13, a simple request or a written request….

[1650]

What does section 13 add for Telus or Shaw in terms of any kind of assurance that somehow they're protected or provided some additional protection, as the minister suggests? This seems to be giving the ability to a police officer, rather than protecting an Internet service provider or a telephone company or whatever.

Hon. S. Anton: I used a phone company as an example, but of course, there may be a whole variety of persons and entities holding records that police may believe to be valuable to them in emergency situations. I just have to emphasize that this is an emergency situation contemplated by this section, so there is a higher threshold.

The demand is made by the police officer. That demand gives the officer authority over and above the voluntary exchange of information which may possibly happen between an officer and an entity. It gives the police officer authority to say: "You need to give me this information." That is a different authority, and that is the authority granted in this emergency situation.

K. Corrigan: Subsection (2) says: "If a member of a police force serves a demand under this section on a person, the member must, as soon as practicable, file a written report in the prescribed form and manner with the officer in charge that sets out the circumstances in which the demand was made." When we're talking about the prescribed form, I'm assuming that we're talking about prescribed under regulation, as approved by cabinet. Is it cabinet that has…? Is it regulatory that has the power, or is this prescribed by the officer in charge?

[1655]

Hon. S. Anton: There are two sets of regulations applicable here. One is the regulation in section 13(2), and yes, these are made by cabinet, although, as I said earlier, this one would be in consultation with the Privacy Commissioner. Section 13(2) is the report that has to go to the officer in charge.

Then the second regulation which is applicable is section 25(2)(c), the regulation "respecting the information required to be included in an emergency demand for records and establishing other requirements for the demand." Again, that regulation would be subject to consultation.

K. Corrigan: I'm pleased that the minister or minister's designate is going to be talking to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. I hope that the Information and Privacy Commissioner is going to express a concern or a suggestion, which I would also express, that the report should make it very clear about the nature of the emergency and why it was an emergency and establish that it truly was an emergency.

I'm assuming that…. Well, perhaps not, because the
[ Page 2103 ]
Privacy Commissioner may not have those same concerns. It's not necessarily a privacy issue.

I would suggest that it's important there should be a description of the circumstances. I know we're going to talk about section 18 later. But I think it is very important in the case of an emergency demand which does not have judicial oversight that we have a clear record of the conditions under which it was determined that this was, in fact, an emergency necessitating that the officer not go to a judge or justice in order to get an order.

I'll ask another question, because the minister may not want to respond to that.

The Chair: Proceed, Member.

K. Corrigan: Then the officer in charge, of course, would be the commissioner. That would be with regard to the RCMP, I take it. Or somebody designated by the commissioner or municipal police force would be the chief constable. Then a prescribed entity would be a prescribed senior official. I think it's pretty clear. I actually don't think I have any more questions about this section.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

K. Corrigan: Section 14 provides that a person who's served with an emergency demand for records must, within the time specified in the demand, give access to the records specified in the demand and, if the person is unable to locate a record specified in the demand, provide members of the police force with a description of the efforts made by the person to locate that record.

We talked about that second part, (b), in an earlier section, when it wasn't an emergency demand. I actually don't think I have any questions for section 14.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

K. Corrigan: Section 15 lists the types of records in respect of a missing person that can be accessed in an emergency demand for records. They are similar to the list of records that were discussed in section 9, when it's not an emergency demand — all of those things: Internet browsing history, contact information, GPS, wireless records, videos and so on.

I don't need to go over that ground again in terms of the types of records that there are. But what is different there is that the records related to employment and health and financial information are more restricted. I'm wondering if the minister could explain why it is that these records are more restricted.

[1700]

Hon. S. Anton: The records described in (b), (c) and (d). It's similar to the other parts in section 9 but more restrictive. The reason is because there is no judicial oversight in the emergency demands. This is a demand generated by the officer under the supervision of his officer in charge.

K. Corrigan: Subsection (b) says that there can be an emergency demand for "records containing employment information to the extent that the records may indicate when the missing person was last seen or heard from and when, where and how the missing person is paid" — as opposed to section 9, where it says "records containing employment information."

I'm wondering if the minister could explain what types of records there would be under section 9 that would not be covered by subsection (b) with regard to employment. In other words, aren't those the only types of records to do with employment that would be accessed, whether or not it was an emergency demand for records? It seems to me that the purpose is to find the person, so why would you not have the restriction under section 9 that you also have under section 13?

Hon. S. Anton: The difference is that in section 15, again, it's the immediacy of the record which is important. Section 9 would allow for a longer-term search of somebody who had been missing for some time, but section 15 is the person who's missing right this minute and needs to be found right this minute. That's why there's an emergency demand, but that's why the demand is more restricted. You just need the records that will tell you today, yesterday or very recently where that person is — in the case of the emergency.

K. Corrigan: The minister has said that section 9 deals with people who have been missing for a longer period of time. Is that what the minister just said?

Hon. S. Anton: I'm just contrasting a situation under section 9…. A person may have been missing for a day, or the person may have been missing for years. What section 9 does is give the broader authority to look at records over a much more extended period of time, whereas section 15 is looking at the emergency, finding a person in an emergency if there's an urgency in the whole situation, which is why it is more constrained what those records can be, under section 15.

K. Corrigan: Well, section 13 describes why something is an emergency. It's either "(i) serious bodily harm to or the death of a missing person, or (ii) destruction of the record." That wouldn't be an emergency in terms of just a destruction of the record. That could be somebody who has been missing over a long period of time or a short period of time, but the destruction of the rec-
[ Page 2104 ]
ord would be the issue, not whether or not there's serious bodily harm. I'm not going to continue on with that, but it's an interesting contrast that the minister has indicated.

[1705]

Then "any prescribed records." It's an interesting juxtaposition, in that the act has some very specific limits in (b), (c) and (d), but then (e) gives cabinet the ability to widen it again without limit. In fact, it could prescribe anything. I'm wondering why it is that we have a power in cabinet that may open the records that are accessible up significantly again, and it's going to be decided in cabinet behind closed doors and not open to debate.

Hon. S. Anton: I just remind the member opposite that the prescribed record becomes public. The regulation becomes public, and this section 15(e) has the same purpose that it had in section 9, which is to let the act be flexible enough should there be emerging technologies which need to be included in this section.

Let me add "for example" if I didn't add that — for example, the emerging technologies. There may be other things that fall into that category — I don't want to narrow it — but the emergency technologies is the one that springs to mind most quickly.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

Hon. S. Anton: I move the amendment to section 16(2) standing in my name on the orders of the day, and again, adding reasonable grounds "to believe," etc.

[SECTION 16 (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 specified in the demand

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

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

Amendment approved.

On section 16 as amended.

K. Corrigan: Section 16 deals with the situation where an emergency demand has been made for records and the person who has been served with that emergency demand fails to comply with the demand, in which case a member of the police force may apply for an order requiring the person to comply with that demand.

First question. Does it have to be the same person applying for the order as originally made the demand?

Hon. S. Anton: The act as written does not limit it to the member who made the original demand.

K. Corrigan: A justice may make an order under this section if the justice is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds that the record specified in the demand may assist the police force in locating the missing person and is in possession or under the control of the person.

If there was a situation where there may be serious bodily harm to or the death of a missing person, what other remedies does one have? There are emergency powers anyway, so if the requirements of section 13 were met — in other words, that you were really worried somebody might die — surely there must be an ability to proceed without bothering to get the records via an order.

[1710]

If you think somebody is going to die, then are there other avenues that police can take, perhaps under their criminal powers or their general emergency powers, that would fill the gap if a person refuses to provide those records?

Hon. S. Anton: The investigating officer can either ask and be granted, can make an emergency demand and be granted, or if they are actually in a criminal investigation, of course they can use the powers of the criminal law.

What this does is give the civil powers to get those records, which powers are not available elsewhere. Is there an ability to proceed without an order? Not if the entity is refusing to give them to you and you are in a civil investigation.

D. Eby: Does this section limit the ability of prosecutors to use the provincial Offence Act to penalize someone who fails to comply with an emergency demand? It seems to me that section 16 sets out the consequence for failing to comply. It doesn't mention the Offence Act.

The consequence for failing to comply is that they're going to ask you again, this time through a judge. I wonder if that is the intent or whether the minister sees that as the consequence — that prosecutors couldn't go back and say: "Look, you should have given us the record. Now we're going to punish you for failing to do so under the provincial Offence Act."

If I were to put it in a few words, does this section limit the ability of the province to use the Offence Act for failing to comply with an emergency demand?

Hon. S. Anton: The offence section is section 24. That lays out the offences for the different failures.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask about…. If a person goes back to a justice to get an order under section 16 because there's been a failure to comply with the emergency demand for records, is the application then restricted to those more restricted records that are set out in section 15? In other words, can you go back to the judge, then, and ask for a more expanded set of records than what you originally asked for under section 15?
[ Page 2105 ]

[1715]

Hon. S. Anton: Section 16. The order that you're getting is an order requiring the person to comply with your emergency demand. You could conceivably, if the circumstances were appropriate, turn back instead to sections 6 and 7 and apply for an order under those sections. But generally, you're in an emergency situation here, and you would likely follow through with the procedure set out in section 16.

Sections 16 as amended and 17 approved.

On section 18.

K. Corrigan: Section 18 deals with the annual report respecting emergency demands for records. This was the section that when we were discussing section 13 and submitting our amendment would have required that the officer in charge, in an emergency demand, forward a copy of the report to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

This is the section that the minister pointed to as saying "not necessary" to comply with the amendment, to fulfil the request of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, because there will be an annual report regarding emergency demands.

But that report is to include the following: "(a) the number of missing person investigations in which a demand was made; (b) the total number of persons who were served with a demand; (c) any prescribed information."

Maybe the minister can explain how the minister believes that an annual report which is prepared, presumably, at the end or even into the following year, which is then sent to the minister in some amount of time — unspecified at this point — satisfies the concerns that the Information and Privacy Commissioner had about section 13.

Hon. S. Anton: Two things. First of all, the form itself will contain any prescribed information. As I said earlier, we have committed to consulting with the Information and Privacy Commissioner on the nature of that prescribed information.

Secondly, the goal of the Information and Privacy Commissioner is to analyze the use of these emergency demands, over time. It is my belief that this reporting requirement, as set out in section 18, will allow that analysis.

[1720]

D. Eby: Why did the minister not include the type of record that was accessed in this report — for example, health records, cell phone records, Internet browser history, e-mails and so on — as part of the listed information that must be disclosed?

Hon. S. Anton: That could indeed be part of the prescribed information in the form. That's what we will be working on with the Information and Privacy Commissioner to determine that kind of information.

D. Eby: I note that the minister will be setting out in regulation a requirement for the police to report within a certain amount of time set out by the minister, but she doesn't provide the same obligation on herself. I wonder why the minister hasn't set out a specific requirement that she must release the report — within 30 days, for example, of receiving it — and why it's an open-ended obligation to make reports public.

I can speak from experience. I waited for long, long periods of time for this government many times to release documents that are supposed to be made public. Even a requirement of reasonableness in this section would address the concern. Why has the minister not put any obligations on herself, in terms of timing, when this report must be made public?

Hon. S. Anton: We get many reports into my office and other offices in government that are public reports, and they are made public. This one will be made public.

D. Eby: I trust that if this bill passes into law and there's an obligation on the minister to make the report public, she will, as the Attorney General, follow the law. That wasn't the question. The question was: why did the minister not include a time limit for her office to disclose this report? It seems that timeliness is one of the key elements of public disclosure. Why there's no element in the act that requires timely disclosure was the question.

Hon. S. Anton: It's an annual report. It will be made public on an annual basis.

K. Corrigan: I agree with the member for Vancouver–Point Grey that it would be important to understand in that report, to have included in that report, the types of records that were accessed. I also think it would be important to have in that report a short explanation about why it was an emergency situation, to satisfy the minister and the public of that.

I'm assuming from the way this section is worded that whatever that report looks like, whatever is prescribed to be in that report, which is going to be provided to the minister, that report will, unabridged, then be the report that's released to the public. Is that correct?

[1725]

Hon. S. Anton: It will include, as I've noted, the prescribed information, so we will be working on that with the Privacy Commissioner and others who are inter-
[ Page 2106 ]
ested. That information must be able to be made public. Obviously, we can't put things in a public report which is confidential information.

K. Corrigan: In reading the way this section is worded, it sounds like the report would be the thing that is published annually. That's all I'm trying to establish — that the report and however the minister prescribes it to be, whatever information needs to be in there…. Presumably that information wouldn't be prescribed anyways, to have individual names and so on. I just want to be clear that the report that is provided by the police force is the report, without edit — unless, of course, there was privacy information — that is going to be made public.

Hon. S. Anton: That is the requirement of the section.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

K. Corrigan: I'm assuming that this section — which says it doesn't "restrict any authority established at common law or under any federal or other provincial enactment that a police force has to obtain, collect, compile, use, disclose or dispose of any information or records" — would refer to things like the Criminal Code of Canada?

Hon. S. Anton: This section does not restrict the powers under the Criminal Code — if that was the question — but again, this is the civil remedy, not the criminal remedy.

K. Corrigan: I was just trying to think of an example of another law where police obtain, collect, compile, use, disclose or dispose of information. I appreciate that this is a separate remedy, but I think we've talked a lot about the blurring of the lines and where there may be a crossover, so I was just using it as an example. I appreciate that it's different, that it's not supposed to be in tandem, but that's fine. I just was trying to get an idea.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

K. Corrigan: Section 20 says: "A police force may use information in a record accessed under this Act only for the purpose of locating a missing person or a use consistent with that purpose." I'm wondering if the minister could explain why there is a widening of the purpose beyond just looking for the person. What does it mean when you say "a use consistent with that purpose"?

[1730]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. S. Anton: A use consistent with that purpose would be data analysis, would be providing the information to a missing-persons unit for their analysis. It would be that kind of use, which might have a slightly broader purpose than the immediate locating of the missing person but might come to help find that missing person or find other missing persons.

K. Corrigan: The Privacy Commissioner, in discussing a similar phrase, "or a use consistent with that purpose," when it is used in section 21(2), says the bill "also authorizes the disclosure of information for a purpose that is consistent with the purpose of locating a missing person. This significantly broadens the authority for disclosure of information collected under the Missing Persons Act. I do not believe personal information disclosed under this proposed legislation should be used for any other purpose."

My understanding of the reason why the Privacy Commissioner has had concerns about section 21(2) but didn't express concerns about section 20 is because they have oversight over section 20, whereas in sections 21(2) that oversight has been explicitly removed. However, it does not change the fact that there is a broadening of powers, and for me, the same concern exists. For that reason, I will, in a minute, submit an amendment.

We also have other concerns. This section also has raised the concerns, significantly, of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. It says: "For certainty, this section does not prevent information in a record accessed under this Act from being disclosed for the purpose of a related criminal investigation."

The concern that has been related to me by various parties, including the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, is that in fact, the information that is accessed could end up being used to charge the missing person themselves. Now, the minister may not believe that that's the correct interpretation of the act, but a related criminal investigation could end up…. If there's information that is disclosed through the records that are accessed that provide information of criminal activities, some crime by the missing person, it possibly could be used.

Will the minister tell me whether it is possible, under the section as it is presently written, that if there is evidence of criminal activity by the missing person…? Could this section, then — information that's gained through this use of the act — be used by the police to charge somebody, including the missing person, with a crime?

[1735]

Hon. S. Anton: The important word here is the word "related" — "related criminal investigation." As we have discussed a number of times, the search for the missing person could possibly turn into a kidnapping, and that might well be a related criminal investigation. At the end
[ Page 2107 ]
of the day, it's going to be up to the court in its determination of the admissibility of the evidence whether or not it is a related criminal investigation, but that's an example of something that might be.

D. Eby: This section, 20(2)…. The minister says that that may be a related criminal investigation or it may not — an investigation of the missing person, himself or herself. Surely, the minister doesn't intend that this act is used as an investigative tool for police to do criminal investigations of notionally missing people.

Is there any reason that the minister is not clarifying the meaning or the intended meaning of the word "related"? And I ask that because courts look to Hansard records to understand and help them interpret the meaning of a legislative record. It seems to me that the minister is expressly avoiding providing courts with the kind of guidance that they look to when they review the Hansard record. So when she stands up and says, "Well maybe it could be interpreted that way and maybe not. We're going to leave it to the courts…."

This is the minister's law that her government is proposing. What is the intent of the law here? The intent of the law, I would say, is based on what the minister has said over and over and over. The intent of the law is to provide a civil remedy for police to find missing people when the criminal law tools are not available to them. It is not intended as a criminal investigation tool.

Will the minister go on the record and clarify that "related criminal investigation" surely and certainly can only mean an investigation where there has been criminal activity that caused somebody to go missing? It can be the only intention of the word "related." So why won't she go on the record and simply say that?

[1740]

This is the Missing Persons Act, where a related criminal investigation is the investigation of what caused the person to go missing.

Hon. S. Anton: I'm not going to try and narrow this. The related criminal investigation, as I said, will be a matter of evidentiary interpretation by a court. I gave the example…. For instance, if the missing person has in fact, it turns out, been kidnapped, that would likely be a related criminal investigation. Again, that will be for a court to decide in a criminal proceeding, in this case.

Generally, though…. The member opposite said: "Is this an investigative tool for a criminal investigation?" The answer, of course, is no. The purpose of this act is a civil remedy to find a person who is missing.

D. Eby: Then I have to ask the minister: why bother having the word "related" in there?

Every imaginable piece of information that the police could get that could lead to a criminal investigation will be related because they got it through the missing-persons investigation. It's related to that investigation. "We got the record through the Missing Persons Act. We're able to use it for a criminal investigation. It's related because that's how we got the information."

It seems that the minister is not being frank about the effect of this. It'd be much better to simply remove the word "related" and just say: "Hey, you can use it for a criminal investigation because every piece of information you're going to get is going to be related under this very broad meaning that I refuse to narrow down."

Will the minister clarify that her intent here is in fact to render that word meaningless by not clarifying that "related criminal investigation" means, obviously, related to what caused the person to go missing or related to some sort of injury to the missing person? It's the only possible and reasonable interpretation, and that the minister won't provide that clarity invites the possibility of significant expansion of the use of this act.

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

K. Corrigan: I'm going to be proposing an amendment to section 20. There are two amendments that I'm proposing to section 20.

[To amend section 20 by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

20 (1) A police force may use information in a record accessed under this Act only for the purpose of locating a missing person or a use consistent with that purpose.

(2) For certainty, this section does not prevent information in a record accessed under this Act from being used for the purpose of a related criminal investigation.

(3) A police force may not use information in a record accessed under this Act for the purpose of incriminating the missing person.]

On the amendment.

K. Corrigan: I think my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey has spoken quite eloquently on the latter — the concerns that we have. Certainly, various women's organizations have said that they would be concerned that a person might not come forward, might not provide records that could in fact help find a missing person if there was a belief that the missing person themselves could be incriminated.

[1745]

It's simply to be clear that the purpose of being able to use information accessed under this act is for related criminal investigation to do with the fact that that person is missing — in other words, an abduction or something like that. That's the amendment, and I'm moving it. I would move that amendment.

Hon. S. Anton: Just quickly, I don't agree with crossing out that phrase, for the reasons I mentioned earlier — the "use consistent with that purpose." There is an analysis
[ Page 2108 ]
use which is consistent with locating a missing person. Secondly, I believe section 2 is appropriate limitation on the use of information.

K. Corrigan: It's been a long day. We're getting towards the end.

I have said much of what I'm going to say on this. But the minister would not clarify that it was not the intention of this section to have the person who was missing be somebody who could be charged using records access.

For that reason, just to make it clear, I think it's a friendly amendment. I think it's an amendment that would improve the act. Also, it would make it more likely that people would be more willing to provide information if it's very clear that the only way that information is going to be used in a criminal context is if it's being used to find somebody who has, perhaps, abducted or done something else criminal in relation to the missing-person case.

For that reason, I am going to move my motion, and I've spoken in favour.

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

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

A. Weaver: I've been listening over the last couple of days to a variety of positions from a variety of members on both sides of the House speaking passionately to this very important issue. This legislation provides a reasonable approach to protecting vulnerable missing persons following on the recommendations from the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry.

However, in my reading of this legislation, one aspect I see missing is the requirement to review the legislation for unintended consequences after implementation. When I reviewed comparable legislation from other jurisdictions — specifically, the Alberta Missing Persons Act — they enshrined the need for a review of the act every five years by a special committee of the Legislature.

I wonder if building a principle such as this into our legislation might address some of the concerns raised here today and yesterday — in particular, the issues of privacy. Can the minister clarify for me whether or not there is a structure in place to review the effects of this legislation and, if not, why this aspect was left out?

[1750]

Hon. S. Anton: It is my view that we do not need to legislate the timing of the review. It is better to leave any review until it is appropriate. That could be two years. It could be three years. It could be ten years. I think that decision will be made at the discretion of government at the time. Government uses its judgment on these things all the time — whether or not to review an act.

A. Weaver: Frankly, given the concerns today, I think it would be in our best interests if we mirrored Alberta's legislation, as we have done in much of the other aspects of our legislation. I think that this would greatly increase the accountability of this act and would go a long way to addressing a lot of the concerns that we've heard today and yesterday.

At this point I would like to introduce an amendment to the act as follows:

[To amend the Missing Persons Act by adding the following sub-section to Section 21:

"21(9) A special committee of the Legislative Assembly must begin a comprehensive review of this Act within 5 years of the coming into force of this Act and must submit to the Legislative Assembly, within one year after beginning the review, a report that includes any amendments recommended by the committee."]

On the amendment.

A. Weaver: I will not speak to the amendment, but I put it forward to you now.

K. Corrigan: I am pleased to stand in support of this amendment. I think it's a good amendment. It is taken right out of the Alberta act.

I think that when you have significant concerns that have been raised with a bill — not only by members on this side of the House but also, for example, by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, by various associations, by individuals, by groups — and when you consider the significant increase in police powers that are provided under this act and the fact that many of the sections that we've talked about today….

We don't know exactly what the regulations are going to look like, and there are a significant number of important regulations. We don't know how this is going to play out over the next number of years. We have yet to see reports. We're going to see how it's used.

We have an interface between the criminal law and civil law which could become a blurred line. We have a number of cases, I think, under this act that are going to start off with a missing person and no criminal investigation at all that, in many cases, will probably transfer over to being a criminal investigation.

We have very significant changes to people's rights to privacy and increased powers to insert the police into private matters, into private records. I think that when you consider all of those things — and this is a fairly comprehensive law that has raised concerns about privacy and Charter rights and so on — it's a really good idea to enshrine in the legislation itself a requirement that we have
[ Page 2109 ]
a review, as has happened with other pieces of legislation.

This government itself, I believe, has included in legislation a requirement that there be a review after five years. For that reason, I wholeheartedly support the amendment by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, and I thank him for bringing that to this chamber.

D. Eby: I rise to speak in support of the amendment from the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. It is a very practical step. I've heard the minister say over and over again that she doesn't want to restrict the court's interpretation and that, sure, it could be interpreted that way, but it's not going to be and that the government should be trusted, and on and on.

One of the ways to provide certainty that the minister's intentions will be realized, despite her unwillingness to provide the courts with guidance, is to review the actual decisions made by courts using this legislation and to review the actual use of this legislation by police, to make sure that the minister's intentions are followed through on.

[1755]

I think we all agree, on both sides of the House, that the intention is good. We may disagree about whether or not the legislation is good, but we agree that the intention is good. That's why this review is important.

I certainly thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for bringing this suggestion forward. I think it's a sound one, and I think it is one that the minister surely can readily support, especially if she has such confidence, as she does, that her intent will be realized here.

N. Simons: I'd just like to support the amendment as tabled. I believe that this would in some way be a way of capturing any sorts of problems that might arise within the first few years of this legislation and could serve to ensure that we have safeguards put in place.

The safeguards that were proposed by previous amendments put forward by my colleagues in this House have all failed. This one perhaps would be a place where the result of the failure of those amendments would be finally seen. So I'd like to add my support to the amendment from the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, and I hope that its reasonableness is seen by members opposite.

Amendment negatived on division.

K. Corrigan: Thank you to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for that thoughtful and important suggestion. I'm sorry that government has again decided to vote against what seems like a very reasonable suggestion for an improvement to the act.

Section 21(1). I am also proposing an amendment to section 21, and I will let you know what that is.

Section 21 proposes to limit the disclosure of information under this act. Information can be disclosed "for the purpose of locating a missing person." There are a number of other provisions, but the one that I have particular concern about and therefore am proposing an amendment on is, again, the use of the words "or a use consistent with."

Under subsection 21(2), it says: "A police force may disclose information in a record accessed under this Act only as follows: (a) for the purpose of locating a missing person or a use consistent with that purpose." Because this is a broadening of the scope, a repurposing of the legislation to some degree, I'm proposing an amendment:

[To amend Section 21 by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

21 (1) This section applies despite the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

(2) A police force may disclose information in a record accessed under this Act only as follows:

(a) for the purpose of locating a missing person or a use consistent with that purpose;

(b) if the individual the information is about has consented, in the prescribed manner, to the disclosure;

(c) in accordance with any federal or provincial enactment that requires the disclosure;

(d) to comply with a subpoena, a warrant or an order issued or made by a court, person or body in Canada with jurisdiction to compel the production of information and records;

(e) to the extent necessary to further a missing person investigation, to

(i) another law enforcement agency in Canada, or

(ii) a law enforcement agency in a foreign country under an arrangement, a written agreement, a treaty or federal or provincial legislative authority;

(f) to the legal counsel for the police force, for the purpose of preparing or obtaining legal advice for the police force or for use in civil proceedings involving the police force;

(g) in accordance with subsections (3) to (7).

(h) the circumstances surrounding the absence of the missing person;

(i) the name of the individual with whom the missing person was last seen;

(j) any other information that the police force considers appropriate;

(k) any prescribed information.

(4) A police force may publicly announce that a missing person has been located.

(5) Subject to the regulations, if a missing person who is a minor is located, a police force may, without the consent of the minor, disclose information in a record accessed under this Act in respect of the minor to a parent or guardian of the minor if, in the opinion of the police force, the disclosure will protect the safety of the minor.

(6) Subject to the regulations, if a missing person who is a vulnerable person is located, a police force may, without the consent of the vulnerable person, disclose information in a record accessed under this Act in respect of the vulnerable person to a prescribed person if, in the opinion of the police force, the disclosure will protect the safety of the vulnerable person.

(7) A police force may, to the extent necessary to coordinate missing person investigations and other activities respecting missing persons, disclose information in a record accessed under this Act to

(a) another law enforcement agency or government department or agency in Canada, or
[ Page 2110 ]

(b) a law enforcement agency or government department or agency in a foreign country under an arrangement, a written agreement, a treaty or federal or provincial legislative authority.

(8) For certainty, this section does not prevent information in a record accessed under this Act from being disclosed for the purpose of a related criminal investigation.

(9) A police force may not disclose information in a record accessed under this Act for the purpose of incriminating the missing person.]

On the amendment.

K. Corrigan: That is another addition, again trying to ensure that we have protection of the missing person.

You have the amendment. Given the time and the fact that I think we want to get through some of these sections, have a chance to discuss them, I am not going to discuss the reasons further. I think much of the concern and the reasons have been discussed in relation to previous sections, but perhaps some of my colleagues would like to speak.

[1800]

G. Heyman: I appreciate the comment of the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake that we want to get through the rest of the bill, so I'll make my comments quite brief.

This is a rather large hole through which people can move. If the purpose of the bill is to locate a missing person, it's difficult to imagine what more is needed. Without clearly understanding what a purpose consistent with the act is…. Sorry, not consistent with the act but consistent with the purpose, which is much different.

It just seems unnecessary, but it also seems potentially dangerous, as pointed out by the Privacy Commissioner. I support the amendment.

I don't think it's necessary. I think it's vague. It's non-specific, particularly if it's used in an emergency situation without judicial oversight. I do not see the need. I do see the danger, and I think the amendment that is being proposed by the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake and was also proposed by the Privacy Commissioner should be heeded.

Hon. S. Anton: For the reasons set out in section 20, where a similar amendment was considered, I will not be supporting the amendment.

K. Corrigan: I just would like to get onto the record the comments that the Privacy Commissioner made about why this section should be amended.

She says:

"Government's intention is to narrow the disclosure of information collected under the Missing Persons Act to the purpose of locating missing persons or to a related criminal investigation. However, section 21(2)(a) of the bill also authorizes the disclosure of information for a purpose that is consistent with the purpose of locating a missing person. This significantly broadens the authority for disclosure of information collected under the Missing Persons Act. I do not believe personal information disclosed under this proposed legislation should be used for any other purpose."

I think I pointed out that the reason that the Privacy Commissioner was not as concerned with section 20 was that there was not a limiting of the Privacy Commissioner's authority. Therefore, they had oversight over section 20, but they do not have oversight under section 21. The first subsection, in fact, says: "This section applies despite the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act."

I think any time you have in a bill a section that says this is going to happen despite the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, I have a concern, because it's limiting the protection of privacy and freedom of information in our province. For that reason, I am submitting this amendment and supporting it.

Amendment negatived on division.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask a question about section 21(2). It says: "A police force may disclose information in a record…." To whom and how is it anticipated that information that is accessed under this act would be disclosed?

[1805]

Hon. S. Anton: I think the question was: when might the information be disclosed? The circumstances where it might be disclosed are laid out in (a) to (g) of subsection (2).

K. Corrigan: Indeed, there are a number of sections there. But sections (a) to (g) do not have any ands or ors, with perhaps the exception of subsections (e)(i) and (ii) — between those two.

Can the minister explain: are each of these…? These are all individual circumstances when there might be disclosure — separate circumstances where there might be disclosure. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Anton: They are all separate circumstances, separate possibilities.

[1810]

K. Corrigan: With regard to subsection (2)(f), to the legal counsel: "A police force may disclose information…to the legal counsel for the police force, for the purpose of preparing or obtaining legal advice for the police force or for use in civil proceedings involving the police force."

What kinds of circumstances would the minister foresee that that disclosure would be used in?

Hon. S. Anton: The section talks about the information that may be used by a lawyer for the police department if there is some kind of legal proceeding. I don't think I can say any more than what the section says.
[ Page 2111 ]
Perhaps there is a lawsuit of some nature involving the information or involving a police officer, and the record itself is relevant to that lawsuit.

K. Corrigan: I assumed that that probably was the case. For example, if the police were to get sued for some reason and the information was relevant…. Say the police were getting sued. I would assume that if the information was relevant to the police and the police were getting access, then there would also be disclosure to the plaintiff because of disclosure laws. Is that correct? I just want to make sure that what we're not setting up here is that the police would get information that another party in a proceeding would not get.

Hon. S. Anton: Any disclosure in a lawsuit would be according to the rules of court.

K. Corrigan: The disclosure that is being authorized under this section — would it extend what is presently available to a police force under current law? Is there any extension of access to information or procedure that would be different than it is now?

Hon. S. Anton: Once again, I cannot add to the words of the section, which seem to be fairly straightforward: "to the legal counsel for the police force, for the purpose of preparing or obtaining legal advice for the police force…."

[1815]

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if…. When you look at subsection (3)(j), "For the purposes of a missing person investigation, a police force may make public the following information," it gives a whole list of types of information that can be made public. It includes "any other information that the police force considers appropriate." I'm wondering why the minister would have a list of about ten types of information that would be allowed and then….

Is it not redundant to mention all those things when, at the end, you say "any other information that the police force considers appropriate"? If there is that much discretion being given to the police in terms of information that is released, why wouldn't the section, then, just say "for the purposes of a missing-person investigation, a police force may make public any information that the police force considers appropriate"?

Hon. S. Anton: It's important that the police have discretion in the way they describe the missing person. While you might think that you can capture everything in (a) to (i), there may be other unusual pieces of information about this person, or something quite helpful that is not included in that list, that is important to be able to disseminate to the public.

K. Corrigan: Well, is the minister saying that the phrase "any other information that the police force considers appropriate" does not include any of the information included in (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i) and (k)? Not (k). That would be later. In (a) to (i)?

Hon. S. Anton: Well, (a) to (i) is very specific, and it gives a description of the general types of things that one might think that a police force might make public. But it also allows a more general provision, in (j), for another piece of information. As I said, it could be something quite unusual that is not in (a) to (i) but that could be quite helpful to find the missing person.

K. Corrigan: Well, it seems to me, then, redundant to have all of those things listed if the police have the ability, with one sentence, to release anything that it considers appropriate. As well, then, would the minister confirm that the (a) to (i) is not in any way limiting the ability of police to release information?

Hon. S. Anton: So (a) to (i) are very specific; (j) is more general.

K. Corrigan: I am going to ask one more question on this section. Subsection (5) says: "Subject to the regulations, if a missing person who is a minor is located, a police force may, without the consent of the minor, disclose information in a record accessed under this Act in respect of the minor to a parent or guardian of the minor if, in the opinion of the police force, the disclosure will protect the safety of the minor."

Now, my question for the minister, my first question on this: is there other legislation where the police have the power to disclose information to the parent, whether or not the minor wants that information disclosed?

[1820]

Hon. S. Anton: I think the member is asking if there are other acts in British Columbia which allow disclosure in respect of a minor to a parent. I am not going to be able to answer whether or not there may be one or more acts that do that because there are a lot of acts in British Columbia relating to minors and parents.

Sections 21 to 26 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:21 p.m.
[ Page 2112 ]

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 3 — MISSING PERSONS ACT

Bill 3, Missing Persons Act, reported complete with amendments.

Madame Speaker: And when shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. S. Anton: With leave, now, Madame Speaker.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — MISSING PERSONS ACT

Bill 3, Missing Persons Act, read a third time and passed.

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

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:23 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
FORESTS, LANDS AND
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); G. Kyllo in the chair.

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

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

A. Weaver: I have just one question. I have two more I hope I could pass to the minister, but that could be supplied in writing at a later date, in view of the time.

My question is this. Does the ministry track how much of the budget is allocated towards publicly funded research that supports the government's policy priorities and maintains programs that are in the public's interest?

This includes funding for the work undertaken by licensed science officers or equivalent ministry staff positions and the work that is contracted out via P3s or other industry-led research. In essence, I'm trying to get an idea as to the extent that the government contracts out its research or whether it has that research done in-house.

[1340]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to provide some information for the member, the salary budget for research within the ministry for '14-15 is anticipated to be maintained at about $6.2 million. That's essentially unchanged since fiscal '11-12. We anticipate spending about $2.3 million on external research. That's primarily through FPInnovations. This is the same amount as was spent in '13-14.

We've developed a research framework that lays out the foundation for us to move through to the more integrated-outcome approach to research. The research plan will focus on six outcomes: the ecosystem stewardship; ecosystem health and disturbance; water; species and habitat; timber supply; and the bioeconomy. This base or approach will be implemented over the coming year.

We can certainly provide a follow-up to the member opposite in terms of the specific projects and the specific dollars in each of those projects. Maybe we can have some discussion that will be helpful in terms of the definition — whether that includes work that may be done, for example, in terms of wildlife inventory work and those kinds of things to make sure that we've got the full scope of what the member is looking for in terms of the nature of the projects.

That gives you the overall budget approach to it and the external research and the framework, and we can certainly provide the specific list that the member opposite has requested.

A. Weaver: Thank you very much for the answer. My concern, and why I raise this, is that there's a perception of a growing tendency for government scientists to become contract readers and writers and issuers as opposed to what they're doing. The problem with that lies within the corporate memory within the government, within the ministry, as to the issues that face government in development of policy.

I'm hoping to see if we could get access to such data over a number of years — say, the last five, six, seven years, if that's possible — in order to assess whether or not there is a trend towards increasing contracting out of research services as opposed to doing the research in-house.
[ Page 2113 ]

Again, it's because of the concern about a loss of corporate memory and an inability for individual contractors to get an overall sense of the big picture of the direction of the government and ministry. If that is possible to provide those multiple years of such data. That will be my final question.

Hon. S. Thomson: As I indicated, we'll undertake to provide that information.

You mentioned you had a couple of other questions. We'd be happy to receive those in writing, or if you wanted to read them into the record and then we'll respond to that — whichever. Or if you want to provide them directly, we're quite happy to do that.

[1345]

V. Huntington: Firstly, rather than go through all of the answers that I would love to hear at the moment, what I'd just like to inform the minister of is that I'm extremely interested, as I was with the water issue, in the ministry's interest and service plan comments on implementing a cumulative impact framework for decision-making processes.

I would very much like to have a really thorough briefing on how you're planning on doing that, what it's going to contain, how far-reaching it is, whether there has been some review of the Australian issues that they have now realized should have been dealt with earlier on in the resource extraction process and how you will integrate this decision-making process with both the OGC and the Ministry of Environment.

If the minister would indicate whether he'd be willing to ask his staff to engage in a thorough briefing with me, I would really appreciate it.

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, we will certainly follow up on the request of the member opposite and provide that briefing.

We understand the importance of assessing and managing the cumulative effects of resource development. That's one of the key rationales behind the establishment of the ministry. We've done a number of steps, developing an integrated decision-making model for government's natural resource agencies to increase the consistency and efficiency and effectiveness of the decision-making. We've undertaken pilot projects in areas.

This is an area where we can certainly sit down and provide that briefing to the member, because this is an area that is a key focus of work within the ministry, and lots of work is being done in that area. I think a full briefing would be beneficial and helpful.

V. Huntington: Yes, it is a key issue. For me, I think that the degree to which we do start to look at cumulative impact assessments and regional cumulative planning processes will mean, ultimately, at the end of the day, whether we have a boreal forest left in the northeast. I think there needs to be some good work done on this, and I would love to be able to input my concerns to the ministry.

I have three short questions that are more riding-related at this point.

Firstly, I wonder if the minister could tell me…. As he may know, the municipality of Delta is now approaching the federal Minister of the Environment to consider resuming the application to include the Robert Banks wildlife management area in the Ramsar designation. Have the minister and his department given that any further consideration? Could he also tell me who the stakeholders were that did not want the Roberts Bank wildlife management area included in the Ramsar discussions in the first instance?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I think the member opposite knows, Roberts Bank is a very important area, but it is not included in the 2012 Ramsar designation.

[1350]

The wildlife management area had not been designated as a wildlife management area at the time when the Ramsar application was being prepared. There was not confirmation of when it would be designated at that time. So rather than delay the application, it was decided to proceed and apply to expand the designation to include the Roberts Bank wildlife management area once it became a wildlife management area.

Just to advise the member opposite, we're committed to working with local governments to include the Roberts Bank wildlife management area in the Ramsar, and we'll continue to work to move that forward.

V. Huntington: I'm pleased to hear that. I thought there was some hesitation on the part of the province to move in that direction just because of the controversy surrounding the uses within the wildlife management area.

I'd like to move on to the question of the ministry taking on the administration of the water lot leases along the Fraser River come next year. I wonder if the minister could tell me how the ministry intends to administer those water lot leases. Will they increase the length of tenure? Will they take a more reasonable approach to the rates being requested? Will they roll back some of the Port of Vancouver's onerous demands for insurance requirements, both commercial and residential?

In other words, all the residential and commercial users along the Fraser River are desperate and have great hope that the ministry will administer these water lot leases in a much more stable, business-friendly manner. I'm hoping the minister can confirm that that will be the case.

[1355]

Hon. S. Thomson: I thank the member opposite for the question. As she knows, this is a process that's underway. The administration of them transfers over to us, effective December 31. This is a transitional process that we're working through. The staff has been in discussion with the leaseholders.

In terms of the transition to the province, I think our record of client service in the south coast region is very, very good. In fact, the response from the leaseholders has been very positive to this direction, and they're looking forward to our administration of the policy.

In setting the rental rates, the ministry's decision-makers in this will be guided by the pricing provisions in our provincial land use policies. They apply to all Crown land. I think that will provide the consistency. In terms of what those rates will be, that has to be assessed against that, and there'll have to be some real estate appraisal and value work done on that.

But I think the important point is that we will be actively engaged with the leaseholders in that transition. We'll ensure that we have the resources to be able to manage that transition and move those leases over as quickly and efficiently as possible, because the one thing that the leaseholders have told us is that they do want that certainty. Then we can be guided by our policies. We have ranges of length — tenures and things — in those policies. So that will all be discussed.

I think the important point is that we're engaged in the process. We understand the concerns of the leaseholders, and we'll work with them very, very carefully through the process of transition.

V. Huntington: I can only say that I'm deeply grateful to hear this. I know the leaseholders will be too, provided it goes well for them as you work on completing the transition process. They have had a terrible, terrible time in the last few years with the port, and it's time that it got straightened out properly and reasonably. Hopefully, your staff, that are so knowledgable administrating the land of the provincial Crown, will be able to sort this out for them.

If possible, I'd like to be kept up to date on how that's progressing through the ministry. Certainly, I'll know from the commercial and residential leaseholders if it's not going right, I'll tell you right now.

Lastly, Minister, you and your office have been kind enough to chat with me about a particular leaseholder on the agricultural lands in the riding. All of the surrounding lands have now been disposed of by TFN in long-term leases — one 99-year lease for the mall owners; the other, a 20-year lease for the farming community.

So this little two-acre plot is now an enclave, and it's time, I think, that we tried to resolve this issue, hopefully for the benefit of the longtime leaseholder. I would like to ask the minister if I can, again, come to his office and get this rolling again.

Hon. S. Thomson: Easy answer to that one. Yes. Certainly, we've engaged on it before and quite happy to again. The province is working with the Tsawwassen First Nation and Delta to find a mutually beneficial solution, so I think that's where we need to go with that parcel.

Just to let the member opposite know, in terms of…. Back to the leases with the water lots and things. We have a senior team in place between ourselves and MOTI in working through the transition, so we can certainly undertake to keep the member opposite advised as that process happens. We've provided information to all the leaseholders about our policies and our approach, so there's a very active process of engagement as we work the transition.

V. Huntington: Just very briefly, I want to make sure the minister and his staff understand that I'm not talking about this parcel — the wedge parcel at Brunswick Point. I'm talking about the two-acre parcel that is an enclave in the Tsawwassen lands. I'd like to make sure that we're distinguishing the two.

I recognize you're working with TFN and the municipality on the wedge, which I've certainly heard a lot about too. But it's the two-acre enclave that I think we really need to look at now.

[1400]

Hon. S. Thomson: Sorry, my misunderstanding. I'm very aware of the file that you're talking about, and I appreciate the clarification. It doesn't change the answer. The answer is still yes.

B. Routley: Can the minister please explain to us why some major water users in the province — for example, the pulp and paper industry and Nestlé corporation — are not required to meter their actual water usage? Will the new Water Sustainability Act require all users to meter their water, including groundwater usage?

Hon. S. Thomson: As the member knows, the new legislation, the Water Sustainability Act, was tabled this morning, something that has been — as we indicated this morning and at lunchtime, in the release — a long time coming, but it is here.

That legislation will require larger users…. More measurement will be required. As you may know, the Ministry of Environment also released principles this morning around pricing, and there will be a process of engagement and discussion around pricing in the month ahead. I think, in terms of those specifics, more specifics than that are probably most appropriately canvassed with the Ministry of Environment, as the sustainability act is their legislation.

B. Routley: Yes, I join with the minister in acknowledging that it's a good day indeed to be moving forward
[ Page 2115 ]
with a new water act. Of course, the devil is in the details, and we have yet to have the time to go through that in detail. I'm sure we will have the opportunity to go through that process.

I've got a few other questions. We'll see if the answer is the same. If it is, then maybe all of these get referred somewhere else, but let's try this.

In the 2013 estimates debate last July the minister told us that the oil and gas industry pays for the maximum water volume usage allowed by its licences. When asked what the water rents from oil and gas for hydraulic fracking were for 2012-2013, the minister committed to follow up with an answer in writing, which he did on August 12, 2013. The minister wrote: "Water rents from the oil and gas sector for hydraulic fracturing are as follows: $12,174.59 in 2012 and a forecast of $18,839.84 in 2013."

[1405]

Given that $12,000 is equivalent to about the amount paid for water usage of about 12 residents of greater Victoria, the annual water rents from the oil and gas sector paid for hydraulic fracking, a high water use activity, seem preposterously low. It appears water rents might even be more lenient for the oil and gas sector under the new Water Sustainability Act.

Would the minister please explain why the ministry will be giving fee exemptions for hydraulic fracking if non-potable water is used? Would the minister provide the actual and forecast water rents from the oil and gas sector for hydraulic fracking in 2013 and 2014 respectively?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to advise, we can undertake to provide the information for 2013-14 in comparison to the numbers we provided previously. But what's most important to recognize here is to look at all of this in context. You need to take into account the total costs in those areas. Things like well application fees contribute over $15 million in revenue. So it needs to all be taken into context.

[1410]

I think the more important point to recognize is the new legislation — the indication of pricing principles that have been released today, the discussion that will happen, the engagement that will happen over the next period of time to look at the pricing mechanisms and things as a result of the new legislation. Again, principles will be established by MOE. This is probably an area that's more appropriately canvassed, as I said earlier, with the Ministry of Environment.

B. Routley: Critics of the Water Sustainability Act have also focused on the inadequate fee. One of the quotes in the media was: "So two million one-litre bottles will sell for a buck each. They'll bring in two million bucks, and the taxpayer will get 85 cents…"

The Chair: Member, the correct location for debate on legislation is during second reading and Committee of the Whole.

B. Routley: Okay. Well, this is about water fee structures.

"…so there may be some pricing issues there."

Will the minister commit to review what appears to be a fee structure that is out of line with the government's obligation to exert the financial interests of the Crown and the public interest?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, this item is more appropriately canvassed with the Ministry of Environment. They have the responsibility for the legislation. The Minister of Environment has provided pricing principles today and has indicated that pricing will be part of the ongoing engagement — again, following up on a very effective engagement process that brought the legislation forward today — and with extensive stakeholder engagement and support for the legislation, including a broad range of stakeholder groups and organizations, from environmental organizations to industry, all supporting the principles and concepts of the legislation.

As the member opposite indicated, there is still lots of work to do in terms of the regulation — but again, more appropriately canvassed with the Ministry of Environment and the plans going forward with respect to pricing.

B. Routley: Okay, we'll move away from the fee ones. I've got a couple of local questions. You can either take these questions on notice…. Maybe I'll just ask all four of them for the record, and then if there are some that you can answer quickly, that would be great. If not, we can take them on the record and get it in writing at a later date.

My question is: is the minister aware of the potential groundwater contamination from the South Island Aggregates project — the contaminated soil into the Shawnigan Lake watershed region?

Point No. 2: is the minister satisfied with the answers given to the groundwater protection officer? Thirdly, is the minister moving away from the concept of community watershed management? And lastly, will the minister or his representatives be participating in the Environmental Appeal Board hearings about the permit of contaminated soil in the Shawnigan watershed?

[1415]

Hon. S. Thomson: Certainly, we'll take the questions and respond to them, but I think it's important to point out that the authorization for the project represented is MOE authorization. Again, this is an area that would be more appropriately canvassed with MOE.

On the one area around the community watershed
[ Page 2116 ]
management planning, again, under the forest and range practices this is an area that we work on. If you look into the Water Sustainability Act, you'll see that the legislation supports that — provides focus and supports a network. Again, given that MOE is the lead on the legislation, all of these questions are probably most appropriately canvassed there. But we'll undertake, between ourselves and MOE, to provide a response.

N. Macdonald: We're just going to jump back to apportionment, and in particular, we'll focus on some of the mountain pine beetle areas and also related to some of the things we've talked about before.

We've asserted that there is a potential overestimation of AACs. If you combine that with the government's stated desire to roll over replaceable forest licences into TFLs, they seem that they are, of course, both related to the issue of apportionment in the AAC and those TSAs worst affected by the mountain pine beetle epidemic. Here, for the minister's and staff's reference, I'm referring to two documents posted on the ministry's website, a page dealing with the apportionment of AACs.

The first is entitled "A chief forester memo," and the second is policy guidance. You'll find it on the forestry government website under "Timber tenures, apportionment." It seems to me, after reading those documents, that there are other reasons, in addition to the genesis of the TFL rollover documented in the leaked cabinet document I referred to yesterday, that explain why the government is so keen to roll over forest licences into TFLs.

These are potentially some of the reasons: first, potentially to avoid paying compensation to companies if the AAC in any given TSA drops below the total volume under the replaceable licences; secondly, to get rid of accruing NSR and other land base liabilities in the government's books by flipping the public forest over to a series of major companies.

The second reason, of course, explains why you have different companies approaching this in different ways. Certainly, Canfor and Tolko seem less enthused and seem to be balking at the idea. Then on the other side you have West Fraser and Dunkley and others that are more interested in the idea.

Third, to off-load onto forest corporations the known biotic and abiotic risks of climate change to forest health, especially insect and disease, which the government has kept to itself and seems to have been withheld from industry.

The chief forester's memo to which I've referred details three major issues facing government as the ministry resets the AACs in the mountain pine beetle area over the next number of years.

[1420]

First Nations, the newer licensees, Pinnacle Pellet and some smaller independent operations are all operating on non-renewable licences — NRFLs — mostly as a result of the uplifted AAC that we've had there for a number of years.

These NRFLs will be wound down and extinguished, and there's no new room to issue new licences. So how will the government replace the existing forest range agreements or forest range opportunities? How will the government entice, attract and provide timber volume to new entrants? How is the government going to supply logs to companies like Pioneer Log Homes or Pinnacle Pellet or C&C Wood Products in the future? Those are all things that the government is going to have to figure out.

You have, as well, B.C. Timber Sales impacted as the AAC comes down, as that entity has less legal right to the timber than the replaceable licensees. If B.C. Timber Sales' proportional cut drops below 20 percent in any TSA, then the market pricing system fails, which is concern for the softwood lumber agreement.

Third, you have, according to the two documents on the apportionment website, where the long-term sustainable AAC drops below the total volume committed in the replaceable licences. Then the government is in serious trouble. When that happens, the government will likely have to compensate the major licensees for its failure to honour the full volume unless, of course, they change the law, which is hinted at in the memo.

To just illustrate the third point with two examples, the first is from 100 Mile House. The long-term AAC for 100 Mile House TSA is expected to be set within five years. It's between 600,000 to one million, recognizing that the government-set AAC is always higher than the actual commercial harvest, because the AAC doesn't take into account the actual economics of getting the timber to the mill.

The replaceable licensees have over 800,000 cubic metres promised, and the minister obviously can do the math. It begs the question: where will the smaller companies like Pioneer Log Homes, Interfor and Ainsworth get the log supply?

As well, in Quesnel, Canfor will shut down this month and has already stopped logging and trucking logs. However, West Fraser told the chamber of commerce last week that it's already struggling to find wood to feed all of its operations. So you have the huge sawmill, of course, the plywood plant, the MDF plant and two pulp mills, despite acquiring the Canfor licences. They've already reported that in the media.

So the long-term cut in the Quesnel TSA is expected to be about one million cubic metres. Again, the replaceable licences exceed this. You've got Pacific BioEnergy with pellets, as the minister knows, and C&C Wood Products. They're all going to lose their fibre supply within the decade. The minister's staff will be aware of that and can easily crunch the numbers for a whole host of other TSAs worst affected by the beetle epidemic.

A series of questions, then, on those scenarios. Have there been any court cases or threats of legal action
[ Page 2117 ]
against B.C. Timber Sales for encroaching on the operating areas of the replaceable licensees in those areas?

[1425]

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

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

A couple of comments. First of all, in response to the specific question, no; not aware of any actions against BCTS. In fact, it's my understanding there would be no basis for that.

I just want to go back to the member opposite's preamble, or opening comments, on all of this. I just want to clarify and make it clear. We've had the debate previously in talking about the public consultation process upcoming around area-based management, the engagement process that we plan on undertaking there. Just to be clear, first of all, this is not TFL rollover provisions, as he's asserted. This is not about avoiding NSR obligations. It's not about trying to off-load forest health. It's not about avoiding compensation.

The process that we're undertaking is to look at how principles around area-based management, how increasing the diversity of area-based management, can be a tool that can help mitigate the mid-term timber supply, as recommended by the mid-term timber supply committee as one of the tools in the toolbox in looking at this. That'll be the process of the public consultation.

The assertions that the member has made are not correct. The issues around the mid-term timber supply adjustments, AAC adjustments and apportionment are, as the member opposite pointed out, going to require a lot of work, going to be challenging and complex. That's why we're engaged in the process. That's why we're looking at all options around mitigation of impacts.

Again to go back, this is not about the assertions that the member opposite made in terms of the rationale behind looking at that. It's simply incorrect.

[1430]

N. Macdonald: If it is not TFL rollover, then it's substantially different than what we saw in the spring and different than what the Premier has been talking about. If that's the case and it is going to be consistent with what the committee recommended, that would be different indeed. We'll see, when the time comes, what is presented.

Let's just go to the Lakes TSA. Would the minister tell the House how the ministry found wood for the new First Nations community forest area-based tenures in the Lakes TSA? Did it come from B.C. Timber Sales apportioned to AAC?

Hon. S. Thomson: In terms of the volume for this initiative, a portion of it was Bill 28 volume, and that was a volume that was previously compensated for. A portion was from B.C. Timber Sales. Prior to that decision the B.C. Timber Sales volume in the area was about 26 percent. In order to find the mechanism in order to put the package together that helped move forward with that decision, a portion was used. BCTS still maintains over 20 percent in that TSA, which meets the requirements.

N. Macdonald: Thank you, Minister. In the preamble we cited a few of the TSAs where we're going to have AAC come below a level where it can possibly provide cut for the replaceable forest licence. The question is around compensation.

How much does the ministry estimate it will have to compensate companies where the total AAC in a TSA drops below the cut under replaceable forest licences, and when does the ministry estimate compensation could possibly start? Has the ministry budgeted for compensation in the estimates before the House? Has the ministry done a risk management scenario in the affected TSAs?

[1435]

Hon. S. Thomson: As the member opposite will know, the process is that when the AAC is reduced, proportional reductions would be applied. The assumption or the assertion by the member opposite that that process is compensable is not correct. It is erroneous. If there are reductions in the AAC as a result of fibre supply reductions, it is not compensable. Each TSA would be considered…. In terms of the apportionment, these will be ministerial decisions. Each area will be considered on its own merits. But the assertion — that as a result of this, there is compensation liability — is incorrect.

N. Macdonald: Well, I didn't know that. That's good to know. Let's move on, then.

The minister committed to review the Canfor–West Fraser licence flip. I guess the question is: what is the status of the minister's review? Is it the minister's feeling that this kind of realignment of licences is something that's beneficial and that he intends to see continue, and is there going to be any public consultation on this or other licence swaps?

[1440]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to advise the members opposite — you're probably aware, but just to make sure — the transaction is currently under review by both our ministry and the federal Competition Bureau. So it's premature and even inappropriate for me to comment on the specifics at this time.

That review process is actively underway. The Competition Bureau bases its interest on feedback received from suppliers, contractors, competitors in the relevant markets. It has the legislated authority or legis-
[ Page 2118 ]
lated power to seek a variety of remedies under the Competition Act if it is found that there has been an undue impact on competition.

Again, that process is underway. Both our ministry and the Competition Bureau share information, work together on this in terms of ensuring a consistent response. It would be premature to speculate on the outcome of that review and, depending on the outcome, also premature to speculate on what recommendations may come out of that, depending on their analysis.

N. Macdonald: The pellet industry and the pulp industry rely on residuals. As sawmills close in the pine beetle–affected areas, those residuals are obviously going to disappear. I'm told the situation is so bad that the kind of logs being chipped for pulp in the Prince George area are in some cases better than the ones Tolko and others are using as sawlogs in the Quesnel area and elsewhere.

I guess the question for the minister is: can he tell the committee if he is planning to grant the pellet industry access to the bush for no fee, with transportation subsidy, which we've heard? The second part: is the minister monitoring the quality of logs being chipped in the Prince George area?

[1445]

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you for the question. We have been actively meeting with the pellet industry, with a number of the companies, both individually and collectively. We are working and looking at exploring a number of innovative solutions to provide access for them to standing timber, to piles and other opportunities. We're looking at the facilitation of the business-to-business relationships that they've talked about. We've got some pilot work done with respect to the silviculture rehabilitation, a program that can look at providing some fibre for them.

Again, recognize the challenge. We are working directly with them and looking at ways that can provide the access. We know we have to work through and find it in a way that's economic for them but also ensures that the public value is provided in it. We're going to continue to look at approaches around some of these innovative solutions. We know there's a lot of standing fibre available in the aftermath of pine beetle. We need to find the framework or the approach that will provide them access to that.

Again, an area that we're working actively with the Pellet Association on. We've put a ministry lead in place to work directly with them on it.

N. Macdonald: We're still waiting for the Williams Lake TSA reapportionment. That's my understanding. I guess the question for the minister is: if compensation isn't an issue, why is there a delay in that reapportionment in the Williams Lake TSA?

[1450]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, because I think the member opposite may be jumping the gun here a little bit in terms of…. What's underway currently in Williams Lake is a new TSR. A TSR is underway. The public discussion paper is out for that process. Coming from that process determines the new AAC for that area, and then the apportionment decisions would follow that.

There hasn't been any delay in an apportionment decision because there isn't one to make yet until the new AAC is determined, and that process is underway with a public consultation paper that is being launched by the chief forester.

N. Macdonald: We'll switch gears, then, and we'll come to something that was raised in question period earlier today, which are the zebra and quagga mussels. Of course, as the minister knows, if they were to be widespread in B.C., government staff have estimated costs for B.C.'s 15 hydro power stations alone to be $15 million for the initial retrofitting of pipes, with $1 million per year in additional maintenance costs for each subsequent year.

This example demonstrates the importance of preventing these aquatic invasive species from becoming established in B.C.'s freshwater systems. But this is just one industrial example.

Invasive mussels pose a significant threat, of course, to B.C.'s freshwater ecosystem and will directly impact our salmon fishery; hydro generation, as we've already said; agriculture irrigation; potable surface water sources; and recreational opportunities.

While only the size of a thumbnail, as the minister knows, when they're fully mature, the rapid reproduction rates and ability to attach to any surface increases the maintenance cost of any item within water, including boats, engines, docks, buoys, pipes, pumps, dam structures and so on. The shells quickly add up along beaches, making them impassable without footwear.

Now, the B.C. Inter-Ministry Invasive Species Working Group conservatively estimates that damage from zebra and quagga mussels to recreational boating, water supplies and hydro facilities infrastructure — again, being conservative — could amount to $21.7 million. This estimate did not factor in losses to property values, recreational seaside tourism or direct fisheries impact. The Okanagan Basin Water Board has estimated the total impact to be in excess of $42 million.

As for B.C.'s iconic salmon populations and associated industries, the impact, of course, of the mussel infestation would be devastating. But zebra and quagga mussels are not yet established in British Columbia or in the provinces, as the minister knows, of Alberta or Saskatchewan as of yet, nor are they established to our south, in the states of Washington, Idaho, Montana or Oregon.

In 2009, under the 100th Meridian Initiative, the prov-
[ Page 2119 ]
ince of B.C. signed as a partner in the Columbia Basin rapid response plan, a collaborative, multi-jurisdictional and transboundary response to the invasive threat of zebra and quagga mussels. The initiative is intended to provide for early detection, rapid response and notification among the signatories to the plan.

What is, I think, inexplicable is that B.C. has so far failed, as far as I can see, to establish, staff and fund a provincial aquatic invasive species program to prevent the introduction of the zebra and quagga mussels and to support the work of partners in the Columba Basin rapid response plan. It's made worse by the fact that our eastern border really is an open pathway for the unintentional introduction on boats and watercraft imported from or visiting from mussel-infected waters.

[1455]

Recognizing that one of the 29 budget priorities from the select standing committee report in November 2012 was to "develop a strategy to deal with invasive species, specifically saltwater and freshwater species," would the minister tell the House specifically what new funding and permanent and seasonal staff are allocated to the estimates before the House to establish a new program to support critical aquatic invasive species control and prevention?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, thank you for the question. This is an important area. Just to advise, I think as the member opposite knows, the provincial government took steps in 2012 to amend the Controlled Alien Species Regulation under the Wildlife Act to include zebra and quagga mussels, and also another mussel called the Conrad's false mussel, which is an aquatic invasive species, in order to prohibit the release of these species into B.C. waters.

Those regulations include, in addition to release, measures to prohibit shipping and transport, breeding and possession of these mussels under the regulation. Requirements for decontamination for boats or water equipment were also introduced under the regulations. As you know, these mussels are mostly likely to enter B.C. from out-of-province or from a U.S. state or from the south.

The focus has been on prevention and education. We've trained the conservation officers, natural resource officers and fisheries officers. B.C. park rangers have been trained on the amended regulation. Canada Border Services Agency staff training is also underway. Public education materials to aid in the identification are being distributed.

[1500]

The program that provides the education awareness, the "Clean, drain, dry" program operated by the Invasive Species Council of B.C. in partnership with the Freshwater Fisheries Society and the B.C. Wildlife Federation; stewardship groups; regional committees working with boaters, working with all local governments in terms of education, because prevention and education is the key, to us.

As the member pointed out, they have not been established in neighbouring provinces or neighbouring states. There is an early detection response plan that's currently being drafted that will be complete in spring 2014.

We're taking a number of initiatives to ensure both awareness and education — early detection system in place and training of conservation officers, the natural resource officers, the wide range of our people in the field on this in terms of the risk and the oversight or the awareness with working with the boating community and the recreational community.

N. Macdonald: We're going to move to another topic. Of course, on the ground…. Living in Golden I see what crosses the border, and nothing, in practical terms, is being checked. The volume coming out of Alberta — that's not established there yet. As it starts to establish in Manitoba, if they haven't caught it, then…. We know how this moves, and if we don't have something rigorous, then the problems are extreme, as the minister knows.

I know that the ministry is starting to turn its mind to it, but to suggest that you have people on the ground who are monitoring this or who are going to be able to do that work is simply not the case. I mean, conservation officers gone from Revelstoke — you've got one. Who are the people doing this? What are you actually stopping at the border? It's not happening.

It's something, clearly, that government has to get its mind around, and there is compelling reason for that to happen.

I want to jump to an issue that's broad. I'll use as an example one particular area, and it's an area that the minister will be aware of. The issue is road density and biodiversity, and the area that we'll focus on will be the Kettle-Granby grizzly bear in the Arrow-Boundary forest district. The government has been on record that grizzly bears are a priority for the government. We know that nine populations of grizzly bear have been designated as threatened in the province.

The government in 2010 designated approximately 5,500 square kilometres in the Arrow-Boundary forest district as a wildlife habitat area for the threatened Kettle-Granby grizzly. At the same time, the government approved general wildlife measures that were necessary to protect and conserve grizzly bear in a government-approved regulation, 8-373.

Appendix 2 of GAR order 8-373 states: "Road density is considered to pose a risk to grizzly bears, primarily through decreased habitat suitability but also because of the increased potential for direct and indirect mortality associated with roads."

The working group drafting recommendations for the GAR order acknowledged that road density levels were
[ Page 2120 ]
already too high in the wildlife habitat area 8-373 in 2010, and furthermore the legal requirements necessary for road deactivation were inadequate to reduce road density to acceptable levels.

Appendix 2 states: "As such, a review of existing legal requirements associated with road closures is necessary and supported by both government agencies and major forest tenure holders in the area affected by the order." This was August of 2010.

Can the minister tell the House if the review of legal requirements associated with road closures in this wildlife habitat area has been undertaken by this ministry? If so, what steps have been taken by the ministry to ensure that road density levels are brought within acceptable levels?

[1505]

Hon. S. Thomson: In this area the Kootenay-Boundary land use plan allows for timber development in this area, in this drainage. The forest professionals that have developed the plan have considered road density, considered all the grizzly GAR order requirements in moving forward with the plans. As the member opposite knows, grizzly bear hunting…. This is a closed area for hunting.

I think another important point is what we're being advised and what indications are — that populations in this unit appear to be increasing in a positive response to the GAR orders and the measures that are in place in those areas.

[1510]

Now, that's only to say that that's anecdotal. That's what people are advising — seeing bears in areas where they haven't seen them before and those sorts of things. But it will need an inventory to determine whether the population remains as threatened as initially indicated in 1995 or so.

But again, the land use plan allows for timber development in that area, and forest professionals have worked and considered all the road density issues, GAR requirements, in moving forward with the plans.

G. Holman: Just on the invasive species issues, specifically about the mussel but also more generally about invasive species…. I served on the Finance Committee. One of my colleagues is here, from the other side of the House. We were approached repeatedly throughout the province, wondering about provincial funding for invasive species in general.

My question is: is funding for invasive species in general…? How does it compare to the last year or two, specifically for the mussel which you discussed with my colleague previously?

[1515]

Hon. S. Thomson: For '14-15 with the invasive plant program, our intentions are to provide operational support to the program consistent with last year's funding of around $700,000.

Just to be clear, this funding comes from the land-based investment program strategy. We haven't made all the final decisions yet with respect to all of the allocation from the land-based investment funds. We have to look at the priorities and things like that. But our intention is to work towards providing similar operational levels as we've had previously. In '13-14 we were able to provide somewhere over $1 million in terms of grants to invasive plant organizations and local governments. We're working to see if we can continue do that, as well, similar to last year.

I think the shorter answer to all of this is that we hope to be able to provide a consistent level of funding in 2014, as we have in 2013.

N. Macdonald: Let's just come back to the question that I asked, and I don't think the minister specifically answered. My understanding…. It speaks to the rigour of the rules that are in place, right? The ministry talks about world-class rules for grizzly and other species that are at risk, but my understanding is that a GAR order is legally binding. Specifically, the question to the minister was: given that the GAR order speaks to density as being an issue, what specifically has been done to deal with that density issue?

As I say, we're talking about a specific area. We can broaden it to the rigour of these GAR orders in general, which are supposed to be legally binding. Specifically, what has been done to deal with the density issue that I raised in the previous question?

Hon. S. Thomson: The member is correct. It is a legally constraining order. In terms of the specifics in the area with respect to road density, we'll take that question on notice, or on advisement, and provide a formal response to it. In terms of the very specific information, I don't have that directly available. In terms of how the road density issues were addressed within that order, we can provide a specific response.

[1520]

N. Macdonald: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate this. I know that you're doing this to help me out and to allow me to get through a series of questions. I know, very often, these answers do come eventually, and I know that the minister has been very good about always getting the information he's promised to me.

What I'll do is I'll just go through, maybe, a couple of questions that deal with the specific, understanding that while we're talking about a specific area, we're also testing the rigour of these GAR orders, not only grizzly but other species that are at risk. That's the point of the question.

The next question that I'll put to the minister…. Again, if he wants to get back in writing with a response, that would be fine. Supplementary to what I just asked, then,
[ Page 2121 ]
if we continue to refer to appendix 2 of the GAR order 8-373, one will see that the working group states that "as long as meaningful measures are not in place to deal with the road access density issues, grizzly bear will be at significant risk."

Can the minister please tell, in writing, what "meaningful measures" have been put in place since 2010 to reduce the risk posed to grizzlies due to road access, road density, in wildlife habitat area 8-373? We'll put that as a question that the minister can get back on later.

In 2012, as a follow-up, a grizzly bear population status report posted on the Ministry of Environment's website states: "Roads are known to have a negative impact on grizzly bear habitat use when they reach a density of about 0.6 kilometres of road per square kilometre. This effect gets stronger when road density increases over one kilometre per square kilometre."

The working group responsible for the drafting of GAR order 8-373 recognized the danger posed to grizzly bears by the level of road density existing in wildlife habitat area 8-373 in 2010 and recommended road density be reduced to 0.6 kilometres per square kilometre, each landscape subunit, by 2027. They also recommended specific target levels to be achieved by 2013.

In 2005 the ministry engaged a consultant to review the road density levels by landscape subunit. I guess the next question I would ask the minister to get back to me on is if he could tell me if the ministry has conducted any more recent analysis to determine the actual level of road density in 2013, and whether or not the targets identified by the working group have been achieved. That would be the next question.

With the forbearance of the minister, I'll just move on to the next thing. As the minister knows — because, of course, in corresponding with us, he's corresponded with the ministry…. The Friends and Residents of North Fork, the minister will know, is a grass-roots conservation group located, I believe, in Grand Forks. They commissioned an independent analysis of the road density in wildlife habitat area 8-373.

That work compared the 2013 levels to the targets identified by the working group. The results of the analysis…. I think if the minister has read the documents, which I think were passed on to him…. I certainly have a copy, if the minister would like to see it.

Certainly, the analysis that was done revealed that the road density has increased since 2005 in every one of the landscape subunits in the wildlife habitat area. The road density, furthermore, in every single one of the landscape subunits exceeds the target road density recommended by the working group.

I guess the next question would be: will the minister commit to undertake a rigorous analysis of road density wildlife habitat area 8-373 immediately? And will the minister further commit to instructing his ministry officials to begin deactivating roads to bring the road density down to acceptable levels, if that's what is required with the GAR order?

I guess, at this time, if the minister doesn't have a copy of the report entitled Save the Threatened Kettle-Granby Grizzly Bear, it's something, as I say, I can provide the minister if he has not been provided with that.

[1525]

I think what you'll see in the report is it provides a lot of evidence about the amount and density of roads in the wildlife area.

If the language is around grizzlies being a priority, and this is an example of what is going on, on the ground, I think the point that we're attempting to make with these questions is that this is an area that, again, needs improvement.

With that, we'll just broaden the questions on road deactivation. I thank you for getting back to me with those answers, and I'll turn it over to my colleague from Cowichan Valley.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, because there were a number of additional questions and assertions there, we'll include and address all of that in the response that we've already committed to provide, and we do have a copy of the report he's referenced.

B. Routley: Given the great increases that we've seen in the number of roads, transmission lines and linear corridors that will be inevitably accompanying the LNG development, as well as the exponential increase in forestry roads over the last decade, what measures or programs has the government put in place to rehabilitate the serious impacts these roads will have on wildlife and to deactivate roads?

[1530]

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. S. Thomson: As the members opposite will know, projects — just to use an example, the northwest transmission line — have an access management plan. Those plans are designed not to create any more access roads or impact than is required. That's part of the EAO process, part of their permitting processes. Other major projects will have similar processes. There's a significant commitment to continue to reduce those impacts. Each of those access plans also will describe which access or which roads need deactivation. The permit holders are responsible for maintenance of the road until they deactivate or are otherwise relieved by government.

B. Routley: In the 2013 estimates debate last July when asked about the status of the natural resource road act and what might be its future, the minister responded in writing: "Policy review and development for the natural resource road act project continues. It is anticipated that
[ Page 2122 ]
a bill will be ready for the introduction in the spring of 2014."

Could the minister tell the House if the bill will be introduced during this session of the Legislature, and if not, what is the holdup?

The Chair: Members, I just wanted to make a point. The Clerk has announced that, according to the Parliamentary Practice, "Only the administrative action of a department is open to debate. The necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply, nor the conduct of certain…" etc. You can't talk about the actual necessity for the legislation, and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed, only the action of the department — during the Committee of Supply.

[1535]

N. Macdonald: We'll just reword it. We're waiting. It's an issue. You can relate it however you want to money. It's just: where is it? When are we going to see rules in place that deal with the situation that the minister is responsible for?

Hon. S. Thomson: I'll provide a short comment on this and try to respect the direction of the Clerk on this.

Just to advise, this continues to be a very important area of work within the ministry and with our resources and staff engagement. There continues to be broad engagement with stakeholders, First Nations. A senior advisory team from all the major stakeholder groups, including mining, oil and gas, forestry, utilities, tourism, recreation, local government and First Nations, continues to engage in what is a complex set of policy.

We are undertaking the work to make sure that we get it right. It continues to be a priority area of work within the ministry, and we'll continue to engage with all of those stakeholders to make sure that we have a robust policy framework in the process.

In the interim, we have amended the Occupiers Liability Act to assist in this area. I also reference the fact of what we did, in terms of dealing particularly with back-country recreation and things, with the introduction in this session of the legislation with the off-road vehicle registration and legislation. So we're taking important steps, but again, the ongoing work and policy development work continues.

N. Macdonald: Thank you, Minister. We'll just go to some expense questions then. The minister can perhaps get this information.

The actual net operating expense budget for fiscal year 2013-14 was forecast at $561 million and revised in the 2014 estimates before the House to $622 million. I guess the question is: from where did the extra $61 million come, and on what was it spent?

I'll just give you a series of questions that are related, and maybe that will speed up the procedure. Just to follow on to that, is the comparable budget estimate for this fiscal year $591 million? That's my understanding. Is the net reduction in this year's expense budget therefore $31 million? Then the fourth part of the question, I guess, would be: why are the estimates before us showing a net reduction of $31 million when during the 2013 estimates debate last year the minister committed to restoring fully the $40 million cut to the expense budget?

[1540-1545]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to make sure that we're comparing the correct numbers to the numbers here. So the $561 million and then the $622 million, which was the operations. That includes the operational costs plus an additional $61 million, which in the previous year was the additional direct fire response. In that allocation it's the amount for direct fire, whatever we spend over that, and in the last fiscal year that's roughly $122 million. So that $61 million comes back into the operational side of it. That brings the total to the $622 million.

For comparison purposes, for the current year at $591 million — that doesn't bring that number in. The $591 million compared to the $561 million is showing that the $30 million has been fully restored in the operation budget for the ministry.

N. Macdonald: Okay. That wasn't clear to me. I thought there was a gap there.

With resource stewardship, then, would the minister confirm that the 2014-15 operating expense for resource stewardship was $94.8 million? And would the minister please also confirm that this represents a $27.8 million increase over the $66.9 million allocated for 2013-14?

I apologize if we're covering the same ground. I'm trying to figure out these numbers. Why is that increase $2.2 million less? I guess that's the part that you've stated — that you've hit the $30 million mark. Maybe you can walk that through.

As I look at the numbers, I have this as $2.2 million less after the minister had committed to the $30 million. As I understand with the last answer, he said the $30 million is there, but I see it missing $2.2 million. Maybe the minister and staff could explain that discrepancy or make it clearer for me.

[1550]

Hon. S. Thomson: My apologies. I want to make sure that I've got this correct, and it may be something that I want to provide in terms of a follow-up summary table, because sometimes it may get a little lost in the explanation.

Just so that the differences that add up to that difference…. First of all, in the plan an increase in the land-based investment funding of $30 million in '14-15. We've
[ Page 2123 ]
also had added to the plan an increase in the ministry support for LNG activities, so increased capacity within the ministry for permitting authorization capacity support of $3.3 million; a reduction within the process in the inventory program — $1.35 million, which was an increase. It was $4.45 million last year. This reduces to $3.1 million specifically in that program. That's in plan and on an ongoing basis.

Then also a savings in terms of efficiencies in operations of $2 million in B.C. Timber Sales, and that's the difference between revenue and costs within B.C. Timber Sales operation. All of that — the puts and takes — add up to that $27 million addition to the budget that the member referenced but with the note that the land-based investment program has been fully restored with $30 million.

N. Macdonald: I think this next question will be a combination of questions, and it might be better suited to, again, a letter that would give the information.

Again we're talking about operating expenses, including the land-based investment funding for each of the branches within the resource stewardship division. So if you could break it down for me, with resource practices branch; the tree improvement branch; the forest analysis and inventory branch; resource management objectives branch; water management branch; water stewardship branch; fish, wildlife and habitat branch. If you could provide that in writing, that would be great.

[1555]

As well, in a follow-up answer to a question I posed last July during the 2013 estimates debate, the minister told the House that land-based investment funding was $77 million in 2012-2013. Again, I apologize for going over things, but I'm not sure that I understood this.

He told the House that land-based investment funding was $77 million in 2012-13, $42 million in 2013-14 — which is a decrease of 44 percent or $35 million. I guess the question is: what is the land-based funding for 2014-15?

Hon. S. Thomson: To confirm, the land-based investment funding for the current fiscal plan this year is $63.84 million. That's up from $42.3 million in '13-14. Budget 2013 had committed $34 million in the LBIS. But we were able during the year to increase funding in LBIS to $42.35 million, using some additional revenue. Current funding for the current year is $63.84 million in the LBIS.

[1600]

N. Macdonald: To go back to a familiar topic and a discussion we've had quite a number of times, in recommendation No. 8 of its 2007 commissioned paper entitled Assessment of the Status of Forest Inventories of British Columbia, the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals warned about the relationship between inventory and timber volume forecasting using models. "The program to maintain and measure a system of repeatedly measured ground plots — permanent sample plots — must be continued and augmented as part of the forest inventory program to support the development of forecast models and to monitor stand dynamics."

In 2012 in its Assessment of the State of Forest Inventories in British Columbia, which was an update of the 2006 review, the association identified the level of funding for forest inventory at that time. It was $8 million a year, and they noted that that was of concern and that the budget fell well short of the long-term average that they felt was needed at the time. The amount they used was $15 million a year.

Again, the professional association of foresters singled out permanent sample plots that drive growth-model forecasting as a concern. "Permanent sample plots have not been remeasured for the last two years, which has an impact on the currency of data sets and our ability to examine the effects of climate change."

The point is that levels of funding insufficient to carry out the foundational work of an inventory result in uncertainty and loss of confidence not only in the currency and reliability of the inventory but in the critical part it plays in the AAC process of determining harvest levels.

With the likelihood — or the possibility, at least — of mid- and long-term AACs being overestimated and that the overestimation is made worse by model forecasting that doesn't properly account for actual mortality on managed stands, I would submit that the government is actually making a deliberate choice not to do this work properly when it doesn't sufficiently fund inventory and forest health monitoring. And in doing that, it potentially is sabotaging the forest economy and undermining the confidence and the trust that people need to have in the ministry as the forest agent responsible for sustainable stewardship of public forests by all those that invest and work in the forest sector.

The question that I would have to the minister, again, is: how is he able to say that the public should have confidence in management when continuously over the last number of years the shortcomings that are inevitable with the funding levels that we have for inventory are pointed out and are points of contention? I mean, how can the minister stand and say that the ministry is able to do the work when it's clear that one of the foundational areas for investment is an area that's been repeatedly neglected by government?

[1605]

Hon. S. Thomson: Firstly, I have to comment that I simply don't agree with the member opposite, with his assertion that we're working to create this theme or trying to create an impression here that we're working to overestimate the AAC. That's simply not the case, and it
[ Page 2124 ]
certainly wouldn't be in our interests to do so. The chief forester, as you know, establishes the AAC. That's an independent role, an arm's-length, independent decision-making process.

The member opposite also asserted, which is incorrect, that we're not undertaking measures with respect to permanent sample plots. That's not correct either. In the past year 85 permanent sample plots were re-measured, and over 50 permanent sample plots have received a reconnaissance visit, so that work is being done.

The ministry is continuing to improve on work on the forest inventory — expenditures of $80 million planned over the next ten years, guided by a forest inventory strategic plan in 2013-14 and '14-15. We've signed 32 permanent staff, allocated $8 million in operating to forest inventory monitoring, a stand modelling program. Areas are being prioritized. Programs are continuing the use of innovative and cost-effective tools — satellite imagery and those tools — to enable completion of remaining inventory areas.

[1610]

It's an area that we take very, very seriously. We've had this discussion and debate previously here about what the appropriate level is. The members opposite will point to a number, saying: "Just because you've spent this in the past, you should be spending this now."

We have committed to a long-term program with a sustainable level of funding in the program that we feel is appropriate and adequate to undertake the work, particularly using the new innovative approaches and cost-effective tools, and we'll continue to focus efforts on inventory of high-priority areas.

N. Macdonald: So the inadequacy of $8 million a year, and then the minister talks about a ten-year plan at $80 million. It's pretty simple math. That's essentially what the…. It wasn't me. It was forest professionals who said that it was an inadequate amount. We've had this debate before.

When the minister talks about new technology, there is new technology. I know that it's being used in Alberta. Often when we dig into where this new technology is here, it's simply not there. The fact is that we have vast, vast parts of the province, as much as 74 percent, that has data that's far too old, 30 years old. What professionals say is that it's inadequate. We don't have to reargue that.

Let's turn to another question. It's based in Mackenzie, and it's the Mackenzie Fibre licence. It's five years, 800,000-cubic-metre-a-year licence to cut. It was created by former Minister Pat Bell. The licence to cut has no forest stewardship plan and no silviculture obligations.

At the time, the former minister justified the licence on the grounds of undercut and no-bid sales, which I've been told is inaccurate. Nevertheless, it's what was said. If the government can issue, at will, licences to cut without reforestation and planning obligations, then it seems that we've moved into a whole new era of mismanagement of the public forest.

Would the minister tell us how much money in the estimates before us is dedicated to reforestation and silviculture activities related to the five-year licence to cut of 800,000 cubic metres a year under the Mackenzie Fibre licence?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to advise the member, I don't have the specific number or details with that. We'll undertake to provide a response directly to the question.

N. Macdonald: Just to add to that, while we're getting that answer — I mean, clearly, reforestation.… It may be the law in B.C., but it seems to be at the discretion of the minister. I know it wasn't this minister who allowed it, but nevertheless, there are outstanding silviculture obligations.

[1615]

While the minister is answering specifically on this licence to cut, could he also find out: what are the outstanding silvicultural obligations, in hectares, for all of the licences to cut? How much money in the estimates before the House is earmarked to deal with the NSR associated with licences to cut?

Of course, the minister knows that the Forests for Tomorrow money is dedicated to NSR associated with mountain pine beetle, wildfire disturbances in other…. But it's not associated with this, so there has to be specific money to deal with the licence to cut that I talked about with the Mackenzie Fibre licence and, presumably, for all of the obligations with licences to cut. If the minister could also provide me with that information, please.

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, we'll provide that information.

What's important to recognize is that there is a levy or an expenditure collected. It is accrued as a liability. When the money is spent on that, it is expensed against that liability. It won't show up directly in the estimates, but we'll provide the accounting for the member opposite.

B. Routley: Given the extremely high priority, importance and profile that this government has put on the development of LNG, how much new money in the estimates before us has government allocated to inventory, research and habitat assessment of the wildlife and fish that will be impacted by LNG development in order to ensure that these resources are adequately identified and protected?

[1620]

Hon. S. Thomson: As the member opposite would know…. I can advise him that the proponents are responsible for the studies in terms of their applications and moving their projects forward for the fish and wildlife studies, for their project submission that comes out
[ Page 2125 ]
of the environmental assessment process. Additionally, the ministry received $3.3 million additional in '14-15 in this fiscal plan. That funding will be used to support staff with an effective and efficient environmental assessment process for facilities and also to develop and support the stewardship framework that links the environmental concerns with First Nations.

N. Macdonald: Just quickly…. I'm not sure if I was confused by the answer to the previous question. Specifically, Mackenzie, that licence…. Was a levy applied to that specific licence, or is it the general practice across the board? Specifically, was a levy applied to that licence?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to advise, it's general practice. As I indicated, we'll provide the details.

B. Routley: My understanding is that the ministry, together with the Ministry of Environment, regulates the private power industry in a fashion similar to the way that they do the forest industry under most of the same laws.

The inability of the ministry to monitor private power diversion projects for the impacts to fish and fish habitat is well documented. The internal communications between the ministry's own staff obtained through freedom of information describe the lack of capacity and resources to adequately monitor the dozens of existing and newly privately owned river diversion projects in B.C.'s fish-bearing waterways. A recent study by the California Energy Commission found that B.C.'s hydro power did not meet California's strict environmental criteria for renewable energy, resulting in the loss of a major opportunity to mitigate the billions of dollars that this government's energy policies are costing B.C. ratepayers. The recent study supported in part by Clean Energy B.C., the private power industry's lobby group, found massive shortcomings in this government's oversight of the private power industry.

My question is: will the ministry commit to restoring funding to the ministry's field monitoring operations so British Columbians can regain confidence in this government's ability to safeguard our rivers, streams and fish?

[1625]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the member opposite referenced the Pacific Salmon Foundation work, I think, which was very important work. He made the assertion that it was by the Clean Energy group. It's true that they commissioned the report.

But I think what is very, very important to recognize is the process that they went through and the fact that they stepped out to make sure that the report and the process was rigorous, that it was scientific and that it was undertaken by a very reputable organization — the Pacific Salmon Foundation.

It released its review and found the operational impacts of IPPs on salmonoids to be inconclusive. That doesn't mean that more work needs to be done. But in response, resources from our compliance and enforcement branch are being used to increase compliance on the IPP sector. A regional office in the south coast region, a major-projects office, has a number of initiatives underway.

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

The references to the earlier operational issues and compliance issues are, in many respects, historical — many of those, administrative. This has been a process that both the government and the Clean Energy Association take very seriously in terms of increasing levels of compliance. We're continuing to work with them to do it.

The major-projects office is working collaboratively with the industry associations to develop key templates and guidance documents that will support the implementation of effective monitoring programs.

[1630]

B. Routley: Given the province is now facing the rapid development of LNG on top of the continued oil and gas expansion as well as several major pipeline proposals — all in addition to forestry, subdivision, tourism and other resource impacts — will the government reinstate the land and resource management planning that was popular and effective in the 1990s to deal with these cumulative impacts and which has been stagnant since the B.C. Liberals came to power? And has the ministry implemented its cumulative effects assessment framework to support natural resource decision-making? If not, what is the delay?

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Members, a division has obviously been called in the chamber, so we'll recess until after that's concluded.

The committee recessed from 4:31 p.m. to 4:43 p.m.

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

C. Trevena: I wrote to the minister a number of weeks ago about a 24-hour protest by the Kwakiutl First Nations outside Port Hardy about Island Timberlands logging on their lands. The logging, as I explained in the letter to the minister, impacts the First Nations territory. Harvesting is being done on the private lands that Western was allowed to pull from the TFL in 2006.

I wondered whether the minister would be willing to meet with the elected chief, council and elders to try to find a way out of the impasse.
[ Page 2126 ]

[1645]

Hon. S. Thomson: I certainly appreciate the letter that we received from the member opposite. It's important to comment here that it's my understanding that this process is currently before the courts, and I think it would be inappropriate for me to meet with them while it's before the courts.

We obviously would hope that it could be resolved without those court processes, but since it's before the courts, it would be inappropriate for me to meet with them at this time.

N. Macdonald: We'll just jump to species at risk for a second. British Columbia and Alberta are the only two provinces in Canada, as the minister knows, without endangered species legislation. In 2010 the province announced a Species-at-Risk Task Force, and it was chaired by Dr. Bruce Fraser. It resulted in a report to the provincial government, which was put forward January 2011. That's, as the minister knows, over three years ago.

There were ten recommended guiding principles, eight recommended measurable outcomes and 17 recommended strategies and actions dealing with approach, legislation, management, First Nations involvement and public engagement. I'll just give the minister a series of questions on that.

Can the minister inform us how many of those recommended guiding principles, measurable outcomes, strategies and actions have been adopted and implemented, or was the report simply shelved? Secondly, have there been legislative changes as a result of the report? Finally, given the extensive staffing and funding cuts that have occurred in the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations under the government, how many new staff and new dollars were allocated to implement these extensive recommendations?

[1650]

Hon. S. Thomson: Firstly, maybe to just confirm…. There was the question on land use planning cumulative effects just before the recess, and I don't think I responded to that. Would the member opposite be satisfied with a written response to those two questions? We can undertake to provide that.

With respect to the species at risk, as you know, the report of the B.C. task force on species at risk was released for public comment in July. The response to that task force report, Protecting Vulnerable Species: A Draft Five-Year Plan for Species at Risk in British Columbia, was developed.

That plan brings together numerous activities that the province undertakes for species at risk into a coherent program that establishes provincial leadership on this high-profile issue. It helps respond to the February 2013 Auditor General's report on biodiversity conservation. Public input on the draft five-year plan demonstrates strong opinions — sometimes consistent, sometimes diverse — about the management of the species at risk in B.C. A final version of the plan, with minor revisions, will be brought forward this spring.

Also, just to note that the responsibility for the plan is with the Ministry of Environment, so questions are probably more appropriately canvassed in the estimates for the Ministry of Environment, although I've provided the current status of the five-year species-at-risk plan.

N. Macdonald: The next issue is around waste, and just two questions on that issue. Prolific waste is, as the minister knows, an indicator of poor regulation made possible by giveaway stumpage rates, waste levies and unsustainable forest management.

The amount of fibre and good timber left in piles on logging sites to be burned is really a scandal of national and international proportions. I didn't think the people I knew that were contractors back in the '90s that came to see me on issues would be people that would be coming to see me on waste issues and just talking about what they've seen happening in the bush.

Over three million cubic metres of perfectly good sawlogs are wasted by logging companies and burned every year. It might be a great deal more than that, given a recent study that found the government's waste procedures could be underestimating by half or more that volume.

Ironically, of course, ministry staff attested, during the hearings of the Special Committee on Timber Supply, that we face a shortfall of timber supply in the Interior, as the minister knows.

Would the minister tell this committee what his ministry is doing to reduce that wastefulness, improve estimating procedures of that waste and ensure a thrifty use of our forests to keep jobs in rural British Columbia?

[1655]

Hon. S. Thomson: I think what's important to point out is, as the members opposite know, we've gone through one of the worst financial crises in the history of the industry — a weak economy and demand for products. It has resulted in higher levels of low-value timber being left in the bush. It's directly related to our timber utilization. It's directly related to market conditions and economics. As the market conditions improve, it's expected that those improved economics will result in fuller recovery of the lower-value fibre.

We have implemented a number of legislative and policy changes to encourage fuller utilization. We've established fibre recovery tenures, two types of tenures: a forestry licence to cut and a fibre supply licence to cut that allows access to road and landing fibre.

Work is scheduled to be completed in late spring on the supplemental forest licence, which provides a short-
[ Page 2127 ]
term supply of timber to a mill owner. We're working on the regulations and the policy to support that new licence, to establish chip and hog fuel product rates to better reflect values and facilitate a more efficient recovery of the low-value fibre. We're implementing cruise-based billing in dead pine stands in the Interior and low-valley stands on the coast. This has reduced costs and encouraged fuller utilization of the lower-value fibre to up the economic margin.

It's an area that we recognize and that we're continuing to work on, with those initiatives. In combination with those initiatives and improving market conditions, we hope and expect that a fuller utilization will occur and less waste will be left.

N. Macdonald: With the Timber Supply Committee, in areas that are now facing log shortages or will shortly face those shortages, of course, we have heard that an incredibly high percentage of good sawlogs were left as waste. Market conditions aside, clearly, for a long period of time waste has been an issue.

In June 2007 Ben Parfitt authored a report entitled Wood Waste and Log Exports on the B.C. Coast. With respect to waste, Mr. Parfitt made three policy recommendations.

The first was to impose utilization standards that required companies to bring the trees that they do log into communities for processing. Such standards must, however, ensure that sufficient amounts of woody debris would be left on the ground and return nutrients to the ground.

Second, it would require forest companies to make minimum levels of investment in new or existing milling facilities in exchange for continued access to publicly owned timber. This recommendation, of course, doesn't fit completely with the fact that appurtenancy is gone. Nevertheless, that was one of the recommendations.

Then the third would be that companies should be required to process the hemlock trees that they log or face reductions in the logging quotas, so that our forests aren't being overcut and our most prevalent coastal tree species wasted.

[1700]

This was 2007. There was already an issue around waste, and here are some recommendations. The question would be: what consideration did the ministry give to these recommendations, and would the minister provide reasons for not adopting each of these recommendations? Again, if the minister would like to just undertake to answer in writing, that would be fine as well.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to make a few comments and acknowledge that the issue of waste is controversial. It's about finding the balance between, obviously, full utilization and what is left on the forest floor for coarse woody debris — finding that balance.

A number of the elements, in terms of the recommendations that the member asked about, have significant trade and SLA implications with respect to those. So I think those will be some brief comments, but we will undertake to provide a more formal or full response to the questions.

What's also very important to recognize is that in terms of the waste assessments provided, the public does receive the payment on the basis of the waste assessments in terms of the take-or-pay approach. But it is all about finding that appropriate balance.

[1705]

We do acknowledge that waste levels increased during the very, very significant downturn in the industry. Economics and improving market conditions should see that trend change.

Also, we're not solely counting on the market to respond to this. We are looking at, as I pointed out earlier, the new licensing opportunities. We're working to continue on the supplemental forest licences, because we agree and know that we need to make sure we get maximum utilization and maximum value from the fibre supply that is there.

B. Routley: Turning to focus on pest management. Would the minister please tell the House what the actual budgets are for pest management — a.k.a. forest health — broken down by monitoring and treatment, for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14? And what are the target budgets for this fiscal year, 2014-15, and for 2015-16 — again, broken down by monitoring and treatment?

Hon. S. Thomson: For '14-15 the province is planning to spend approximately…. Again, as I referenced earlier, the final plans with respect to the land base investment are being finalized. I think it's targeting to spend approximately $6 million in '14-15 on forest health programs.

[1710]

Key investments include — again, these numbers will be approximate — $3.7 million to treat high-value stands for western spruce budworm in the 100 Mile region, central Cariboo-Chilcotin, Thompson rivers and Cascade districts, including the purchase of biological insecticide for the 2015 treatment program; approximately $1 million for a provincial aerial overview survey to monitor and report pest incidents and impacts, supporting program delivery; approximately $1 million to protect mature stands from mountain pine beetle, spruce bark beetle and Douglas fir bark beetle; some funding for continued work with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to prevent the establishment of gypsy moth — overall, about $1 million in monitoring activities and $5 million, approximately, for treatments.

This '14-15 budget is $2.5 million higher than in '13-14.

B. Routley: Thank you for that answer. For fiscal year
[ Page 2128 ]
2012-2013, the ministry had a pest management budget of $7.5 million. The recommendation provided by experts during the Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities dialogue identified that an annual budget of $10 million would be required to provide adequate monitoring and treatment.

In the wisdom of the ministry, the budget was not increased but reduced to $3 million for the fiscal year 2013-14. The promise was that the reduced funding would be made up in fiscal year 2014-15.

Could the minister please confirm that the $3 million has indeed been restored to the pest management budget in the estimates before us? I guess you gave us a partial answer to that question, but if you could confirm that.

Hon. S. Thomson: As I provided in my earlier answer, we've provided — I need to comment that this is, again, a planning process as we determine the balance of all the priorities in the land-based investment program — $2.5 million additional funding in the program in '14-15. I think it's also important to comment that as we move into the season, we can modify that as needs may develop.

But it's also important, I think, to look at the trends in the major forest health agents: Douglas fir beetle, 2012 conditions, 21,000 hectares and 2013 conditions, 10,000 hectares, so declining, but there are some regional hotspots; spruce beetle, 43,000 hectares, down to 18,000 hectares in 2013 — declining; western spruce budworm, 456,000 hectares, down to 128,000 hectares — declining, partially due to the 70,000 hectares treated in 2013; Douglas fir tussock moth, 2,000 hectares in 2012 and zero in 2013, with the population collapsed.

[1715]

The investments being made in pest management are clearly providing the results — again, with an additional significant $2½ million into the program in this year. As I said, for planning purposes, that's currently where it stands. As we move into the season, we modify as needed.

N. Simons: My question has to do with wildlife rehabilitation. In January rehab facilities were told that schedule C creatures would no longer be accepted at their wildlife rehab centres. Those species include non-native species, which include the grey and fox squirrels, North American opossum, eastern cottontail, European rabbit and a few other birds.

I think this has concerned a lot of the rehab facility operators, because this list is not exhaustive and regional managers can add animals to that. They have already, in some areas, added the beaver and the marmot.

It seems to me that what this regulation or what this change in policy is going to do is to result in people bringing animals to rehab centres and being told that they're not allowed to accept them and that if they accept them, they have to be euthanized.

The concern is that the person who finds a distressed animal is going to try and perhaps rehabilitate them themselves if they think the option is only to bring it in to be euthanized. If that were to take place, there are risks associated for the people who are looking after the animals, which may perhaps carry disease, or alternatively, the animals will not be properly cared for by untrained people.

I'm wondering if the minister is aware of that and if the minister is still in discussion on how the impact of this change could be mitigated somehow.

Hon. S. Thomson: I appreciate the member raising the question. It's a good question, and it's a tricky policy area, I think, as he probably knows.

The schedule…. These are primarily classified as invasive species, so there's the working in terms of the risks. We have to be cognizant of the risks to the environment and the potential for that with invasive species. We've seen examples where that has had potential significant negative impact.

[1720]

We're also very cognizant of the concerns that the member raised in terms of individuals and those risks and things. What I'm advised is that is nothing is final. The discussions are continuing. The branch and the staff are working with the rehabilitators to try to find that sweet spot in the policy area with respect to this.

I think it's a good question, and hopefully I can provide the comfort that nothing is final on this. We recognize the concerns, and we are working with the rehabilitators on this. We can undertake to keep the member advised of the progress of those discussions. I think he raised some legitimate points for consideration, and we're certainly aware of them.

N. Simons: I' d like to thank the minister for that. I think that might be some reassurance to the rehabilitators, not to mention the opossums and beavers and the like. I think that the minister's response will probably will go a long way to satisfy the operators that nothing is final, and I imagine they can continue operating as they have been in the past. Or is the letter of January sort of…? Do they risk their permit if, in fact, they don't euthanize or if they accept some of these critters from the public?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to advise the member, no, we're not taking hard action in terms of pulling permits. We're continuing to work with the rehabilitators and the stakeholders. We have had concerns expressed to us by the SPCA, which we're responding to. Discussions continue.

You know, letter…. There is, from one respect, the sort of legal aspect of it, and the schedule. We recognize the concerns, so I think I can assure the member that we're not taking a hard, aggressive approach to it. We're continuing to work trying to address both the concerns and the balance, on the other side, of making sure that we
[ Page 2129 ]
protect the environment and that we don't put at risk the potential negative impacts of invasive species being released and creating challenges and problems.

Hopefully, that provides comfort at this point.

N. Macdonald: Both the 2004 Filmon report and the 2012…. This is a very high-level wildfire question, so I don't think you need specialized staff, necessarily. In both that Filmon report and the 2012 bioeconomy report, there were recommendations that government find solutions to the wildland-urban interface fire problems through the development of the bioenergy sector.

In response to the suggestion, the Union of B.C. Municipalities recently approved a resolution advocating the development of community forest management zones for wildfire hazard reduction. Communities were advocating, as the minister knows, for the solution, because they have, of course, firsthand experience with the problem and with existing government-sponsored solutions. They have identified a series of policy impediments standing in the way of an economical resolution.

[1725]

I think the minister knows that the average interface treatment is costing the province and local government about $9,600 per hectare. The pace of treatment has stalled, and while we've been fortunate in recent years, wildfire threat has increased.

With this in mind, is the minister prepared to consider the merits of this resolution and entertain a series of policy changes in order to more quickly and aggressively address this issue?

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm certainly aware of the UBCM recommendations or suggestions around this.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

I think it's important to note that we've worked in some areas in moving forward with this kind of idea, particularly in relation to community forest arrangements with First Nations licences. We've amended the wildfire regulation to extend the time for abatement to allow the liability to be transferred to somebody else who can utilize it in terms of a bioenergy or a pellet facility, which would help to be able to access that; extended the time frames to be able to provide those provisions; focused on the business-to-business relationships.

[1730]

It is a complex process. I guess that's the fairest thing to say in terms of this. To create these zones means dealing with other tenures that may be in place around that.

I think there are elements of the suggestion that we've worked on, and we are certainly prepared to continue to consider the solutions and how we might use some of these steps that we've taken and continue to move forward incrementally on those options, because we do recognize the importance of addressing that interface zone around communities.

N. Macdonald: Well, it's been ten years, of course, and the minister will know better than most about where the Filmon report came from. We've been fortunate with wildfires, and we hope to be fortunate in the future. But we do know that the fuel is building up, and at some point we're going to again have a catastrophic season, as we have a couple of times over the past ten years.

We have about 4 percent of the work that was identified as needing to be done in terms of interface fuel management. Clearly, the approach that was taken is an approach that really isn't going to get there. I recognize that the costs are simply too much for any government to bear.

There are ideas out there, including this one, about how we would deal with it. Again, as with so many areas, decisions to significantly cut such an important ministry have left, I think, challenges around capacity to move forward. It's ten years since Filmon, and really ideas, even good ideas…. There seems to be a challenge moving them forward.

I'll come to another issue. It's a fairly specific issue. At $2 per hectare total cost, including aerial photos, etc., the $3 million a year for ten years that the ministry has budgeted to do phase 1 VRI surveys will only buy 1.5 million hectares of inventory per year, or about 150 maps.

I think you could ask the question: how long will it take to inventory the 7,000 maps in the province? The answer is 47 years. I guess the question, then: does that sound like an adequately funded ten-year strategic goal for a province that boasts one of the highest-valued forest resources in the world?

[1735]

Hon. S. Thomson: As I commented previously, we have a ten-year strategic plan, $8 million per year — $80 million towards inventory. The plan was released. When we released it, and contrary to the comments of the member opposite, the plan was fully supported by the association of professional foresters.

Close to half of the province is inventoried to the VRI standard. There are different intensities of inventory. Not all of the 7,000 maps require updating. What's important is the long-term commitment to the strategic plan, the secure funding over that time period and the focus on ensuring that the highest priority areas are addressed in the inventory through that plan.

B. Routley: I would like to turn to a few questions on reforestation. First of all, reforestation is arguably the most important public indicator of how well the ministry is performing. It's seen as a critical factor in managing the forests of British Columbia. In 2004-2005 the ministry restored 14 percent of the budget, some $12.5 million, with the initiation of the Forests for Tomorrow program.
[ Page 2130 ]

Meanwhile, the ministry essentially stopped its own reforestation of the backlogged NSR and its silviculture activities, such as thinning, pruning and brushing. By 2008-2009 the Forests for Tomorrow program had a budget of $44 million, less than half the reforestation and silviculture budget prior to 2002.

[1740]

Since 2008 the annual budget for the Forests for Tomorrow program has steadily declined, to $34.5 million in 2011-2012. Then it fell or declined radically to $23.5 million in 2013-2014, underscoring this government's continued neglect of the publicly owned forest resources of British Columbia.

Could the minister please tell this House what the actual budget is for the Forests for Tomorrow reforestation program, excluding fertilization, for the fiscal years 2012-13, 2013-14, and what the target budgets are for this fiscal year, 2014-15, and 2015-16.

[1745]

Hon. S. Thomson: The numbers the member opposite was looking for. As he indicated for '13-14, $23.5 million; for '14-15, $30.79 million — $31 million; and for '15-16, $37 million.

We're currently…. In Hansard we provided estimates as to what would be planted. I'm pleased to say that we've exceeded those numbers in terms of seedlings planted — in actuals for 2013, 14.7 million seedlings; 22.7 million in 2013-14; and a projected planting of 25 million seedlings in '14-15.

B. Routley: Thank you to the minister for that answer — the 22.7 million and 24.9 million seedlings. The minister would recall that the government's promise was that 50 million seedlings were going to be planted per year by 2012 when they brought in the Forests for Tomorrow plan. They told the people of B.C. that they would be planting 50 million seedlings, so they fell far short — less than half.

How many hectares did the Forests for Tomorrow plant in fiscal years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, and how many hectares does Forests for Tomorrow plan to plant for 2014-15, 2015-16?

[1750]

Hon. S. Thomson: In terms of specific numbers, '12-13, 12,000 hectares; '13-14, 16,000 hectares; '14-15, 18,000 hectares. I want to reiterate again that we have set targets of 20 million seedlings. We have exceeded those in the years, moving to 28 million seedlings.

It's also important to point out here that that's with respect to the Forests for Tomorrow program. We're also investing $35½ million each year in reforestation through B.C. Timber Sales.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to my colleagues, the critics on this file, for making some time for me to ask an important question for the people of the north and for the central part of the province as well.

This past fall, on October 24, Canfor announced it was closing its sawmill in Quesnel, and 17 minutes later West Fraser issued a news release saying it was closing its sawmill in Houston.

Of note in the news releases were the companies' announcement that they would be swapping their forest tenures in their respective communities. It was reported that Canfor sawmill in Houston would receive West Fraser's annual 324,500-cubic-metre cut, renewable forest licence in the Morice TSA, while West Fraser sawmill in Quesnel would get Canfor's annual 382,194-cubic-metre renewable forest licence in the Quesnel TSA, plus 53,627 cubic metres from the Lakes district TSA.

This swap has been typified as backroom horse trading. I want to remind the minister that timber supply doesn't belong to either one of these companies. It belongs to the people of B.C. I think Troy Reitsma, president of the Houston Chamber of Commerce, put it well when he said: "This is a provincial resource owned by the province. Why is it that these companies that decide to close their doors can just trade that timber like it's playing cards?"

It's not acceptable. The companies conducted no consultation with the provincial government or the public at large. In fact, the deal took place without the knowledge or, apparently, the permission of the minister. As he knows, he was in Beijing at the time.

FLNRO — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations — said that the proposed transaction was not preapproved. One of their spokespeople said: "The ministry found out about the companies' plans when they issued their news releases."

So 434 jobs were lost at these two sawmills slated to close this spring — 225 workers at West Fraser's Houston forest products mill. That's the one I'm more familiar with. It's a next-door neighbour to me. It's especially frustrating, as the Houston sawmill is profitable.

Combining the licences will highly concentrate the cut, and 85 percent of the total annual allowable cut in Morice is now in Canfor hands. The 225 jobs lost in Houston are direct jobs, at least a multiplier of three for jobs in the woods, jobs hauling, support businesses in retail and mechanical areas. Concentrating the cut into one company's hands as decided by the companies on a public resource has impact on direct and indirect jobs.

I think diversity of tenure holders is better. By standing by while the companies traded their tenure and set up monopolies, this government has reduced its choices — choices like the ability to issue non-replaceable forest licences in the Morice to support a wider range of manufacturing, for instance, or the ability to accommodate First Nations rights to timber resources.

My question in regards to these budget estimates is if any consultation took place or is planned by this govern-
[ Page 2131 ]
ment with the Wet'suwet'en Hereditary Chiefs on whose traditional territories the Morice TSA tenures are found, the ones West Fraser swapped to Canfor. Or is this government just standing on the sidelines, which would run contrary to the findings of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Haida case, where it was clearly ruled that consultation is the responsibility of the provincial government and not companies?

Are you or are you not consulting with the Wet'suwet'en Hereditary Chiefs on this tenure swap?

[1755]

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I just want to go over a couple of facts here. First of all, the change in control of the forest tenure is allowed under section 54.5 of the Forest Act. What this does is allow the minister to cancel an agreement if it unduly restricts the standing timber markets, log markets or chip exports.

As we've indicated earlier in the estimates discussion, that competitive review is underway by both our ministry and the federal Competition Bureau. That work has continued. I've been asked around the timing of that previously. We don't know the timing. They're taking their time to make sure that they do their full analysis from the competition perspective.

We have previously taken initiatives in the area to expand tenure opportunities and diversity. We've created the Babine community forest agreement. We recently expanded that. We've provided mandates for a number of First Nations woodland licences. This doesn't go to throw any kind of lightness on the impacts of the business decisions of the companies on those communities. I certainly understand that.

[1800]

I was in Houston recently and met with the mayor, council members and a number of community stakeholders to listen carefully to their concerns. We've had cross-ministry teams in the communities working on mitigation of the impacts in terms of dealing with economic opportunities and others.

But as I indicated to the council and mayor that day, the competition review process needs to continue. It's premature for me to speculate on what the outcome of that process may be, so we await their report and analysis. We'll take steps, depending on the results of that work.

In terms of the specific consultation, a tenure transfer of this type does not require consultations, so we're not directly consulting with Wet'suwet'en on this particular transfer. What we are waiting are the competition reviews.

G. Holman: Thanks to the critics for allowing me some time to raise a couple of questions with the minister, which I've talked to you off line about but wanted to get it on the public record.

One of them is derelict vessels, which, as you know, has been a longstanding issue and concern, particularly with local governments and community residents, who don't really see a clear process for dealing with derelict vessels. I know the minister is aware of that.

I understand that the minister does want to convene another meeting of stakeholders that he met at UBCM regarding the issue but first wanted to meet with his federal counterpart to discuss changes in the legislation — which, I think, are coming down from the feds — and to try to get some clarification around jurisdiction.

Could you make some comments on that, about your plans to do that? I have a couple of other questions as well.

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, thank you to the member opposite for the question. As he indicated, we've had some discussions on this.

This is a complex issue because it really involves different levels of authorities. The basic authority is at the federal level. The province has, in the past, exercised some ability to deal with this through the Land Act or the Trespass Act — and, occasionally, the environmental protection act, where there is a direct environmental risk.

But our experience has shown that exercising even our provincial authority, as limited as it is, requires a cooperative effort with federal agencies.

As the member indicated, we are looking to engage directly with the federal minister on this. I indicated that that's in the works — to be able to do that. I wanted to have that opportunity before I came back and met with the stakeholder working group.

[1805]

We met with a fairly broad group at UBCM and committed that we would be prepared to do that again.

The federal government is proposing to establish or working towards establishing a working group on this. That's the topic of the conversation I want to have with the federal minister. We have worked on providing guidance documents, which are scheduled for distribution in April 2014, to clarify the roles and responsibilities so that people understand where their respective roles are and who has the mandate to address the problem vessels, the floating structures.

Often it depends on what the definition is and whether it's floating or sunk, whether it's tied up or where it is. It's a really complex issue. We will commit to meet with the stakeholder group again, and I think we need to refocus initiatives on some potential approaches to addressing this issue.

One thing is sorting out the responsibilities — who deals with it and where the respective authorities lie. The other challenge is that it always comes down to, even once you start that out, who has the resources to take the actions required. I think that collectively, we need to continue to work on this.

So two steps: discussions with the federal minister,
[ Page 2132 ]
re-engaging with the stakeholders, establishment of the working group and a focused effort to move this file forward.

G. Holman: Thanks, Mr. Minister, for the response. It is complicated. I do understand that.

Is there any sense of timing about your meeting with your federal counterparts and then the meeting with stakeholders, the establishment of the working group? That's the question.

Just a couple of comments. There is a working group now, as I understand it, a federal-provincial working group which developed the guidelines paper you mentioned. But as I understand it, it really doesn't have the mandate or the authority to make recommendations to resolve the jurisdictional issues, the funding issues, the resourcing issues.

Hopefully, a helpful comment is that if you do continue that working group or re-establish it, you give it a mandate to make specific recommendations for moving forward. As I understand it, right now the working group doesn't have that mandate. It simply had the mandate to put out these guidelines for how the current system works — which isn't very well at all.

We've also talked about the Washington State model. Could you make a comment on that? They do have a way of funding the derelict vessel issue with a fee on new boat sales, for example. If you could make a comment about whether that kind of thing might be appealing.

Just finally, in terms of the timing — because this has dragged on for so long: are you committed, within this term or within the next year or two, to try to get a resolution to the issue?

N. Macdonald: I think they want us to wrap up in about two minutes. Is it okay to just answer in writing? Is that possible?

Hon. S. Thomson: Sure. We're looking to wrap up, I think, so we'll commit to respond directly to the member opposite in terms of his questions. I think we are talking about two different working groups, just to make that quick comment.

On timing, I've asked staff to set up the discussion with the federal minister, and then we'll engage with the working group. I think "within this term" might be good timing. It is a very complex issue, but I recognize the concerns that are being expressed out there and the challenges with the complexity of it. We're committed to work on it, and we will respond in writing, formally.

B. Routley: In one of these sessions it wouldn't do to not talk a little bit about log exports. On the mid-term timber supply group that toured the interior of British Columbia, we heard about log exports. In fact, they did find their way into the final report as one of the areas that should be looked at. I've got a few questions, and I'll just lay them down and leave them with you because of the time.

[1810]

My questions are: what is the volume of pine and spruce log exports from the pine beetle region in British Columbia for 2012-2013? What's the volume of wood that was actually exported from that region?

Question 2 is: what portion of the pine or spruce logs that were exported was sold or transported by shipping container, if you happen to know that? We heard anecdotally about logs being shipped by shipping container.

And question 3 is: what is the end goal this government has in allowing more raw log exports to be exported? We're aware that the minister has signed off on the TEAC committee's traditional role and allowed logs to be exported without the committee having any say in the outcome.

So what is the government's goal in allowing more raw log exports? And is there any long-term plan to back up whatever policy they have, which could illustrate how well this is going to work out for the province of British Columbia?

I understand there are more than 80 mills in what used to be fishing villages along the coast of China. Again, I'd be very fascinated to read your response to question 3.

Question 4 is: how does the forest industry fit into the current B.C. jobs plan?

Hon. S. Thomson: I think the question was to provide a written response. We'll undertake to do that.

J. Rice: So we're doing written responses?

A Voice: Yeah.

J. Rice: I have just two questions relevant to my constituents. The first one is in regards to Clapp Basin on Haida Gwaii.

A boat launch was established at Clapp Basin, as it's the only sheltered location with appropriate shoreline gradient in Rennell Sound. Many local residents and tourists use the Clapp Basin both for camping and for safe launching of boats, mostly for fishing.

The Crown land striding the road between the Clapp Basin and the Rennell Sound mainland was sold into foreign ownership, raising serious public access issues. An agreement was reached between the Crown and landowners to maintain public road access, but that agreement expires in June of this year.

There's serious concern that the regional staff on Haida Gwaii support the termination of this agreement, which sort of results in the denial of public road access to Clapp Basin. There's evidence to support that this concern….

There is, I guess, a new boat launch underway. Many locals have contacted me, including the marine search
[ Page 2133 ]
and rescue, that the boat launch is not in an appropriate location because it's exposed — so it's only usable in fair weather conditions — and that the gradient is only acceptable to small boats, such as skiffs, and not larger boats.

I'm curious if you could get back to us and explain if there's any sort of resolution that would satisfy the needs of Haida Gwaii residents for their ability to access a sheltered boat launch and maintain access to the only suitable recreation site on the west coast of Haida Gwaii.

Then quickly, if I may, I do have a second question, which is sort of new. It's coming up in my constituency as well as the Skeena constituency. Recently there has been talk about the Exstew River crossing, which is a CN Rail crossing — currently a private entity.

Coast Tsimshian Resources has agreed to maintain the road for that crossing. But that agreement is sort of coming to an end, I think, effectively April 1. So there are residents concerned that they'll lose access to the park, which is a B.C. park, because there will no longer be road access.

[1815]

CN has said it'll be gated as of April 1. I've been asked to ask you if there would be any interest in maintaining the roads so users could access the Exstew River and the recreation site on the other side.

N. Macdonald: Well, we're running out of time. The minister, I know, will undertake to answer those questions. As well, as has become tradition, the questions that we haven't completed we will put in written form and submit those to the ministry.

I know we're very limited by time. I do want to thank the women and men who work for the ministry and do a tremendous job, especially those who have been here the whole time. Well, I've complimented the minister on his forbearance. I think there are others that, equally, one could compliment. I know the minister is taking many of you out for dinner or something. I don't know what you do, but I'm sure there's something that goes on.

I want to thank the minister. I take nothing for granted about how the minister answers these questions. I've been in this House for nine years. I would like to say it's not the exception. It's not quite, but it's certainly a model that I think other ministers would want to emulate — always gracious, even when perhaps provoked, and always answering the questions, which I really appreciate.

With that, I know we have votes to do. I can hear the music starting as I'm doing these thank-yous. My colleague and I thank you again for the opportunity in estimates here.

Hon. S. Thomson: I'll be very, very quick. I'll just, again, thank the members opposite for the process and the questions. We will respond to the written comments.

I've camped in Rennell Sound, so I understand the inclement weather.

Anyway, I hope the process has been useful. I want to extend my thanks to the staff for all their support during the process and thank the member opposite for providing me with his credit card to be able to take them all out for dinner — his generous offer.

Vote 26: ministry operations, $372,345,000 — approved.

Vote 27: direct fire, $63,165,000 — approved.

Vote 54: Forest Practices Board, $3,815,000 — approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, 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