2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 33, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Pat Somerton

G. Hogg

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Smithers Steelheads and Hazelton Bulldogs hockey teams

D. Donaldson

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Cranbrook Ice hockey team

B. Bennett

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, report No. 12, March 2012, Follow-up Report: Updates on the Implementation of Recommendations from Recent Reports

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Fundraising walk by Janine Annett

C. Trevena

Autism awareness events

L. Reid

Support for education

R. Austin

Multicultural and First Nations health initiative

D. Hayer

Bella Bella Community School hunger strike

G. Coons

Child abuse prevention

G. Hogg

Oral Questions

Delays in court proceedings and translation services for child abuse case

C. Trevena

Hon. S. Bond

M. Karagianis

L. Krog

Timeline for Missing Women Inquiry

J. Kwan

Hon. S. Bond

Ferry fares

G. Coons

Hon. B. Lekstrom

Cache Creek trail project funding

H. Lali

Hon. I. Chong

Private institutions complaint process and government handling of correspondence

M. Mungall

Hon. N. Yamamoto

Motions Without Notice

Support for Aveos aircraft maintenance workers

Hon. R. Coleman

Hon. P. Bell

J. Kwan

B. Simpson

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 28 — Criminal Asset Management Act

Hon. S. Bond

K. Corrigan

R. Sultan

L. Krog

N. Letnick

M. Farnworth

D. Hayer

J. Kwan

Bill 25 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2012

Hon. S. Bond

Tributes

Polly Vaughan

N. Simons

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 25 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2012 (continued)

L. Krog

L. Popham

M. Sather

Hon. S. Bond

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 15 — Attorney General and Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2011

Bill 18 — Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2011

Bill 20 — Auditor General for Local Government Act

Bill 27 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2012

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment (continued)

V. Huntington

R. Fleming

Hon. T. Lake

H. Lali

M. Sather

[ Page 10567 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2012

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tributes

PAT SOMERTON

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

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

Introductions by Members

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

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

[1340]

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

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

Tributes

SMITHERS STEELHEADS AND

HAZELTON BULLDOGS HOCKEY TEAMS

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

[ Page 10568 ]

Introductions by Members

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

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

Tributes

CRANBROOK ICE HOCKEY TEAM

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

Tabling Documents

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

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

FUNDRAISING WALK BY

JANINE ANNETT

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

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

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

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

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

AUTISM AWARENESS EVENTS

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

[1345]

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

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

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

British Columbia is committed to an integrated, coordinated range of services, interventions and supports for children, youth and adults with autism spectrum disorder and their families. Our province is the only one in

[ Page 10569 ]

Canada that has a no-wait policy for families to receive autism funding for services once their children receive a confirmed diagnosis. With this funding, families are able to choose the best type of intervention for their children.

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

SUPPORT FOR EDUCATION

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

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

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

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

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

MULTICULTURAL AND FIRST NATIONS

HEALTH INITIATIVE

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

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

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

[1350]

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

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

BELLA BELLA COMMUNITY SCHOOL

HUNGER STRIKE

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

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

Leading up to the event, school staff ensured that students were well iinformed about all sides of the issue, about the economic value of the project for B.C. and

[ Page 10570 ]

Canada as well as its certain and potential environmental impacts. This event is an educational opportunity for aboriginal youth to find their voices and express themselves in appropriate ways.

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

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

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

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

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Questions

DELAYS IN COURT PROCEEDINGS

AND TRANSLATION SERVICES

FOR CHILD ABUSE CASE

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

[1355]

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

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

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

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

[ Page 10571 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1400]

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fact of the matter is that if we could turn back the hands of time, we would. We can't. My job is to ensure that, moving forward in British Columbia, there is in place a protocol between Crown and police agencies to

[ Page 10572 ]

ensure that files of this nature are appropriately flagged, that they are appropriately dealt with and that the obligations of police agencies regarding transcription and translation are met. That is exactly what I intend to do.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

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

[1405]

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

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

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

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

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

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

TIMELINE FOR MISSING WOMEN INQUIRY

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

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

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

[1410]

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

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

[ Page 10573 ]

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

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

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

FERRY FARES

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

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

[1415]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 10574 ]

CACHE CREEK

TRAIL PROJECT FUNDING

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

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

Mayor Ranta says that all….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

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

[1420]

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS COMPLAINT

PROCESS AND GOVERNMENT HANDLING

OF CORRESPONDENCE

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

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

Hon. N. Yamamoto: To the member opposite: welcome to the conversation. I will tell you that back in

[ Page 10575 ]

September this government announced new regulations, and legislation will be introduced to strengthen and enhance our quality assurance framework for both the public and the private post-secondary sector.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

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

[1425]

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

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

Mr. Speaker: Pose the question please, Member.

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

Mr. Speaker: Question please, Member.

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

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

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

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

[End of question period.]

Motions Without Notice

SUPPORT FOR AVEOS

AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE WORKERS

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

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

Leave granted.

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

Aveos has been in place for a number of years. It resulted as a result of the changes in Air Canada, and there was

an act brought forward in 1988 to protect the interests of the different components of the aircraft maintenance industry across Canada as it related to the dominance of Air Canada as the national carrier.

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

[ Page 10576 ]

Canada Public Participation Act.

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

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

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

[1430]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1435]

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

[ Page 10577 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1440]

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

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

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

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

Motion approved.

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

Orders of the Day

Hon. I. Chong: In

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

[ Page 10578 ]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 28 — CRIMINAL ASSET

MANAGEMENT ACT

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

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

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

[L. Reid in the chair.]

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

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

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

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

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

[1445]

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

part I believe that the official opposition is going to be supportive of the provisions of the act and the provisions therein of Bill 28.

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

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

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

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

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

I do not fundamentally have a problem with that kind of management. I think the intention of the act is for government to use the resources, which come to it through the Criminal Asset Management Act, from the proceeds of crime, in the way that most effectively benefits the taxpayers of British Columbia. In the case that I just cited, perhaps the house could be upgraded, maybe rented out

[ Page 10579 ]

and then sold, if there was going to be a sale, at a time that was under the management of the director.

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

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

[1450]

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

I notice that when you compare — as an example, that specific

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

If you compare the provincial scheme, where you just destroy it, the federal scheme says that before a person appointed to manage property destroys property that has little or no value, he or she shall apply to a court for a destruction order. And before making a destruction order in relation to any property, a court shall require notice — in accordance with a further

section — to be given to and may hear any person who, in the opinion of the court, appears to have a valid interest in the property.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1455]

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

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

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

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

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

I think we need to look at the justice system through the same lens, through the same eyes, and say that when

[ Page 10580 ]

we are making decisions about changing our justice system, the administration of justice, we have to do the same thing.

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

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

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

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

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

[1500]

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

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

an act other than a supply act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1505]

[ Page 10581 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is another concern that I have. It's a concern that I will certainly talk to or ask questions of the minister on, when we do get to that

section when we are in the committee stage. I think it's something that we have to pay heed to and have to be concerned about when we're creating, as I said, such widespread powers.

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

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

With that, by way of

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

[1510]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 10582 ]

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

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

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

[1515]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1520]

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

Notwithstanding the threat of the Criminal Asset Management Act being proposed, and of similar statutes that relate to the proceeds-of-crime legislation, we have not seen a reduction in the number of judicial stays. We

[ Page 10583 ]

have seen an increase, and we have seen a significant increase, of course, in the number of cases that, likewise, face the possibility of being stayed on a judicial basis because they are past that 18-month range.

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

Interjection.

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1525]

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

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

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

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

That is one of the problems: to suggest that we're levying specific taxations to do specific things. Ultimately,

[ Page 10584 ]

it limits the ability of government to do the right thing.

What the Criminal Asset Management Act is really all about is setting up a process whereby we will have a director of criminal asset management designated under

section 2 who will have the ability to manage the proceeds of crime, which means "any property, benefit or advantage that (

a) falls within the definition of 'proceeds of crime' in

section 462.3 of the Criminal Code, or (

b) is obtained or derived, directly or indirectly, as a result of

an act or omission that, in the jurisdiction in which the act or omission occurs, constitutes an offence."

I don't have a problem with that. What is interesting is that the next definition contained in the act talks about an eligible victim: eligible victim means "a person who (

a) suffered pecuniary loss as a direct result of a criminal or quasi-criminal activity that resulted in forfeiture, to which this Act applies, of property, (

b) did not engage, directly or indirectly, in the commission of the criminal or quasi-criminal activity, and (

c) meets the criteria prescribed under this Act." What that means is that if you're an eligible victim, someone who has suffered a pecuniary loss, then you'll be eligible to make application.

I think what that

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

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

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

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

section 2 (2)."

[1530]

Now,

section 2(4) provided that:

"Subject to subsections (4.1) and (4.2), compensation may be awarded for any of the following: (

a) expenses actually and reasonably incurred or to be incurred as a result of a victim's injury or death; (

b) pecuniary loss or damage incurred by the victim as a result of total or partial disability affecting the victim's capacity for work; (

c) pecuniary loss or damages incurred by immediate family members as a result of the victim's death; (

d) maintenance of a child born as a result of rape; (

e) other pecuniary loss or damages resulting from the victim's injury and any expense that, in the board's opinion, it is reasonable to incur; (

f) non-pecuniary loss or damage for pain, suffering, mental or emotional trauma, humiliation or inconvenience."

With great respect, I think (

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

Interjection.

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

Unfortunately, this government, with its whopping majority, passed subsection (4.1): "Despite any provision of this Act, compensation referred to in subsection (4) (

f) may not be awarded under this Act in respect of an application received by the board on or after April 16, 2002." Happy anniversary, British Columbia. Happy anniversary.

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

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

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

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

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

That may be through fraud, deception, harassment,

[ Page 10585 ]

through the exploitation of people for sexual purposes. There is a range of ways in which money is taken from people wrongfully that offends the standards of humanity by which we should govern our behaviour day in and day out.

[1535]

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

That is where I have to say that I'm surprised the government didn't consider what it did with the repeal of

section 2(4)(

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

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

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

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

section 83.13, 462.331 or 490.81 of the Criminal Code," administering the property, etc. — a very responsible position.

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

Under

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

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

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

[1540]

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

That person, the new director, will be the person who will decide what you get and how the property is managed, because the director has the power, without limiting the generality of subsection (1), which gives them the right to "preserve, manage, dispose of or otherwise deal with any property described in

section 3 (1) (

c) or (

d) in any manner that the director considers appropriate." So that's pretty broad — "in any manner…the director considers appropriate."

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

But the director in this case can "take possession and control of, and preserve or manage, the property for the

[ Page 10586 ]

length of time and on the terms that the director considers appropriate."

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

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

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

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

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

But the payment to the eligible victim is a pretty broad discretion, again. It says: "Subject to this Act and the regulations and on receipt of an application under

section 7, the director may pay to an eligible victim an amount in the circumstances and subject to the conditions and limitations that the director considers appropriate."

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

Then sub 8(2): "Despite subsection (1), the director may not pay to an eligible victim of a criminal or quasi-criminal activity a total amount that exceeds the sum of (

a) any money forfeited as a result of the activity, and (

b) the net proceeds, as determined by the regulations, resulting from the disposition of any property forfeited as a result of the activity."

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

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

[1545]

Is that a good thing? I do note with interest that in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 10587 ]

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

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

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

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

[1550]

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

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

section of the bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1555]

How will it be used? Well, proceeds deposited into the criminal asset management fund may be used to compensate eligible victims. If you refer to the act itself, under

[ Page 10588 ]

section 8, "Payment to eligible victim," it says:

"

(1) Subject to this Act and the regulations and on receipt of an application under

section 7, the director may pay to an eligible victim an amount in the circumstances and subject to the conditions and limitations that the director considers appropriate.

"

(2) Despite subsection (1), the director may not pay to an eligible victim of a criminal or quasi-criminal activity a total amount that exceeds the sum of (

a) any money forfeited as a result of the activity, and (

b) the net proceeds, as determined by the regulations, resulting from the disposition of any property forfeited as a result of the activity."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1600]

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