2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, April 13, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 22, Number 8

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

MONDAY, APRIL 13, 2015

The House met at 10:01 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

TREATMENT AS PREVENTION

S. Sullivan: I’m very honoured to be able to speak about an important gentleman in this province named Dr. Julio Montaner. I first came across him when I was a city councillor in Vancouver, and then later as mayor. He was a very important advocate for people who had difficulties, people with drug addictions, people with AIDS.

He became quite an advocate. I wasn’t actually aware, but he was working on important research in the issue of AIDS and HIV. He became the author of an important treatment. Dr. Julio Montaner has been a very public advocate. I remember watching him on Stroumboulopoulos and watching him advocate for the issues that he felt very passionate about.

He was a young doctor in Vancouver a number of years ago when the AIDS crisis first erupted. At that time, there was a lot of hysteria around it, and people with HIV/AIDS could not actually get treatment. There was a difficulty of access to health services. It was actually St. Paul’s Hospital that was the first to open their doors and open their arms to people who were suffering from this new and mysterious disease.

[1005]

He took on the issue and became an advocate and a researcher, and last year he became an officer of the Order of Canada and was recognized for his important work.

Now British Columbia is actually known as a leader in the work of solving the problem of AIDS and HIV, and it’s because of his work and his advocacy that this is the case. B.C. is recognized as the only province that is showing a consistent decline in new HIV diagnoses, and HIV/AIDS-related deaths in B.C. have decreased by more than 95 percent since 1996. Over the same period, new HIV infections per year in B.C. have dropped from 850 in the mid-1990s to 238 in 2012.

Harm reduction programs and services are a key part of our public health approach to problematic substance use and communicable disease prevention and are the core elements of Healthy Minds, Healthy People: A Ten-Year Plan to Address Mental Health and Substance Use in British Columbia.

Beginning April 1, 2013, the Seek and Treat for Optimal Prevention of HIV/AIDS, which is called the STOP HIV/AIDS program, rolled out across the province, thanks to the $19.9 million in annual government funding. This program is based on the B.C. Centre for Excellence’s treatment as prevention strategy, which has been adopted by countries around the world, including France, Spain, Brazil, Argentina and parts of the United States and China.

The program allows the health system and community partners to better reach and engage all British Columbians, including those most vulnerable groups, in HIV prevention, testing, treatment and support.

Our government is committed to reducing the spread of HIV by ensuring that those living with HIV/AIDS have access to the best care and treatment. Each year we spend over $100 million to ensure that HIV medications are free to all people who wish to be on treatment. We know that by increasing community capacity, we can improve patient care and efficiency for our investments.

Now, a little bit about Dr. Montaner, because he really has led the charge to give B.C. this creditable position. He’s the director of the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. He was president of the International AIDS Society from 2008 to 2010. He was chair of the 2009 International AIDS Conference in Cape Town and the 2010 International AIDS Conference in Vienna, so highly regarded around the world.

Since 1996, he holds the first endowed AIDS research chair at the University of British Columbia and is the head of the first academic division of AIDS in Canada. He’s a founding co-director in the Canadian HIV Trials Network and has authored over 600 peer-reviewed scientific publications on HIV/AIDS.

He has worked for more than 30 years in the field of HIV/AIDS care and research, beginning at St. Paul’s Hospital in the 1980s. At that time, he worked to transform pneumocystis pneumonia, PCP, the most frequent cause of death among HIV-infected people, into a treatable and preventable condition. His approach to treating PCP garnered international attention and was published as a new standard of care in the New England Journal of Medicine.

[1010]

In 1996, at the International AIDS Conference in Vancouver, he announced the results of his landmark study of the triple-drug therapy now known as the highly active antiretroviral therapy, HAART. Within a year of that work, AIDS deaths in B.C. decreased by over 80 percent. As an adviser to the World Health Organization and the UN AIDS program, Dr. Montaner was able to advocate for the formal adoption of HAART in international guidelines.

J. Darcy: I’m pleased to join the member for Vancouver–False Creek in speaking about treatment as prevention today and also to pay tribute to Dr. Julio Montaner, who,
[ Page 7068 ]
I think, we can be very proud of as one of the leading pre-eminent medical researchers and medical leaders in British Columbia, if not the world.

It was not so long ago that, if you asked someone what you think when you hear the words HIV/AIDS, the automatic thought would be that it’s a death sentence, that it was an untreatable disease, that it was an unstoppable epidemic. It was at that time.

In fact, 33 million people have died of this disease worldwide since the epidemic began — almost 25,000 in Canada, several thousand of them here in British Columbia. Due to the work of Dr. Julio Montaner and the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS in British Columbia, as a direct result of their work, HIV/AIDS is no longer a death sentence for many people who acquire it.

After the rollout by Dr. Montaner of the highly active antiretroviral therapy known as HAART beginning in British Columbia in 1996, the data in British Columbia and elsewhere showed a marked decrease in new diagnoses. The observations that Dr. Julio Montaner and his colleagues made indicated the huge potential for the approach of treatment as prevention.

The research indicated that maximum coverage using these antiretroviral therapies could lead to the near elimination of HIV/AIDS transmission. Amongst those infected, HAART allowed for the reconstitution of the immune system, preventing the emergence of AIDS-related diseases and premature death. At the prevention level, it markedly reduced the likelihood of HIV transmission.

Beginning in British Columbia, these treatments have been extended around the world. The facts now show that ARV treatment can decrease the risk of transmission by 96 percent, in fact, transforming HIV from a death sentence to a manageable condition.

If everyone who needs treatment gets it, we can, in fact, stop the spread of HIV/AIDS. That’s why Dr. Montaner and his colleagues pressed for and pioneered treatment as prevention here in British Columbia, and that’s why they also pioneered the STOP AIDS program here in British Columbia.

They are now working very aggressively to reach and treat those segments of the population who are still being infected at unacceptably high rates, including a high proportion of aboriginal peoples — still a high proportion in parts of Vancouver Coastal and in Northern Health, but 15.7 percent of the new cases of HIV are, in fact, amongst First Nations people.

We have seen a 60 percent decrease in new HIV diagnoses since 1996. Today in British Columbia an estimated 12,000 people are living with HIV. Roughly 2,500 people don’t know that they have it, so it is absolutely critical to encourage everyone who is sexually active to get tested, to remove the stigma, because treatment as prevention works.

The only question is whether people have access first to that testing and then following through having access to the treatment. Already in British Columbia AIDS-related deaths went down from 261 in 1996 to 44 last year.

[1015]

The United Nations has now set a post-millennium goal, a 90-90-90 goal for 2030 based again on the work pioneered here by Dr. Julio Montaner in the 1990s and following through to this day — the goal being that by 2030, 90 percent of people living with HIV/AIDS should know their status, 90 percent of people infected should be getting sustained treatment, and 90 percent of people receiving treatment should be achieving the goals of suppressing the virus.

As we’ve said already, in British Columbia AIDS-related deaths have gone down significantly. We can, in fact, ensure that there are no deaths in the future from HIV/AIDS. Adopting treatment as prevention, as we have in British Columbia, and extending it worldwide would, in fact, transform what is still an HIV/AIDS pandemic to a sporadic but treatable disease across the world by the year 2030.

S. Sullivan: I thank the member from New Westminster for her comments.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

It demonstrates that this is an issue that has broad support from all spectrums of our political organizations.

I was very pleased that our Premier was in China. And this is an example of the kinds of impacts that Dr. Montaner is having around the world. She signed a memorandum of understanding between B.C. and China that will see Chinese scientists travel to B.C. to learn about our world-class HIV/AIDS treatment policies.

In a Vancouver Sun article, Dr. Montaner said: “Her involvement in the signing of the memorandum in China carries a very strong message to the international community that this is not just a bunch of scientists working in isolation and to have the support of the government to do what is right.”

Just a few other quotes that I’ve found in the newspapers from him. “If every province was doing what B.C. has done, we would have a country that would be celebrating together the same thing” — the near elimination of AIDS cases. And then later he says: “Virtually, AIDS has disappeared, but it really didn’t disappear until the very end, when treatment as prevention became reality.”

Dr. Brad Popovich, chief scientific officer of Genome British Columbia, was quoted in the Sun as saying: “In the early 1990s a person in B.C. was dying every day from complications related to HIV/AIDS. Two decades later the number of deaths has dropped to almost zero. Why? In large part due to the province’s comprehensive HIV treatment as prevention strategy.”
[ Page 7069 ]

Dr. Perry Kendall in Global News said: “I give government credit. Over the years, with the government, the regional health authorities and communities across the province have done what no other province, no other country, has managed to do up to this point in time.”

Now, Dr. Montaner has been clear about B.C.’s leadership and the treatment as prevention strategy, and if adopted nationwide, he claims it could end AIDS in Canada. For example, in contrast to British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario have seen spikes in the spread of HIV. One province saw rates of new HIV cases comparable to those of Nigeria. In response, several provinces have created initiatives and have turned to the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS for answers.

B.C. RESOURCES TO B.C. JOBS

R. Austin: I’d like to take a few minutes this morning to speak about the stewardship of our public resources and the link that that stewardship has with job creation.

I think it’s fair to say that here in British Columbia we’re not only the envy of most other provinces but, indeed, of most jurisdictions around the world. We have a small population and an immense geography. Within our borders is an abundance of natural resources, which if managed well, should provide prosperity for our communities, small and large, including First Nations communities, while protecting our air, land and water.

However, saying this is one thing — and it sounds easy — but it is, of course, one of the biggest challenges of any government. It is surely one of the foremost duties of government as any administration is making decisions that not only affect the here and now but, indeed, that affect future generations.

[1020]

Our ability to pay for all of the social investments while creating long-term, sustainable, family-supporting jobs for British Columbians must be the central goal of any government. They are the steward of these resources, many of which are not renewable but, rather, are finite and offer us only one chance to get it right, so to speak.

To illustrate what I’m talking about, let’s look for a moment at the example of the province right next door to us. Here in British Columbia, as we all know, we have one of the largest deposits of natural gas anywhere in North America. And we are now attempting to exploit that by trying to start a new industry to export this resource in liquefied form. In Alberta, of course, they have had one of the largest — and do indeed have one of the largest — deposits of unconventional oil on the planet.

That province has been exploiting that resource for several decades now. Yet if you look at the debate that is occurring, it appears as though the political party that has governed that same province for 43 years is, indeed, very critical of their own past performance. Compare this with a country like Norway that also had one of the largest deposits of oil on a per-capita basis and how the decisions of that country are in stark contrast to the poor stewardship that we have seen in the province on our doorstep.

You may ask why I am talking about the Alberta experience. I do so because we will one day look back on how we, here in British Columbia, exploit our resource of natural gas and ask ourselves whether we made the most of this finite resource or whether we gave it away without generating the numbers of jobs that we hoped for and have a royalty and tax structure that does not maximize the revenue for British Columbians.

In short, will there ever be a prosperity fund? Or will the revenues be such that they are so small that they get spent on current spending priorities and never end up creating a long-term legacy, as has been the case in Alberta?

I live in a part of the province that was driven for over 50 years by the forestry industry, with all its ups and downs — but at least an industry that, if managed well, should have created long-term, sustainable jobs. Instead, what we have witnessed is very poor management of that renewable resource.

We now see a resource that is shipped, in large measure, in raw form, with very few jobs linked to that resource. Instead, huge quantities of logs are being sent to create jobs in China rather than here in B.C. This is not only morally wrong but sends the wrong message.

There was a time not so long ago where those of us who are fortunate to live in an OECD country would look at this export of raw materials to another jurisdiction to have value added to it, as being — let’s face it — a Third World country. In other words, a country that lacked the capital and intellectual skills to add value themselves.

When you look at our policy of large-scale raw log exports, we have, I’m sorry to say, indeed become that Third World nation. The forestry policy of the last 12 years has been one of a giveaway of a public resource on a massive scale, resulting in thousands of lost jobs.

Now, of course, the members on the other side will always use the argument that some raw log exports are necessary. And of course, we have always had a policy of allowing a portion of raw log exports. But there has been an independent body that has determined when that fibre was surplus to our needs. What we’ve seen in recent years is a political overriding of that independent body so that wood is exported against the advice of this so-called independent body.

As mills have shut down and ones that have restarted still struggle to find fibre, one has to ask oneself why it is that we have a government that puts the interests, in some cases, of private forestry companies ahead of the public interest and making best use of turning this incredible resource of publicly owned forest into jobs for British Columbians.

There was a time when, travelling along Highway 16, one would see community after community built around the forest industry. After a decade and a half of
[ Page 7070 ]
B.C. Liberal management, or mismanagement, we now see vacant lots where there used to be family-supporting jobs. These vast contaminated concrete pads are as barren as the ideology which sees our forests as fuel for another country’s manufacturing industry.

While other provinces and other states ensure local logs create local jobs, we send far too many of our logs and, with them, too many of our jobs overseas. To make my point crystal clear: in B.C. we only get one job for every thousand cubic metres of timber that’s harvested. In Ontario they get three jobs with the same amount of wood.

[1025]

Making matters worse, as the volume of our log exports has risen, the value of those logs has fallen. That means we don’t just get fewer jobs per cubic metre of timber harvested in British Columbia, we get less for our wood as well. The result is shrinking prosperity in small B.C. communities.

Poor government decision-making is not just confined to the forestry industry. In the northeast the community of Tumbler Ridge is still reeling from the closure of the Wolverine and Peace River Coal mines. These mines employed more than 550 people in a town of 4,000.

Mines close. We all know that. That’s a reality. What makes this case different is that a new coal mine is slated to open up nearby, but instead of hiring those out-of-work coal miners, the new mine plans to bring in almost 500 temporary foreign workers with the blessing of the Liberal government.

Here was an opportunity to ensure almost every single laid-off coal miner in Tumbler Ridge had the opportunity to continue living and working in their community. Yet instead of putting our B.C. resources to work, creating prosperity for B.C. families, the Liberals backed the exploitative temporary foreign worker program.

Let’s be clear. New Democrats support immigration, but the temporary foreign worker program is not immigration. It’s exploitation. New Democrats believe that anyone who is good enough to work in Canada is good enough to stay in Canada. But citizenship is denied to most temporary foreign workers.

G. Kyllo: As Parliamentary Secretary for the Jobs Plan, it is indeed my pleasure to speak in response to the private member’s statement introduced by the member for Skeena. This comes at an ideal time because it gives me the opportunity to speak about all of the positive trends that are surrounding job creation in our province.

As announced Friday by Statistics Canada’s monthly Labour Force Survey, B.C. gained 5,700 new jobs last month. The average wage has increased to $25.01 per hour. The trend continues to head in the right direction, with 72,700 net new jobs created since the launch of the B.C. jobs plan in 2011. That puts B.C. third in Canada in job creation over the same period.

The province’s youth unemployment rate dropped 6/10 of a percentage point to 10.8 percent, the third-lowest rate in the country and one-half of B.C.’s historic high of 20.1 percent in June of 1998. Since the launch of the B.C. jobs plan, the youth rate has dropped 5.6 percentage points, which is the largest decrease in the nation.

B.C.’s strong fiscal framework has helped build a triple-A credit rating, maintain low income taxes and keep our small business confidence numbers consistently among the highest in Canada. Our government has a plan to keep B.C.’s economy diverse, strong and growing, and we are sticking to it.

Our focus is on creating an investment- and business-friendly environment that fosters growth. We know that uncertainty in the global economy continues, and we expect to see fluctuations in the month-to-month job numbers. At 5.8 percent, B.C.’s unemployment rate is down 2/10 of a percentage point, and we’re still tracking well below the national average of 6.8 percent.

Since the release of the jobs plan, the unemployment rate has dropped 1.5 percentage points, the largest decrease in the country. Also of note is that the rate is in single digits in every region of our province.

Of those 72,700 new jobs that have been added since the jobs plan was launched, I’m proud to say that most of them have been in the private sector. We have the fourth-lowest unemployment rate in Canada, and B.C. is tracking well below the national unemployment rate. Job growth and unemployment trends are headed in the right direction and indicate that our long-term plan to grow the economy and to create jobs is on track. The Economic Forecast Council agrees with that view and is predicting 2.6 percent real GDP growth for B.C. in 2015.

I’d also like to speak about our strategies for employment and economic development for First Nations. B.C. is a leader in resource-revenue-sharing with First Nations. A key part of the B.C. jobs plan is a commitment to improving opportunities and resources for First Nations to participate in research activity in their traditional territory. We have reached almost 300 agreements with First Nations, both through the treaty process and other agreements, such as revenue-sharing, which can serve as building blocks towards full reconciliation.

Our government established a $50 million trust to support economic development, educational advancement and cultural renewal for First Nations along the B.C. Rail corridor. The aboriginal post-secondary education and training policy framework and action plan aims to help aboriginal people succeed in education and training programs in B.C. Its goals increase the number of credentials awarded to aboriginal learners by 75 percent by 2020-21.

[1030]

Long-term vision and economic stability will support the creation of well-paying, family-supporting jobs for years to come. We’re sticking to our plan by balancing the budget, keeping taxes low and creating a climate that is friendly to business and investment.
[ Page 7071 ]

R. Austin: Thank you to the member for Shuswap for his comments.

I think the biggest success of the B.C. jobs plan has been for the advertising industry. Quite frankly, there are plenty of people in British Columbia who are still struggling hugely since the recession and the financial collapse in 2008. If it were a reality that the B.C. jobs plan had been a success, we’d actually see British Columbians not struggling to put food on the table and to find really family-supporting jobs rather than a whole bunch of part-time jobs. It has not been the success that the government continues to tout.

I want to get back for a minute just to my comments around temporary foreign workers, and that is to say this. When somebody comes here for four years in Canada, if temporary foreign workers have not become permanent residents or have an application in the process, they have to leave. That is a lack of a great resource of people who have come to this country to make a better life. Again, it’s not good management, and it is not linking the huge public resource that we have to job creation.

Let’s speak about a couple of other public resources. I know that later on there’s going to be a discussion here around water. When you see some of the kinds of exports, not of bulk exports but the kinds of exports that are taking place of bottled water — one of the most precious public resources that this province and, indeed, this country has — for absolutely nothing, for cents, not even cents…

It’s a pittance — the kinds of deals that are being allowed by the government to export huge quantities of bottled water. You have to ask yourself again whether the government is looking after the interests of British Columbians or looking after the interests of a private company that is going to profit from this.

Let me talk about another public resource which is very topical, and that is wildlife. I had a debate a couple of weeks ago in estimates when we — myself and the government minister — couldn’t even agree on what is the privatization of a public resource.

There were comments made where the minister stated that, in his view, taking wildlife decisions where B.C. wildlife is allocated to those in the commercial sector was not even seen as a source of privatization. Let’s get this straight. If a B.C. family, one of the resident hunters, goes out and fills his freezer with some wildlife, as opposed to a commercial interest that is charging thousands of dollars for someone to come from another country to make use of that resource…. If that isn’t privatization, I don’t know what is.

It is very baffling when you have a government that doesn’t even understand what it is to actually be the steward of a public resource and wants to give it away. When you have a government that’s doing that, you recognize that there are lots of challenges that we have in this House to continue to make the link of the correct stewardship of our public resources.

SUPPORT FOR LOCAL FARMERS

L. Throness: It’s a pleasure to talk today in favour of supporting our local farmers. I want to do that by talking for a few minutes about our government’s Buy Local program. We can begin with good news on this front. The news is that about 48 percent of the food produced in B.C. is already consumed right here in this province, so we’re already buying local. There are ways that we can improve that.

The issue is really a motherhood-and-apple-pie issue. Who would ever speak against buying fresh, homegrown produce from the farmer next door if you could? Last fall I was in Agassiz. I was visiting a farmer in Agassiz. He stepped into his own stand of corn and broke off a few ears for me, and I can tell you that they were very delicious when I had them for supper later. So Buy Local is a great thing.

Just a few details about our Buy Local program. It’s a key commitment of our government’s agrifood strategy in our jobs plan. Our Buy Local initiative has received about $6 million since 2012, which includes $2 million in the budget just a couple of months ago, to increase sales of locally grown agrifood and seafood right here within B.C. So our government supports buying local.

I do want to suggest, though, a few principles to help guide that policy. I would note that a private member’s bill that the member for Vancouver-Kingsway tabled last year would mandate government institutions to buy local. But the bill doesn’t say at what cost.

Perhaps the bill could have specified that institutions ought to buy local where the cost is equal to or less than the cost of other comparable food. I would have felt better about that because of a simple principle: that taxpayers ought to get the best value for their money. They ought not to be burdened with significant burdens of subsidy that would distort markets.

[1035]

The second principle is related to it. Farmers should also get best value for money. We all know that certain geographic localities have natural advantages in growing things. Maybe a B.C. farmer would like to grow hazelnuts, as they do in my riding, and export them to different places in the world where they can get a premium price for them. I use the example of hazelnuts because they can be grown on Vancouver Island and in the Fraser Valley. That’s about all they can be grown in, in Canada. We have a unique geographic advantage, both for local consumption and for export.

We’re also using that natural advantage when it comes to cherries, apples, blueberries and also locally grown grapes, in the form of wine. We know that the Premier and our Agriculture Minister have travelled overseas and worked very hard to sell B.C. products in India, China and other places.

Certainly, a farmer ought to be able to grow the kind of
[ Page 7072 ]
produce that he or she wants and that will fetch the best price in the local or international market, and should not be subtly coerced into doing other things by a government’s economic policy to sell locally, which might not benefit the local farmer.

I want to point out here that B.C. exported $2.7 billion worth of agrifoods to more than 140 countries last year. That’s a great news story — an 11 percent increase in just one year. We need to export. There’s an old economic adage that says: “We can’t grow our economy by taking in each other’s laundry.” Buying local is great, but it’s great to a point. We also need to export. We need to trade with our neighbours and around the world.

The third simple principle is that consumers also need to get the best value for money. When I say that, I include personal preference and choice of foods as a value. The problem with buying local is that I like to eat pineapples. I like mangos, bananas and oranges and other foods from faraway places. Probably, other members of this House like them too. The problem is that we don’t have the climate to grow these kinds of things in B.C.

Technically, in greenhouses, especially in my riding, we could grow anything. But again, at what cost? I think in terms of greenhouse gases and pollution it would probably create as much pollution to actually heat a greenhouse to the extent required to grow a pineapple as it would to fly a pineapple from Hawaii to here.

My concern is that in their zeal to promote the purchase of local food products, the NDP might have government mandate policies that would penalize or subsidize the choice of taxpayers, farmers or consumers — in which case the applause of this House should taper off dramatically, because these are market-distorting things that would ultimately mean higher costs for taxpayers, fewer choices, higher costs and less enjoyment for consumers, and lower incomes for farmers. I don’t think anybody in this House wants that kind of policy.

This being said, the main thing I want to say today is that in order for any market to function effectively, it needs lots of good information. That’s the main thing that our government is involved in. I think that’s a very legitimate and helpful role. I would point out that over a year ago we proclaimed the first week of December as Buy Local Week for all small businesses in B.C., not just for farms.

Because we would like more B.C. purchases across the board, we’re providing information to consumers and farmers about buying locally and marketing their products. That will help make the market for food in B.C. more efficient, which will increase choices for consumers, increase the income for farmers and ensure that taxpayers get the best deal as well. Rather than making government the agent that makes those choices, we think that everybody should be allowed to make their informed choice in their own interest. That will maximize everyone’s benefit.

I want to close by saying that I was in a supermarket last night in Victoria. I found lovely B.C. potatoes there, and almost only potatoes from B.C. were sold. I think it’s marvellous that a farmer can buy seed and seed potatoes, grow potatoes, fertilize those potatoes, harvest them, wash them, bag them and transport them to the market for less than a dollar a pound. That’s an incredible testament to the savvy of our local producers. It means that we’ll be able to do that around the world if we can do that right here in B.C.

The growth of our exports shows that B.C.’s agricultural produce and the efficiency and savvy of our producers are second to none. We’re going to help them market their products here in B.C., around the world. Our industry is already at $12 billion a year. We want to increase that to $14 billion by 2017, and together, I believe, we can do that.

[1040]

L. Popham: It’s always such a pleasure to get up and follow the member from Chilliwack. From that entire….

L. Throness: Chilliwack-Hope.

L. Popham: Chilliwack-Hope. He corrected me.

From that whole speech, I’m not really sure if we’re on the right topic. I believe the topic was support for farmers, and I heard a lot of negativity and reasons why we shouldn’t really support our local farmers.

Now, yesterday in Saanich we celebrated Vaisakhi. This is a harvest festival, and it’s a celebration of the harvest that farmers are bringing in, in India. It was such a pleasure to be reminded of the importance of agriculture around the world. But we certainly should also be reminded of the importance of agriculture right in Chilliwack-Hope.

Something that the member mentioned was that in the Local Food Act that was presented last session, he was reminded about our policy, our presentation, on institutional buying and his concern at this point that perhaps it’s a good idea, but maybe it costs too much to follow through on.

I think if the member would want to feel reassured on that policy, he could probably just google “institutional buying” from any region in North America and find that that investment in institutional buying is really paying off in many, many regions. In fact, the multiplier effects are enormous. I’d suggest that the member do that because he might feel better about the policies that we’re presenting and understand how important they are.

Now, the member for Chilliwack-Hope mentioned hazelnut growing, but I didn’t really hear any passion around that industry. I think he should have some passion around the industry because currently the hazelnut growers in his riding are in a very critical situation. What they’ve asked for is some replant money from this government. That doesn’t mean they need a handout. It
[ Page 7073 ]
doesn’t mean they’re being subsidized. What they are asking for is some support to help reinvigorate their industry so that we can participate in our international markets.

Hazelnuts are a very sought-after crop, and I can tell you that all they’re asking for — and this might be astounding to the member and to the Minister of Agriculture — is $1.2 million over five years. That’s all the hazelnut industry is asking for in order to reinvigorate their industry. What that comes down to is $240,000 a year. If this government can’t support an industry in crisis for $240,000 a year over five years, then — let’s be clear — they don’t actually support agriculture, and this member does not support local farmers in his riding.

I know that the hazelnut industry is going to be very interested in this discussion. Now, the main problem that the hazelnut industry is having is that they’re suffering from a fungus called eastern filbert blight. This is something that is devastating, but it’s not the end of the world if you take matters very seriously.

There are hundreds of acres that need to be replanted. We actually have had two processors in the province. One will be closing their doors in April because they do not have the supply anymore. Now, when some of these orchards which have been replanted come back on line, they will not have the facility to process their nuts, so we will have to ship those nuts across the border to be processed. That doesn’t sound to me that this is very supportive of an industry that’s not asking for very much.

What is it that these trees also offer? I think the member will be very interested, since he talked about emissions and transporting food in from Hawaii, pineapples and such, that actually hazelnut trees are one of the most effective carbon-sequestering crops that we could be planting in the Fraser Valley. He might want to discuss that with his constituents as well.

It’s such a pleasure to be a champion for the hazelnut growers. I believe that this is a crop that we need to embrace fully. It’s an incredible crop that we can grow here in B.C. The member should be flying the flag for hazelnuts. It’s a protein source. We know that the California almond situation is in crisis. Why don’t we take the opportunity to embrace a nut crop that can be exported? People can buy it locally, and we know that there’s an excellent demand for this product.

[1045]

Now, the hazelnut growers have put out a report. I hope that every member of this House receives one this week, reads it very carefully and can appreciate the opportunity that we will be missing if we don’t take advantage of this very small investment in our local growers.

L. Throness: I appreciate the member’s support for the hazelnut industry, and I share that support. I want the member to know that I met with the new president of the association on Friday, a very young, forward-looking fellow. He told me that people are replanting hazelnuts in the valley in my riding and that the industry has a bright future. The government is very well aware of the issues surrounding that industry.

But to get back to what I was saying before, the best thing we can do for local programs and for buying local is to provide more information to help our local markets work better. I just wanted to mention a few ways in which our government is doing that.

The first is an app. Our government contributed half a million dollars to the B.C. Agriculture Council to develop an app called We Heart Local, and that is connecting B.C. with local food options through their smartphones. They can download this app and get more information about where and how to buy local food. If people wanted to learn more about that, they could go to buylocaleatnatural.com and find out more about that We Heart Local app.

Another way is through farmers markets. There’s a B.C. Association of Farmers Markets in B.C., and British Columbians are voting with their feet. They’re going to farmers markets, and they’re buying more and more local food all the time.

The number of B.C. farmers markets has more than doubled in the past ten years, and they represent now a total of 115 different farmers markets throughout the province. They contributed $170 million in economic benefits in 2012, which is a 146 percent increase from 2006. Farmers markets are another way of getting information out to people.

The final way I want to talk about is a program, Growing Forward, which is a federal-provincial agreement to help agriculture across Canada. Growing Forward has created AGPAL, and that can be found at agpal.ca. It’s a web-based discovery tool to help producers and others in the agriculture and agribusiness sector find both federal and provincial programs that will benefit them and that apply specifically to their business.

There are links to about 70 federal and provincial government programs that offer funding to help B.C. food producers reach new markets and adopt new technologies, develop more sustainable operations, access insurance programs and different things like that. That was launched back in 2012 and has been working to respond to farmers’ requests for one website with trustworthy and consistent information that will help them.

The best reason to buy local is not because government mandates buying local. The best reason is because we have the best products. Local products are the best, and here in B.C. we offer a wide range of exciting and tasty products.

THE VALUE OF WATER

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m here today to speak about the value of water. Well, as we got a hard reminder this weekend, we need to protect that water more than ever. I speak, of course, about English Bay. As we know, there
[ Page 7074 ]
was an oil spill in our community, which has still closed our beaches. You can’t swim in the ocean. You’re not supposed to touch it. You can’t even touch the shoreline, because oil has spread so far across English Bay that beach after beach has had to close because of a completely inadequate response from our federal government, from the Coast Guard and from this province.

They were not prepared, despite talking about world-class standards for years. They did not have their ducks in a row, so to speak, so ended up having ducks get covered in oil this weekend, but not just this weekend — Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and onward.

I hadn’t meant to speak about English Bay and oil spill preparedness. I wanted to talk about the Water Sustainability Act and the absurdly low price that this government has decided to value our water. But as you know, water connects to everything. I thought I’d start with English Bay, as that’s the clear place that we can point to. When you’re not prepared, when you haven’t properly invested in being prepared to protect water, this kind of thing happens, to the shock of many.

What is the price? What is this absurdly low price that I speak of with the Water Sustainability Act that this government has introduced?

[1050]

They said — remember? — that water was undervalued. They heard that from the public. The public said that giving away groundwater for free to companies that could then turn around and sell it for millions made no sense. We on this side, the New Democrats, agreed. We said it made no sense. The government said it made no sense. So what did they do? They brought in a price. Instead of zero dollars for one million litres of water, zero dollars for one litre of water, they brought in a price of $2.25 for a million litres of water.

Now, what would that mean for a single litre of water? How much would it cost you if you were a water bottler or somebody who pulled a lot of water out of the system? For one litre, what would that be? That would be 0.00000225 cents for a litre of water that in the store you’d be hard-pressed to find for less than $2, $3 or $4, for that same litre.

That sounds to me like we’re still undervaluing our resource, the stuff of life that we all need to live. Why is it undervalued? Because, just as in the English Bay case and the oil spill, we’re not prepared to properly protect it. This government has left our water resources at risk time and time again.

I’ll give you some examples. Let’s think about it. We just learned the other day, through a new report, how badly our glaciers are going to shrink, how we’re going to be seeing losses. In the Columbia River area, they figure we’ve already lost about 15 percent of the glaciers. They figured by the Mica dam we could lose 44 percent, possibly 100 percent, over the next 85 years.

That’s for many glaciers across this province. Glaciers are serving, of course, as a bank of water that we can draw on through the summer months when it gets dryer. Well, we may not have that bank for much longer, given our actions on climate change and given how much pollution we put out into the atmosphere.

Now is the time to prepare. Can we properly invest the money to make sure we are properly prepared — at just $2.25, or 0.00000225 a litre? I don’t think so.

Saskatchewan has decided they will charge $46 per million litres — and Quebec, $70 and Nova Scotia, $140 — in order to properly protect their water supplies. In B.C. forget about it. We can’t even properly do mapping of our aquifers.

I go out to the Shuswap area — Steele Springs, out near Spallumcheen. They are now trying to fundraise to do aquifer mapping because their water system was polluted by a farm spraying cow manure all over the place. They don’t know exactly where the aquifer starts or where it ends because it hasn’t been properly mapped by the province. So you’ve an agricultural need compacting with a community need for clean water. Now there’s cow manure in their drinking water. They can’t drink it anymore, yet they have to pay for it. That’s just a very basic community concern.

We also have, of course, the worst ratings in terms of boil-water advisories in the entire country. Why is that? Because the work has not been done by this government to protect the water supply.

Pretty simple. You need money to do that. You need staff to do that. You need support on the ground to enforce the actions to make sure the water supply is protected, so we don’t have situations like Mount Polley, where the government completely missed the boat, the companies missed the boat, and we ended up having huge amounts of tailings end up in the water supply that the community couldn’t drink. Again they couldn’t drink their water.

My constituents can’t currently swim in their water. Thankfully, we have water protected, because our district took action many, many, many, many years ago to protect our water supply. But many parts of B.C. do not have that benefit.

What about the Cowichan River? What about the Cowichan Valley? They’ve been busy trying to protect their water supply because there are aquifers going under a toxic waste dump that this government has permitted. Have they been supported by this government for mapping? No. Has that mapping been done before they approved this project? No. Again, resources. They didn’t have the money because this government does not properly value our water.

That situation is interesting. They want to create a community management plan for their watershed up in the Cowichan River. Why? Because they have to truck salmon up the river because the river goes to such a low level because of industrial demand, community demand, climate change impacting the amount of water. So they
[ Page 7075 ]
truck salmon up the river because there’s no water left. They, too, want to find better water management and support to do that, but this government has not stepped up to make sure it happens.

[1055]

As many of these debates go, they’re two ships passing in the night. They rarely meet and intersect in one communal connection here. It’s almost like oil sitting on top of water, never truly connecting. We may hear from the person who’s going to speak next to me about how great the Water Sustainability Act is, how the government truly cares about water. Well, what I’d say to them is that you have to properly value it, and you’re not valuing it if you are giving it away for 0.00000225 cents a litre.

J. Sturdy: It’s a good question: what is the value of water? It’s really a simple question, for the answer is obvious. Water is all important. Water is essential and invaluable. Water is a thread that weaves together our daily lives. It keeps our communities healthy, our cities running and our economies growing.

Water is a cup of coffee. Water is the produce aisle. Water is a critical production input and the source of much of our energy. Ultimately, it’s a strength of our society. Without a reliable source of water, society in the way we know it will not function. Ecosystems will degrade and fail. Valuing our water is really valuing our future.

During most of the course of human history, water was simply subsistence. It was a basic need to ensure survival. But once we began to harness the power of water, everything changed. We could irrigate and organize and grow food in abundance. We began to use water to power machinery and water was critical to the emergence of a global trading system. By the 1800s, after thousands of years of relatively flat consumption, water use began to steadily increase, and it hasn’t stopped.

In the developed world we often take water for granted. In the rest of the world one billion people today don’t have access to an approved drinking water source. That means they get their water wherever they can, be it a puddle or a swamp or a river. Two billion people may have access to an improved water source, but it’s not clean and it’s not safe. And three million people a year die of waterborne diseases. Clearly we have much to do.

In this era of climate change, there are forecasted impacts to global precipitation patterns. Areas that are already living with uncertain, unsafe and limited water supplies will find areas of drought growing. Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and South and Central America will see less precipitation and less available groundwater as aquifers are depleted.

The impacts of this increasing global scarcity of water? Well, given that people could live three weeks without food but only three days without water, it’s not hard to imagine — political instability, insurrection, and economic, social and environmental breakdown.

Climate change modelling for British Columbia forecasts suggest that we will largely be spared these crises. Precipitation amounts are suggested to be relatively stable going forward. Although, as the member opposite mentioned, as glaciers melt and less snow falls, runoff will decrease and aquifers will less likely to recharge fully.

That said, there is much to be uncertain of, and in recognition of this, the government has introduced the new Water Sustainability Act. This act will, for the first time, enable the regulation of groundwater and surface water as interconnected resources.

The new act will better protect stream and aquifer health, improve reporting and add to the ability to address water shortages in times of scarcity — all to ensure that British Columbia’s water resources are safely and effectively managed for generations to come. Importantly, government will not commodify water or profit from it, because it’s recognized as a basic human right.

My personal relationship with water is complex. I grew up in the city. I didn’t think much about water. Turn on the tap. Go to the pool. Wash the car. Clean water was always just there — a common story, most likely. But then I moved to rural B.C. I became a farmer, and that’s when I really learned the true value of water.

I have, for decades, managed my own groundwater supplies. I have numerous wells and pumps and dugouts. I’ve become conscious of water tables, of water quality or the lack of it, and I’m subconsciously always aware of pumps running or not running and why or why not. When the power goes out, there is no water. But the true wonder is what happens when you put water on the land.

[1100]

I’ve learned that water is the most critical input. It swells and sprouts and unleashes life. On a hot summer day, in the long rows just after the irrigation has passed, you hear the rustling and creaking, and you feel the power of life. You can almost see things growing on a day like that.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

In B.C. we are blessed with our water resources. We are obliged to steward them well, for water is life. It nourishes us. It cleanses us. It sustains us. Simply put, water is us.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’ll just wrap up to say that we can all say we’re emotionally connected to water. But unless you actually do something about it to protect it, it’s just words. Unfortunately, with this government, we’ve got a lot of words. Six new staff coming to protect water — and that’s it? — within the Ministry of Environment. That’s this government’s record. Yet we have massive pressures on our water resources.

As we know, with climate change worsening, we’re going to have hotter summers. We’re going to likely have hotter rivers and more demand on the water supply, with
[ Page 7076 ]
at some points droughts, with little snowpack to provide a bank of water. Huge adaptation is going to have to occur, whether that be in agriculture, business, power generation, mining, how we drink, how we serve ourselves, our recreational pursuits, whether it be skiing or whatever. There are many, many things coming down the pipe because of climate change.

We need the people on the ground now to properly measure our aquifers. We need the people to properly do baseline testing of water systems before we do industrial work in that area, not after. Yet this government seems to think doing it after makes sense rather than before, leaving our water systems at risk.

We need a government commitment to review the pricing of water. As we know, inflation happens. Unless you think that everything is stuck in one place, you would have built in a continual review of water pricing to make sure that we are actually getting to efficient use of water, not wasting water.

The government used to say their pricing schedule was also about efficiency. They don’t say that anymore. Nobody could say that a price of $2.25 for one million litres — which, I might add, is the most expensive charge that they have yet is the lowest, as far as I can see, in North America — makes sense in terms of building efficiency.

We also need independent oversight. Something many people have called for is the support of something like a Forest Practices Board but for water. You could expand its operations to be called the natural resource practices board. It would be looking at the best practices in terms of preserving and protecting water, conserving water, supporting businesses and others to be more efficient, incentivizing the reduction of water wasted.

Best practices so that the government doesn’t make choices which are in the worst long-term interests of water and, in fact, has a guide dog, somebody watching over the process to make sure that we’re all protected long term and so that the short-term political interests of a government — like in the Mount Polley case, where they massively cut mines inspections to save a little bit of money on the one part but ended up costing much more in the long run….

That’s the kind of thing we worry about with water.

Interjections.

S. Chandra Herbert: I understand the government is claiming that they didn’t actually cut mines inspections. In fact they did. They actually admit that was one of the reasons why the current Mines Minister quit his post, according to the Mines Minister.

Water needs our protection. We need action.

Hon. M. Polak: I call debate on private member’s Motion 11.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 11 without disturbing the priority of other motions on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 11 — CIVIL
FORFEITURE PROGRAM

E. Foster: I’m glad to move this motion in support of the civil forfeiture program for the province of British Columbia.

[Be it resolved that this House continue to support the civil forfeiture program and the benefits it provides to communities throughout British Columbia.]

Our government believes that crime should not pay, and that’s why B.C. was the leader in Canada in setting up the civil forfeiture office. This year civil forfeiture grant funding is reaching British Columbians throughout the province to strengthen and support the many ways in which we will achieve a violence-free B.C. and continue to work toward our crime prevention priorities. Our government has been clear that violence against women is everyone’s issue, and we must work together to stop it.

[1105]

We created the hugely successful Civil Forfeiture Act to ensure crime doesn’t pay in British Columbia and to send a strong message to criminals that they are not welcome here and that crime will not pay in British Columbia. B.C. was a leader in Canada in setting up a civil forfeiture office, and it is doing what it was designed to do — to go after the proceeds and tools of unlawful activity. In short, we’re taking money away from the bad guys and giving it to the good guys.

It’s been hugely successful. Since 2006 the civil forfeiture office has taken in approximately $53 million, including more than $10.3 million in 2014-15. More than 220 grants in 2015 are funded through B.C.’s civil forfeiture program and have been provided to groups throughout the province for initiatives that address violence against women, support youth and community crime prevention, support victims through the restorative justice program and include police education training and specialized crime prevention equipment.

More than $1.5 million in civil forfeiture funding will assist restorative justice programs, support efforts to prevent youth involvement in crime, enhance police training and education, and address local crime prevention issues.

In our efforts towards a violence-free B.C, this year our actions start with $3.4 million for projects to support the violence-free-B.C. strategy and more than $1.5 million for restorative justice programs, community and youth crime prevention.
[ Page 7077 ]

In 2014 specific actions within violence-free B.C. being addressed throughout the CFO grant funding include targeting new investment in school-based prevention programs to shift attitudes and behaviours on the issues of violence against women; targeting new investments to address the sexual exploitation and human trafficking of vulnerable girls and women; enhancing capacity through training and education of violence against women for front-line service providers such as victim support workers, outreach workers and counsellors, child protection workers, educators, health care professionals and justice system professionals; targeting new investments to assist families and communities to heal and recover from fatal cases of violence against women; targeting investments to support aboriginal communities and efforts to promote healing of the impacts of violence against women; targeting investments to support innovative partnerships that raise awareness to take action on violence against women; and increased service delivery, collaboration and coordination.

In my own riding of Vernon-Monashee over the last number of years, we’ve had several very successful programs. Just this year the local RCMP detachment will receive $13,280 to help purchase new crime-fighting equipment. The RCMP victims assistance received a $5,000 grant to help with training of the high-risk domestic violence committee.

The high-risk domestic violence committee was a program that was initiated four years ago with help and funding from civil forfeiture to develop a program to teach young people and help with families who had experienced violence. It was a program that was a partnership and collaboration between the Vernon RCMP, the victims assistance and also the women’s transition house.

It’s a program that was so successful that the template is being used around the province to develop programs in other communities and recently has also moved into a couple of other provinces. It’s a program that has been extremely successful with funding help from the civil forfeiture grants.

This year the women’s transition house will receive two grants totalling more than $17,000. One grant for $9,600 will be used for a new North Okanagan child and youth advocacy centre, which is the result of a partnership that includes the RCMP, victims assistance, Ministry of Children and Family Development, family resource centre of the North Okanagan and family services society.

In all, thank you very much for the opportunity. Again, the civil forfeiture grants have been a huge asset in British Columbia and especially in my riding of Vernon-Monashee.

B. Ralston: I rise to speak in support of this motion. We supported this legislation when it was introduced to the House. We have continued to support it.

[1110]

In my neighbourhood of Whalley there have been historically — although the city is very much changing for the better — grow operations and drug houses and criminal activity that disrupted individual family neighbourhoods and deprived them of the peace and the tranquility to which any resident is entitled.

Certainly, this act has been an important part of a toolkit to disrupt and make criminal activity unprofitable, because organized crime, certainly, is a business. The profit motive is what drives many of the decisions that are made by people who choose to engage in these illegal activities.

Certainly, the standard for criminal prosecution and investigation is a very, very high one — properly so. But in order to get a warrant to search a private residence, lengthy surveillance evidence, then communicated and transmitted and drafted into affidavits, is required. That takes many police investigative hours and much time in order to move an investigation forward. This method takes cases which sometimes fall short of that very high standard, or in tandem with them, and moves forward on seizing civil assets.

But there are some problems in the legislation. Significantly, members, individual Liberal MLAs, have spoken out publicly. That is rare, given how things work ordinarily in a parliamentary democracy.

The MLA for Surrey–White Rock, the MLA for Vancouver-Langara and the MLA for West Vancouver–Capilano have all expressed their concern about aspects of this legislation. Unlike the member who just spoke, they aren’t talking about the civil forfeiture fund. They’re talking about the administration and execution of the policy that’s contained in this legislation.

Now, there are some changes that could be made and could be considered. One concern is the notification process. In the legislation, the notification process, which is set out in the regulations, is simply delivery of a document. That, I think, is to avoid sometimes what happens in criminal cases or in civil cases where a person evades service.

In other words, a requirement of personal service means sometimes people go to incredible means to avoid being served personally. That’s something that could be considered, given that the stakes economically and the value of the assets that are being targeted are very, very large — in some cases individual personal residences, which in the Lower Mainland can be of some value.

Overall, the other aspect that is of concern is the setting of budgetary targets for civil forfeiture. That may create perverse incentives to act in a way that better judgment would prevent — simply by engaging in the process to meet a budgetary target. This issue is a matter of substantial public debate. That well-known social democratic organ the Globe and Mail said in an editorial that “B.C.’s Civil Forfeiture Law Needs a Legal Review.”

In conclusion, because my time is very brief…. There’s
[ Page 7078 ]
even a recent case where a lawyer who owned a rental property was told by the rentalsman he couldn’t evict the person because they hadn’t been convicted of a criminal offence. He had no legal avenue to evict the tenant, yet the civil forfeiture office decided that they were going to pursue taking the rental property because the person was engaged in criminal activity.

Ultimately, they abandoned the case after 18 months and substantial legal fees. This is a measure of, I think, some of the concern about the way in which this act is being administered that should be reviewed. Were there a working committee system here, this would be a good project for MLAs to engage in — in a committee review of the legislation itself and to make recommendations to the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice.

In conclusion, we support the principle that’s embodied in the legislation but think the administration and execution of the law should be reviewed.

[1115]

J. Martin: It’s a pleasure to be here today, and I do congratulate my colleague and friend the member for Vernon-Monashee for tabling this morning’s motion on civil forfeiture.

As a veteran of more than 30 years studying, practising, researching and teaching criminology, this is a topic that I’ve thought long about over the decades. I’m very, very pleased to see British Columbia be the first jurisdiction to bring in such legislation.

As always, the best ideas are rarely new ideas. The impetus for civil forfeiture dates way back into probably the 1760s, when Cesare Beccaria, in the era of Enlightenment, wrote the essay On Crimes and Punishments. This was probably the first and most important dedicated manuscript on how we deal with offenders and how we exercise justice.

One of the key components in Beccaria’s work was that the way we respond to offenders must be rational. In other words, what we want to do first and foremost is we want to deter criminality. Assuming we’re dealing with a rational offender…. Of course, not all offenders are rational — mental illness, addiction and other issues. But when we’re dealing with sophisticated profit-making criminal enterprise, we’re probably dealing with rational offenders.

Rational offenders, according to Beccaria and others, will go through a moral calculus. They will equate the pain versus the gain — “What’s going to happen if I get away with this? What’s going to happen if I get caught?” — and make a moral decision, as a rational person would. One of the jobs of criminal justice — and it certainly doesn’t always do it very well — is to give offenders a reason to err on the side of caution and decide not to proceed with the illegal activity. One of the premises of this is that crime should not pay.

To put this in a modern context, we’ve all heard way too often these scenarios where somebody has an illegal criminal enterprise — an illegal marijuana grow operation, for instance. They may make tens of thousands of dollars every harvest and do this multiple times a year. The risk of getting caught, historically, has been that you would lose your lightbulbs. You’re back in business a couple of weeks later, maybe at a different address.

In that instance, the crime certainly did pay. A rational thinker might be inclined to think: “As long as I don’t mind getting a criminal record and paying the odd fine here and there, I’ll just keep buying new lightbulbs, and I’ll get back into business the next day.”

Civil forfeiture is a brilliant strategy to add to that equation to give offenders something more to think about. Crime should not pay. This is one of the strategies, coupled with many other strategies, that has the potential to make a severe impact on the way offenders think, particularly those in sophisticated profiteering criminal enterprise.

The purpose of this forfeiture act is twofold. Obviously, the objective is crime prevention. By seizing real property, vehicles and houses, we’re denying someone access to the capital and the tools they need to operate. We’re depriving them of the ability to profit at the expense of society overall.

The second part is more about victims. When I started studying criminology in the very early ’80s, there was no such word as “victimology.” You’d look in the glossary of a criminology textbook, and you would not find anything about victimology or victimization. This civil forfeiture legislation is all about victims.

For long overdue, we have ignored victims. We’ve done it inadvertently. We’ve done it deliberately. We’ve done it for way too long, where victims were afterthoughts. They weren’t needed for much more than giving evidence and sometimes providing dental records.

Well, that’s all changed. It’s changed particularly with a piece of legislation such as civil forfeiture, where the assets and the proceeds of crime are going back into the community. In many instances they’re going there directly to serve victims and to right the wrongs. They’re also going in other directions. They’re being directed to vulnerable groups, to youth at risk.

For instance, in my riding in Chilliwack the Stó:lō Service Agency, in partnership with school district 33, received almost $20,000 to enhance an aboriginal mentorship program that allows more youths to attend and receive case management support. It’s strategies like this. Literally, if you look at the granting of these awards, hundreds of them throughout the province, they’re doing brilliant work.

Thank you so much for my time.

[1120]

L. Krog: I’m pleased to rise to speak in support of this motion this morning. Of course, the opposition’s job is
[ Page 7079 ]
not to engage in the self-congratulatory orgy here this morning that the Liberals seem to regard as morning fun on Monday. It’s my job to be somewhat more critical of what has been accomplished by the passage of the act and what’s happened in the last few years.

There are times I actually really miss my old friend Wally Oppal as Attorney General, because whenever there was a difficult issue, he would always stand up and say that it was before the courts. Well, here we have the Ladha case — so well supported by the member for West Vancouver–Capilano — before the courts, yet we seem to be happy to make this the subject of a motion here this morning where the Liberals tell everyone what a marvelous job they’ve done taking money away from all the criminals in the province.

No one in their right mind would not be supportive of that concept. The very prospect of the sheriff of Nottingham getting to keep his ill-gotten gains without a Robin Hood along to assist in redistributing that wealth to appropriate recipients — of course, who could possibly oppose that? Except that we do have the Ladha case and other examples where, with an unbecoming zeal, the civil forfeiture office has pursued claims against people that most of us….

I must tell you, hon. Speaker, if we were being candid here this morning, that most of the public would say: “Well, that isn’t the kind of person I was thinking about when I thought this legislation was a good idea.” We had visions of Hell’s Angels and drug lords and people who have accumulated great wealth at the expense of those they’d exploited or robbed from or stolen from — you know, all those wonderful people we don’t seem to talk about as much, who are the real criminals in our society, those who manage to rip off all sorts of people through all sorts of fraudulent schemes and pack it away.

We don’t focus on them very much, but we certainly are happily focused on some low-level person in some obscure part of the province who may or may not have committed some criminal act. We’re happy to go after them. We’re doing so with the assistance of legislation that gives the government enormous power that it didn’t have before. That’s where I have the problem with the government’s continued refusal, as voiced through the mouth of the Attorney General, to engage in a review of this legislation and its impact.

If there’s one thing British Columbians really do understand, it’s a fair play. When you have the enormous power of the state and what essentially amounts to an unlimited budget in order to pursue civil claims against people who may or may not be in a financial position to defend them, and when you have no access to legal aid to defend those claims and no ability to hire counsel, you will in fact do what people have done for decades when faced with a civil suit. Even though there may be no legal liability or justification whatsoever for the claim being brought, you will settle. You will pay over moneys.

It’s one thing to do that between private individuals. We understand the inherent unfairness in our justice system where the rich can pursue justice with great vigour, and the poor can’t. When that is pursued by the government against citizens…. Let us not pretend the civil forfeiture office is somehow distinct and separate from the government in the eyes of the people.

When the government pursues those people with that kind of vigour and, in some cases, appears to be forcing settlements out of people who no one would say received these assets as a result of either criminal activity or something related to it, that’s when there’s a problem.

Indeed, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano said, talking about the Ladha case: “She was panicking that the machinery to seize her house wasn’t slowing down even though the case ended without a conviction. So a lot of us wrote letters to the Attorney General, and the civil forfeiture proceeding was stopped.”

Interjection.

L. Krog: The Minister of Energy and Mines is pounding the table ever so lightly in support of a member doing something on behalf of a constituent, and that’s a good thing.

The reality is that the very fact that it happened in that process emphasizes my point that this is seen as an instrument of the government. Therefore, the government has to subscribe to a higher standard than ordinary parties in a civil suit.

[1125]

That’s why, as much as we support this legislation, the opposition says: “What do we have to fear? What do the B.C. Liberals have to fear in pursuing a review of this legislation?”

J. Tegart: It’s my pleasure to rise today and support the motion moved by my colleague from Vernon-Monashee. Without question, the civil forfeiture program has proved to be a very effective tool both in taking the profit motive away from criminals and making communities and families stronger.

Since it was established in 2006, the civil forfeiture program has taken in approximately $53 million — the proceeds from unlawful activity. Of that total, more than $10.3 million was taken in during the past year alone.

This year’s civil forfeiture grant funding is reaching British Columbians in every corner of the province to strengthen and support the methods by which we will achieve a violence-free B.C. We worked closely with community organizations across the province as we developed the violence-free-B.C. strategy and will continue to work with them as it is implemented over the next decade.

In my riding of Fraser-Nicola, organizations in Lillooet, Lytton and Merritt have received more than $50,000 this year from the civil forfeiture program to fight violence
[ Page 7080 ]
and combat crime. In Lillooet the Xaxli’p First Nation received funding for its program “Giving a Strong Voice to Aboriginal Women.” The program supports a three-day workshop by a certified traditional healer specializing in supporting women who have experienced domestic violence. The goal is to empower women and to help them heal and rebuild from violence.

Another grant is for a 30-week youth empowerment project that will provide a culture camp for at-risk aboriginal youth. This project will include sports, recreational activities, youth nights and employment preparation workshops. Funding will also help with a ten-day rediscovery cultural camp, which will include camping and traditional activities such as tanning hides, berry-picking, learning about traditional medicine plants, hunting with an experienced guide, understanding the protocol of the land and resources, and hearing stories from First Nations elders.

In Lytton a grant is going to the Nlaka’pamux child and family services society community awareness training on violence. This program educates front-line service providers of the local First Nations bands on how violence against women impacts women, children, family and extended family, through a two-day seminar on recognizing signs of abuse and how to support women who are experiencing violence.

In Merritt a grant is helping to provide workshops and teacher training across the school district to promote anti-violence awareness and strategies for all students from kindergarten to grade 10. Project funds will also support workshop trainers in healthy-relationship and second-step programs to train staff and students.

Also in Merritt another civil forfeiture grant will enable 35 service providers working with women who have experienced, or are at risk of experiencing, violence to attend a two-day seminar on understanding the impacts of violence in relationships. The aim is to educate at-risk women about abusive relationships and equip them to make the right decisions that allow them to leave harmful situations and move on with their lives.

More than 60 rural and aboriginal youth in the Merritt area will benefit from a Big Brothers Big Sisters initiative with community partners called the in-school mentoring program. In-school mentoring provides children with a friend and role model to talk to and share the experiences of growing up. For one hour a week during a school year mentors will meet with their designated youth and take part in activities such as sports, art, reading and board games.

To quote Big Brothers Big Sisters executive director on the importance of the program: “Many kids are just one positive relationship away from being a success in life.” This grant will help us forge new partnerships to expand our in-school mentoring program to reach more children and schools in Merritt.

[1130]

The civil forfeiture program is making a positive difference in the lives of vulnerable people all over this province. I’m excited to think of the possibilities as this program reaches thousands more people in the years ahead.

K. Corrigan: We supported the original legislation, the Civil Forfeiture Act, and in addition, we supported the amendments in 2011, but we did express concern. I’m going to talk about some of those concerns right now.

I’m certainly supportive of the civil forfeiture funds that are going to do good works in British Columbia, particularly supportive of the funds that are going to prevention of violence against women and support for victims of violence in this province. So this is no quibble with the fund itself.

On the other hand, this, particularly the amended legislation, raised some concerns, which we raised at the time of the legislation. On some of the things that we raised concerns about, members from the other side of the House said: “You’re being overly suspicious. You’re being overly concerned. It would never happen that way.”

In fact, some of the concerns that we raised at that time have come to pass, so I want to talk a little bit about that. I certainly support those on this side of the House and the other side of the House and other respected people in the legal field who have said that there should be a review of the legislation.

One of the concerns that we raised at the time, despite supporting the legislation, was that with the amendment in 2011, essentially what we came to have for certain types of cases was, I guess, what you could equate to a negative-option-billing process. In other words, it became a government process instead of a court process. The government could seize your property first, and then you had to dispute it. That seizure takes place before, perhaps, there has been a criminal charge take place.

It was originally…. I recall, because I was involved in the debates, government describing this in terms of seizing property involved in criminal gang and organized crime activity, which we were supportive of. Nevertheless, when you took an actual look at features of the legislation, we were concerned, and we asked a lot of questions.

For example, the legislation gives a lot of discretion to the government, particularly the director of civil forfeiture. The legislation does not require that a criminal charge be laid. Very specifically, the then Minister of Justice, during debate on the legislation, said it could be used if it was determined that there wasn’t enough evidence to lay criminal charges. In other words, criminal charges won’t stick, but we’re going to take your property anyways.

That again raised concerns about the level of proof required. As we know, in these cases the level of proof to establish the claim is on the balance of probabilities as opposed to the more stringent requirement — the level
[ Page 7081 ]
of proof in a criminal, if there actually was a criminal charge — of beyond a reasonable doubt, as well as all the other procedural requirements that are in a criminal case as opposed to an administrative process.

The law doesn’t limit property seizure to criminal cases. In fact, it doesn’t seem to limit it at all. The act says that if you commit an offence…. And that includes a range of offences, including, for example, driving offences.

Technically — I mean, I’m just thinking of possibilities — for example, charges under the Election Act would be an offence. Some people might agree that there should be civil forfeiture in those cases. Theoretically, if members of a political party were charged with an offence under the Election Act, their property, or maybe even the political party’s property, could be seized. As I said, some people might agree with that.

Sometimes it can be applied in cases, and appears to have been in cases, where a property owner loses property that had very little connection with the offence in question.

We are being asked to trust. I appreciate that the money is being used for good things. But the court cases that have been involved have demonstrated that we were, at the time, absolutely correct to raise those concerns about fairness and proportionality.

[1135]

I’m going to mention just one quote from a judge who is concerned about the lack of fairness. It was in a very stinging decision in the Allwright case. A woman’s pickup truck had been seized. Justice Douglas Thompson lambasted the civil forfeiture agency. He said it was supposed to be created to fight serious criminals but instead, according to this justice, had been going after minor offenders. He said: “I am not satisfied that the director’s case is better than frivolous.” Regrettably, it seems that this was zealous.

I have no more time, but I think we do have to continue to be concerned. I would support a review. Thank you for the opportunity.

L. Larson: I rise in support of the motion this morning. B.C. was one of the first two provinces in Canada to enact civil forfeiture legislation. Since 2006, $53 million has been taken in by the office, and $21 million of that has been distributed to community organizations whose focus is to help those who have been directly impacted by crime and who develop local programs of awareness and prevention. This year 220 organizations and service providers will receive grants through this program.

I’m pleased today to have the opportunity to tell you about two organizations in my riding of Boundary-Similkameen which will benefit from the civil forfeiture program and this year’s grants. These organizations offer programs and services to people of all ages and from all walks of life who have experienced unfortunate circumstances that have negatively impacted their lives and the lives of those around them, sometimes just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, sometimes by making one wrong decision and, more often, by being betrayed by someone they trusted.

Fortunately, there are organizations like the Desert Sun Counselling and Resource Centre, in Oliver, and the Boundary Women’s Coalition, in Grand Forks, which, through funds from the civil forfeiture program, are able to offer programs and services to those who have been victimized. There are many such organizations and volunteer groups throughout B.C. which every day work to make better the lives of those who have been victims of crime.

The Desert Sun Counselling and Resource Centre, in Oliver, is a local not-for-profit organization which was incorporated in 1998. There are no fees for their services, and self-referrals are accepted for all services. It is governed by a local volunteer board of directors. Services are offered for all ages and circumstances, from infants, like the Mother Goose program for preschool children. There are parenting groups and, for seniors, the Better at Home program.

They also support a 24-hour safe home and crisis line. Funding for the community kitchen, which helps young mothers with nutritional meal planning and preparation, and other specialized programs often come from local organizations and fundraising activities, such as the Grand Night in Osoyoos that this year raised $15,000 for the centre.

The $9,000 received under the civil forfeiture program will be used for a specialized two-day training program for rural front-line workers in the anti-violence sector on the impact of violence and how best to support victims of violence seeking help. It will also include a public awareness campaign.

The Boundary Women’s Coalition, in Grand Forks, will receive $20,000 to support their programs for youth aged 13 to 18. The funds will support those who are or may be at risk of being sexually exploited. This project will use a multi-agency approach, utilizing RCMP, victim services, the transition house and a variety of other community agencies, in partnership with the Children of the Street Society, to address and prevent drug-facilitated sexual assaults.

In addition to the transition house, the coalition, established in 1991, also operates the Boundary Women’s Resource Centre. The centre is a drop-in space offering immediate support and information to women. It is a safe, accepting and non-judgmental environmental space.

By giving grants to established service providers in communities throughout B.C., we are putting the money directly into the hands of those front-line experts who work every day to raise awareness of violence issues and offer personal assistance to those who have been victimized.

Our government has also invested in other areas that target specific areas of sensitivity in an effort to be proactive rather than reactive to the many faces of violence
[ Page 7082 ]
in today’s society. Anti-bullying strategies in schools and the more recent campaign to encourage victims and witnesses to violence against women to speak out will have long-term benefits for all.

[1140]

B.C. continues to be a leader across Canada in the managing of the civil forfeiture program and its support for the victims of crime.

M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to rise and speak to the motion on an important issue, civil forfeiture in the province of British Columbia.

This is a piece of legislation that we supported in the House when it came in 2006 and, as my colleagues have said, supported the amendments in 2011. It’s something that we know the public supports wholeheartedly — the idea that people should not profit from criminal activity. That thugs and gangsters, that criminal gangs that plague communities throughout British Columbia….

We’ve seen that in Abbotsford and in Surrey and in Kelowna and in Vancouver, where these Hell’s Angels and criminal gangs have carried on their lifestyle and funded it through criminal activity with an expectation that somehow they would get to keep their ill-gotten gain. It’s something that law-abiding people in the province of British Columbia find completely unacceptable.

That is why we have supported this particular legislation and supported the amendments. I’ve heard the members talk about some of the great works that have been put to use through the proceeds, through civil forfeiture. Many of them are good, and many of them are worthwhile.

It’s also important to recognize that legislation brought in with the best of intentions and the best of goodwill on both sides of the House should, from time to time, be examined to make sure that it’s working the way that it was intended — that it is the thugs, the gangsters and the organized criminals, who prey upon law-abiding citizens in the province of British Columbia, who are the ones being penalized.

It should not be cases, such as we’ve seen in the media, where a woman was found not guilty of charges laid against her, yet civil forfeiture was going after her home. It took the intervention of MLAs in this House to get that injustice overturned. That’s not what should be happening.

The other thing I want to make sure the legislation does is that it brings money into the Crown, which, as we talked about, is going to programs which are worthwhile — to provide services for victims who have too long been neglected in the justice system in the province of British Columbia, so that worthwhile programs and support are there for victims.

One of the things that does concern me about the government’s approach… Again, it would be wise to follow the comments of the member for Surrey-Whalley, who said: “You know, there’s nothing wrong with having a standing committee of the Legislature to review how the legislation is working. Is it achieving the goals?”

I want to make sure that what we’re not seeing from government is where they make cuts in the justice system one year — or over the last 14 years, which we’ve seen happen — and then, bit by bit, some minor restoration takes place under the guise of funding out of the proceeds of crime through civil forfeiture.

It’s great that the money is coming back in, but I think most people have felt, when this legislation was put in, that the money coming in through civil forfeiture would be as an adjunct. It would be to provide for new services, not to make up for services that have been cut from government but to provide new and additional supports for victims of crime, for example.

That’s something that we could be taking a look at, making sure that the legislation is working the way that it’s supposed to so that ordinary people who are law-abiding citizens are not the ones who are feeling the brunt or the pain of this legislation. I think it would be worthwhile for the government to do that.

At the end of the day, I think what all of us want to do is ensure that we live in a peaceful, law-abiding society where hard work and commitment and dedication gets you ahead, that crime is not a pathway to financial security. That’s what this legislation was put in place for and that’s what we want to make sure that it does: that the Hell’s Angels and the Dhak brothers and all the other criminal gangs that have plagued our communities are not the ones who profit.

[1145]

They’re not the ones who, at the end of the day, are paying what they think or used to…. “Oh, we’ll do a little bit of time — it’s the cost of doing business — because we’ve stashed away hundreds of thousands of dollars in expensive real estate, or stashed it away somewhere in a bank account. When we’ve done our three months or we’ve done our six months, we can come out and enjoy our ill-gotten gain.”

Those are just a few thoughts. I look forward to hearing what other members have to say.

D. Bing: I’d like to thank the member for Vernon-Monashee for bringing forth the following motion for debate: “Be it resolved that this House continue to support the civil forfeiture program and the benefits it provides to communities throughout British Columbia.”

I can assure you that my constituents of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows deeply appreciate the efforts of law enforcement officials to uphold the law, to protect public safety and to take whatever means they can to remove the tools criminals use to perpetrate crime. Essentially, that’s what civil forfeiture does. It prevents someone engaged in unlawful activity from using or benefiting from the proceeds of crime. By seizing the assets of criminals, we’re
[ Page 7083 ]
effectively removing the profit motive from unlawful activity. In short, we’re making sure that crime does not pay.

Certainly, overall crime prevention is one of the major objectives of civil forfeiture laws, but remediation is another major objective. Once the proceeds of crime have been seized, remediation occurs by returning seized assets back to the community. The money can be used in a number of ways, including community and youth crime prevention, restorative justice or providing police forces with better equipment and resources for community outreach.

For example, in 2015, $40,000 was awarded to the Fraser Region Community Justice Initiatives Association to develop a pilot program to help victims of crime get through the criminal court process. The idea is to ensure that the needs of victims are being satisfied, rather than just focusing on the prosecution of a case.

In my own riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows there are three very important initiatives being funded this year through civil forfeiture.

Over $25,000 was recently awarded to the Cythera Transition House Society for the Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows violence against women in relationships development project. According to Cythera executive director Teresa Green: “This grant will allow the Violence Against Women In Relationships Committee to hire a coordinator to facilitate cooperation between the justice system, child welfare, community agencies and anti-violence organizations.” An additional $3,000 is being allocated to their women in safe housing project for staff support and training.

Another important project in my riding involves school district 42. In partnership with Cythera Transition House, they help educate teachers on how to address the issue of violence against women and children. Workshops will be based on the Be More Than a Bystander campaign and will support youth who experience violence in the home.

A third and equally important project is a $5,000 contribution towards Alisa’s Wish Child and Youth Advocacy Centre. Money from this grant will go towards children and youth who are victims of abuse and require assistance to testify in the court process.

All of these groups do a tremendous job, and I’d like to congratulate each and every one of them for doing their part to support victims of crime and reducing harm done to the community. These examples are just some of the ways that civil forfeiture benefits communities in British Columbia. As a matter of fact, British Columbia was a leader and one of the first provinces in Canada to adopt civil forfeiture.

By taking the proceeds of crime out of the hands of criminals and directly investing them back into the community, social service providers and law enforcement agencies now have a source of revenue that didn’t exist before the act came into force in 2006. As the MLA for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, I fully support the civil forfeiture program, and I look forward to seeing tremendous results in the community.

C. James: I’m pleased to stand in support of this motion, as others on this side of the House have done, to speak to the civil forfeiture program and the benefits that it provides to communities throughout British Columbia. As others have said, we were in support of this legislation and the amendments and of making sure that the direct benefit goes to communities, that they are the ones to see the resources as they come through.

[1150]

As others have said, this is a tool. No question; it’s one tool. But it’s an important tool to address the profits that are made through organized crime and making sure that we take the assets that were obtained illegally, assets that were obtained from criminals, and provide those proceeds to victims, to prevention programs, to making sure that communities have the resources that they need, that we look at justice programs to make sure that we’re helping our communities in the prevention area.

Certainly, there’s no question, as I said, that this side of the House supported that motion and supports the direction that this legislation takes. But having said that, I think it’s important also, as we should always do with every piece of legislation as it’s implemented, to take a look at where there are challenges, where there are improvements that could be made, where there are changes that need to happen.

I think anything that is implemented over a period of time — we found that often with legislation — can always use another look because times change. Things change, and it’s important to make sure that that legislation is reviewed to see if it’s still continuing to meet the direction and the goals that it was intended to and which, as I said, we certainly support.

I just want to speak for a moment about the civil forfeiture office and how it works. There certainly have been, as others have said, a couple of high-profile cases where it appears the process could have been improved, cases where the civil forfeiture office moved in early. The case was completed. There was not a charge laid, yet the proceeds were already being gathered by the office.

If you take a look at that, I think, from a commonsense perspective, people would say that maybe that needs to be improved. Maybe there’s a timing issue here. Maybe there’s an issue around a review that needs to happen. Maybe there’s notification that needs to be looked at. I certainly think that that’s something very basic and very straightforward that could be looked at as part of a review of this legislation. As I said, I think there’s nothing wrong with taking that second look.

The second piece I just want to touch on quickly, as I know my time is getting short, is the programs and services for victims of crime. I certainly believe that that is a critical support that’s there. I support the programs
[ Page 7084 ]
that are being put in place around violence prevention, but I also believe that we need more than slogans in this province. We saw in the throne speech that “Violence-free B.C.” came forward as a slogan. Well, I don’t believe slogans do it.

I heard the speaker to this motion talk about aboriginal communities. Well, again, more than words. If aboriginal communities were important, we would have seen a bus for the Highway of Tears long ago. That wouldn’t be something that wouldn’t be in place. That’d be something that already would be in place, that the government would be working towards.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

While I hear the government talking about the support for victims and victim services, I certainly want to see more than simply slogans. I want to see more than a mention in the throne speech of being violence free. I want to see specific strategies put in place and specific action that has been called for.

As I said, the Highway of Tears bus is certainly one. Violence against women programs is certainly another, where those supports have been reduced over the last number of years. The government is starting to put a little bit back, which I’m grateful for, but it doesn’t make up for the programs and services that were cut all of those years. While I certainly speak in support of this motion and support of the direction, I would like to see more than simply words and an expansion of the kinds of programs and services that should be there for victims of crime in this province.

D. Plecas: It’s a pleasure to wrap up today’s debate on civil forfeiture and to be reminded of the strong support that exists in this House for this legislation and also to be reminded of the great benefits that it brings to communities across the province. Certainly, as the MLA for Abbotsford South, my constituents have a particular interest in the proceeds of crime being reinvested back into the community for such things as crime prevention and enhanced services for victims. As a criminologist by trade, I, too, have a particular interest in the Civil Forfeiture Act and the impact on legislation that it’s had over the years.

[1155]

The basic principle of civil forfeiture is simple to grasp, yet all of the positive outcomes arising from this legislation are not always apparent to the public at large. As a society, it only makes sense to deprive people engaged in unlawful activity from enjoying in any way the benefits and proceeds of crime or, even worse, allowing criminals to profit and expand the scope of their activities and to perpetuate even more harm on the community.

That’s what civil forfeiture is all about. The act is intended to suppress crime by removing the working capital that feeds criminal activity.

Crime prevention is a central feature of the act and something most people can relate to. However, the Civil Forfeiture Act not only contains provisions to seize assets, it also provides a mechanism to return the proceeds of crime back to the community. What better way to fight crime than to take money away from criminals and then use it for the benefit of victims?

In my own riding of Abbotsford South I was thrilled to announce a number of grants awarded to police and social service organizations that are using the money to support crime prevention and victim support efforts. For example, the Abbotsford Restorative Justice and Advocacy Association is working closely with the Abbotsford police department’s victim services unit to fund a program called Project Victim Care.

In the past most of our resources have been focused on prosecution and obtaining a conviction. While that’s important, restorative justice places a greater emphasis on victims, making sure their needs are met. In some cases restorative justice also involves giving the offender an opportunity to take responsibility for their actions. This is particularly important in the cases of domestic violence.

Abbotsford Community Services, for example, is actually receiving two grants. One grant is for over $28,000 to support the self-discovery support group which provides help to Punjabi-speaking women who are deemed at high risk of domestic violence. The second grant is for $20,000 and is going towards a project entitled Building Healthy Relationships for at-risk South Asian preteens. This program will help girls and boys in grades 5 and 6 who have experienced violence in their own neighbourhood.

Furthermore, the Abbotsford police department will be receiving a grant of $10,000 to support its own domestic violence emergency support fund. Another great example is the Salvation Army Centre of Hope, which is receiving $7,000 to respond to the risk of homelessness that women can easily fall into when fleeing domestic violence.

All in all, I’d like to congratulate each one of those groups that provide vital services to people in need in my community. It’s solid evidence that the Civil Forfeiture Act is working for the benefit of the people of Abbotsford, and it exemplifies the benefits that are provided to communities right across this province.

D. Plecas moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

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.

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada