British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, October 20, 2005

H1020pm-02

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

First Session, 38th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Thursday, October 20, 2005 Afternoon Sitting Volume 3, Number 2 THE HONOURABLE BILL BARISOFF, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Iona V. Campagnolo, CM, OBC FIRST SESSION, 38TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Bill Barisoff EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations .......................................................................................................... Hon.

John van Dongen Deputy Premier and Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy...................... Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation .......................................................................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Minister of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology ........................................... Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of Agriculture and Lands.......................................................................................................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism............................................................................... Hon. Wally Oppal, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ..........................................................................................................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of State for Childcare ........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors’ and Women’s Issues........................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Economic Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and the Olympics.................Hon.

Colin Hansen Minister of Employment and Income Assistance ...........................................................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources .......................................................................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Bill Bennett Minister of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities ...............Hon. Barry Penner Minister of Finance.......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Carole Taylor Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing ............................................................................. Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Health ......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. George Abbott Minister of Labour and Citizens’ Services .......................................................................................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General................................................................................................................................Hon.

John Les Minister of Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Deregulation ...................................................... Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of Tourism, Sports and the Arts........................................................................................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition .........................................................................................................................................................Carole James Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................Sindi Hawkins Assistant Deputy Speaker.....................................................................................................................................................................Sue Hammell Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole.................................................................................................................................................

Harry Bloy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .........................................................................................................................E. George MacMinn, OBC, QC Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .......................................................................................................................................................Ian D.

Izard, QC Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H. James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................................................................Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Acting Legislative Comptroller..................................................................................................................................................Brent Cunningham

Party Standings: Liberal 46; New Democratic 33 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ..........................................................................Shuswap Austin, Robin (NDP)...................................................................................Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP)....................................................................... Surrey-Newton Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)...............................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon. Pat (L) ..................................................................Prince George North Bennett, Hon.

Bill (L) .....................................................................East Kootenay Black, Iain (L) ..................................................................Port Moody–Westwood Bloy, Harry (L).....................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).......................................... Prince George–Mount Robson Brar, Jagrup (NDP)..........................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L) ..............................................

Vancouver–Point Grey Cantelon, Ron (L)................................................................... Nanaimo-Parksville Chong, Hon. Ida (L) ......................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ...................................................... Okanagan-Vernon Chudnovsky, Dave (NDP).................................................Vancouver-Kensington Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ..........................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon.

Rich (L)................................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) ............................................... West Kootenay–Boundary Coons, Gary (NDP) .............................................................................North Coast Cubberley, David (NDP)................................................................. Saanich South de Jong, Hon.

Michael (L) ........................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Dix, Adrian (NDP) ..............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Evans, Corky (NDP)......................................................................Nelson-Creston Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) ............................................................

Surrey-Cloverdale Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ....................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Fleming, Rob (NDP) ...................................................................Victoria-Hillside Fraser, Scott (NDP) ...................................................................Alberni-Qualicum Gentner, Guy (NDP)............................................................................ Delta North Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ......................................................................Comox Valley Hammell, Sue (NDP) ........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Hansen, Hon. Colin (L) .......................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Hawes, Randy (L)............................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Sindi (L) .................................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ..................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Gordon (L)................................................................... Surrey–White Rock Horgan, John (NDP)...........................................................

Malahat–Juan de Fuca Horning, Al (L)................................................................ Kelowna–Lake Country Ilich, Hon. Olga (L)....................................................................Richmond Centre James, Carole (NDP)............................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Jarvis, Daniel (L)........................................................North Vancouver–Seymour Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) .................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Krog, Leonard (NDP)..............................................................................

Nanaimo Krueger, Kevin (L)................................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)................................ Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lali, Harry (NDP)..............................................................................Yale-Lillooet Lee, Richard T. (L).........................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................... Peace River South Les, Hon. John (L)....................................................................

Chilliwack-Sumas Macdonald, Norm (NDP)......................................... Columbia River–Revelstoke MacKay, Dennis (L)......................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine Mayencourt, Lorne (L)............................................................Vancouver-Burrard McIntyre, Joan (L)...................................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) ....................................................... Peace River North Nuraney, John (L)..................................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Oppal, Hon.

Wally, QC (L)............................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Penner, Hon. Barry (L)................................................................ Chilliwack-Kent Polak, Mary (L) ......................................................................................... Langley Puchmayr, Chuck (NDP)........................................................... New Westminster Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ...................................................................Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ..................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon.

Claude (L)...................................................................Kamloops Robertson, Gregor (NDP) .....................................................Vancouver-Fairview Roddick, Valerie (L)............................................................................ Delta South Routley, Doug (NDP).......................................................... Cowichan-Ladysmith Rustad, John (L) ..............................................................Prince George–Omineca Sather, Michael (NDP)..............................................

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ........................................ Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Bob (NDP).......................................................................Cariboo North Simpson, Shane (NDP) ......................................................... Vancouver-Hastings Sultan, Ralph (L) .........................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Taylor, Hon. Carole (L)..........................................................

Vancouver-Langara Thorne, Diane (NDP) ......................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L)............................................................Okanagan-Westside Trevena, Claire (NDP) .......................................................................North Island van Dongen, Hon. John (L)..................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Whittred, Katherine (L).............................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wyse, Charlie (NDP) ......................................................................Cariboo South Yap, John (L)........................................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn ........................................................ Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman................................................Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum ...............................................................................

Scott Fraser Bulkley Valley–Stikine ................................................................ Dennis MacKay Burnaby North................................................................................ Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................. Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Willingdon ........................................................................John Nuraney Burquitlam............................................................................................

Harry Bloy Cariboo North....................................................................................Bob Simpson Cariboo South................................................................................... Charlie Wyse Chilliwack-Kent ....................................................................... Hon. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas ........................................................................... Hon.

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke ......................................................Norm Macdonald Comox Valley .............................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville................................................................... Diane Thorne Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................................Doug Routley Delta North........................................................................................

Guy Gentner Delta South...................................................................................Valerie Roddick East Kootenay ............................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin ............................................................. Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove....................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ......................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson..........................................................

Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country .......................................................................Al Horning Kelowna-Mission ............................................................................Sindi Hawkins Langley................................................................................................

Mary Polak Malahat–Juan de Fuca........................................................................John Horgan Maple Ridge–Mission ......................................................................Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows...........................................................Michael Sather Nanaimo ...........................................................................................Leonard Krog Nanaimo-Parksville..........................................................................

Ron Cantelon Nelson-Creston.................................................................................. Corky Evans New Westminster ........................................................................Chuck Puchmayr North Coast .........................................................................................Gary Coons North Island.................................................................................... Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ....................................................

Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................. Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head.................................................................Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon ..............................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside................................................................... Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North ...............................................................Hon.

Richard Neufeld Peace River South ..........................................................................Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley...................................................... Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain................................................. Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Westwood .........................................................................Iain Black Powell River–Sunshine Coast.....................................................Nicholas Simons Prince George North .........................................................................Hon.

Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................. Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca .....................................................................John Rustad Richmond Centre .......................................................................... Hon. Olga Ilich Richmond East ............................................................................ Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ............................................................................... John Yap Saanich North and the Islands..................................................Hon.

Murray Coell Saanich South..............................................................................David Cubberley Shuswap ................................................................................ Hon. George Abbott Skeena ...............................................................................................Robin Austin Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................................Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers.....................................................................

Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ....................................................................................Harry Bains Surrey–Panorama Ridge...................................................................... Jagrup Brar Surrey-Tynehead .............................................................................Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ............................................................................... Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock..........................................................................

Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard .................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview.................................................................. Gregor Robertson Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................... Hon. Wally Oppal, QC Vancouver-Hastings...................................................................... Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington ........................................................... David Chudnovsky Vancouver-Kingsway...........................................................................

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara.................................................................Hon. Carole Taylor Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey..................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena ............................................................. Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill ........................................................................Carole James Victoria-Hillside................................................................................

Rob Fleming West Kootenay–Boundary ............................................................ Katrine Conroy West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................... Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi............................................................. Joan McIntyre Yale-Lillooet ..........................................................................................Harry Lali

CONTENTS Thursday, October 20, 2005 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... ............................................. 1011 Statements (Standing Order 25 B) .............................................................................................................................. ............. 1011 Surrey business awards D. Hayer Watershed conservation in Coquitlam area D. Thorne Trade relations with China R. Lee Youth programs in Newton H.

Bains Seniors services in North Shore K. Whittred Port of Prince Rupert G. Coons Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 1013 Alcan power production in Kitimat R. Austin Hon. R. Neufeld C. Evans B.C. Hydro power sales to U.S. C. Evans Hon. R. Neufeld Hiring of Gary Cowan for fast-track program H. Lali Hon. M. de Jong B. Ralston Ownership of shipping terminal on Ridley Island G. Coons Hon. K. Falcon Government support for forest industry B. Simpson Hon. R.

Coleman Future of Port Alice pulp mill C. Trevena Hon. M. de Jong Closing of private rail crossings D. Chudnovsky Hon. K. Falcon Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................... 1018 Civil Forfeiture Act (Bill 13) (continued) R. Fleming D. Hayer R. Hawes H. Lali Hon. R. Coleman R. Austin I. Black M. Farnworth

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................... 1040 Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (continued) G. Gentner Hon. P. Bell R. Chouhan S. Simpson G. Robertson B. Ralston

1011 THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Introductions by Members C. Trevena: The North Island is a truly wonderful place, and I'd like to intr oduce a guest from the North Island: Kelly Carson. She is a councillor in the town of Port McNeill. I hope the House would make her wel- come. R. Hawes: In the gallery today is the mayor of Ma- ple Ridge, Kathy Morse, here to talk about a number of issues with various ministers. Could the House please make her welcome. K. Conroy: I think it is my week to introduce guests, and it probably won't happen again for a long time.

I'd like to introduce my sister and my niece from Whistler, Sana and Amanda Marsh; my granddaugh- ter, Dera, who I hope maintains for an hour up in the gallery; and a friend of my son who is here from Cal- gary, Wayne Anderson. I woul d also like to point out that our son, Ben Conroy, is in the gallery again today and has been in the gallery every day at two o'clock for the past week and has thoroughly enjoyed the process. I'd ask you to all join me in welcoming my guests. [1405] R. Austin: It gives me pleasure to introduce six people who are visiting fr om my constituency.

Specifi- cally, they are coming here from Kitimat. I'd like to introduce Ray Brady and his wife Ruth. Ray Brady is formerly the mayor of Kitimat. We also have Gaetan Pazsgay, a community activist who has lived in Kitimat for 48 years. As well, there is Steve Saunders, a CAW member who works at Alcan; and finally, two business people: Lloyd Hubbard, a retired business person from Kitimat, and Tony Deni, who currently runs a business there. I'd like the House to make them welcome. Hon. B.

Penner: It's my honour to recognize and welcome to the Legislature a conservation officer who has been awarded a conservation officer of the year award. I had the pleasure of having lunch with both Jeff Ginter and his wife Brenda Ginter here from Daw- son Creek, British Columbia. Would the House please make them welcome. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) SURREY BUSINESS AWARDS D. Hayer: Teamwork creates strong business, and last night I saw how successful that is. I attended the annual Business Excellence Awards held by Surrey Chamber of Commerce in Surrey-Tynehead. Many businesses were nominated, and to achieve that status means they were all winn ers. Without teamwork, without everyone working together, none of those businesses would have made the honour roll list. In addition to being successful, these businesses and awards also celebrate the diversity of Surrey.

In the '90s I served on the board of directors of the Surrey Cham- ber of Commerce for many years, and as president. I know how important that diversity is to their success. With that, I would like to name the 2005 award win- ners for the small business segment: Sigma Logic Inc. and Vicki Singh. Runners-up were Ranger Wheel- chairs/Access Mobility and That's My Ball. For medium- sized business: Canada Washworld and Anand Kishore. Runners-up were Black Bond Books and Fruiticana. For large business: Morgan Creek Golf Course and Ron Good. Runners-up were Home Depot North Sur- rey and Pivotal Partners.

St udent entrepreneur of the year: SRS Packaging and Sendip Gill. Runners-up were Abbey's Accessories and popYOUlarity.com. Not-for- profit business of the year: Surrey Food Bank and Robin Campbell. Runners-up were Surrey Firefighters Charity Society and Surrey Crime Prevention Society. New business of the year: Les Grand Dames Consign- ment Boutique and Ramona McNeil. Runners-up were In the Company of Friends and KickStart Communica- tions Inc. Business person of the year: Tony Singh of Fruiticana.

Runners-up were Larry Hamblin of PCS Wireless Communications and Rue Bains of Indo- Canadian Times International Inc. I would ask everyone in the House to join me in congratulating these business success stories. WATERSHED CONSERVATION IN COQUITLAM AREA D. Thorne: Today I'd like to tell the House about the Como Watershed Group, which is an environ- mental protection group in my riding committed to the conservation of the Como Creek watershed.

This is a very congested watershed including central Coquitlam, the south slopes of Maillardville, the Fraser Mills area and portions of the highly developed Lougheed High- way and Freeway 401.

Originally founded to work with the city of Coquit- lam to provide stewardship to Como Lake, which is a renowned urban fishing and recreational area in the lower mainland, this group has quickly expanded to over 80 active volunteers involved in many collabora- tive activities, which incl ude watershed restoration, environmental education, water quality monitoring and last but not least — what I'd really like to talk about today — providing valuable input into the land use planning processes in the Coquitlam area.

Because the CWG members have a diverse array of skills and expertise, they're currently providing a credible resource to the city of Coquitlam and to our community. Recently, they'v e been working with the Beattie group. I'm sure we're all familiar with them. They have a new development proposal. The old Fra- ser mill site in Maillardville. It's a large and exciting

1012 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005 development proposal on an area of 83 acres with one kilometre of waterfront on the Fraser River — a pro- posal that will be a mix of residential, commercial, light industrial and community use. [1410] CWG and Beattie are proving that the consultative process can work if it is genuine — if it starts soon enough and if it is actually more than just notification to the community after the fact. Because of their ongo- ing working relationship, this environmental society is supporting Beattie's proposal and calling it a smart growth development.

Many hurdles have been elimi- nated for all concerned. Hopefully, this is an excellent example which they have created and which will be followed in many communities. TRADE RELATIONS WITH CHINA R. Lee: I would like to pay tribute today to a great and growing partnership between our province and the people of China. Over the next five days B.C. will host a delegation from Guangdong province. Led by Governor Huang Huahua, nearly 600 major leaders of government and representatives of enterprises will visit Vancouver and Victoria.

While in B.C. the delega- tion will meet with repres entatives from our new Asia- Pacific trade council, a key component of the Asia- Pacific gateway strategy announced in February's Speech from the Throne. Their visit will culminate on Monday in Vancouver with a Hong Kong–Guangdong business forum hosted by Governor Huang and Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang. More than 1,000 political and corporate leaders will participate in th is forum to strengthen eco- nomic and trade cooperation between our two regions. Last year two-way trade between Canada and the Hong Kong–Guangdong region amounted to $9 billion.

B.C.'s links to Hong Kong and Guangdong are deep. Many British Columbians were born there, and have brought their skills and vibrant culture with them to our province. In fact, this year marks the tenth anni- versary of B.C. and Guangdong being officially twinned as sister provinces. Since 1985 Vancouver has served as the sister city to Guangzhou, Guangdong's capital city. I t i s v i t a l t h a t w e c o n t i n u e t o f o s t e r s t r o n g t i e s a n d friendship with all our Asia-Pacific partners.

As our prov- ince continues to grow, we need to build on our relation- ships with the world's emerging economies, including Guangdong, to promote British Columbia's goods and services and keep our economy moving forward. Please join me in welcoming our friends from Guangdong and Hong Kong to Canada's gateway to the Asia-Pacific and offering our best wishes as our harmony continues to blossom. YOUTH PROGRAMS IN NEWTON H.

Bains: Last Saturday I had the opportunity — along with the Attorney General, the member from Tynehead and many other community leaders — to attend the first invitational tournament and commu- nity launch, a program targeted to help youth. The community in and around the Tamanawis high school area of Newton became aware that there were a high number of complaints of youth loitering, under- age drinking, youth violence, vandalism, etc., in their community during the weekend hours. On most given weekends, community citizens would see youth engag- ing in high-risk behaviour and knew that something had to be done.

Three community agencies — Surrey school board Safe Schools program, Surrey RCMP and South-Asian Frontline Education program — came together to create a response to these community issues. This partnership resulted in the creation of the Newton Youth Hoops program. This recreation-based program runs from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. each Saturday evening at Tamanawis high school and is open to youth from all Surrey areas.

The purpose of this preventative program is to pro- vide meaningful interaction between youth and com- munity leaders, including Surrey RCMP youth-target team members, so as to foster positive relationships among community members. The program has over 25 volunteers, each certified in non-violent crisis interven- tion and first aid, who support the program. The com- munity volunteers range from doctors to teachers to students and to date have volunteered over 1,100 hours to the program. The program was launched April 8, 2005, and has seen close to 1,300 youth participate in six short months.

This was an event put on to introduce this program into the community. Anyone could have come and seen what Newtonites are all about and had a fun night out in the community watching the youth participate in the program, which included a basketball tournament and skills competition followed by awards and dinner. Please join me in thanking those volunteers for coming up with such a creative program. SENIORS SERVICES IN NORTH SHORE K. Whittred: Today I rise to pay tribute to the Lionsview Seniors Planning Society, which is a strong voice for the senior s community of the North Shore.

They work hard to promote ongoing planning of health, social and other activities that affect the quality of life of our seniors. They believe that indi- viduals have the desire to live independently and to be responsible for their own health. [1415] I met recently with representatives of Lionsview about their most recent project, a study on North Shore seniors housing needs. Together with municipalities and the health region, they surveyed 421 seniors on the North Shore.

The survey found that seniors want to remain in their homes for as long as possible and really only want to move for either health or financial reasons. However, it did find that if they have to leave the long- time family home for any reason, seniors want housing that allows them to live independently. They also want

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1013 housing that's adaptable to changing health needs as we age. Access to public tr ansportation was extremely important, as was proximity to stores and services. They want to stay in their same general community, and most of all, they want to be able to keep their pets. Concerns were raised about affordability. With increasing rental costs on the North Shore, more and more seniors are facing financial hardship. I was pleased to be able to report to the group the recent ex- pansion of the SAFER program.

Of the 7,200 more sen- iors who will become eligible for the grant, many will be from North Vancouver. I want to thank the Lions- view Seniors Planning Society for the many hours of volunteer work they contri bute to the community and for the important work they do. PORT OF PRINCE RUPERT G. Coons: At this time I would like to bring to the assembly's attention a great vision that is unfolding in my home community of Prince Rupert and throughout the region. The northwest coast has nurtured the hu- man spirit for thousands of years.

The vastness of the land and the immensity of the sea have generously supported the Tsimshian Nation for over 10,000 years. Their traditional territory stretches south to the Ki- tasoo, north to the mouth of the Nass and up the Skeena just east of Terrace. Prince Rupert's strategic location has always made it a vital, traditional trade link. Today the significance of this route cannot be overestimated, as the port of Prince Rupert — the new world port and a world-class container gateway — unfolds before our very eyes.

The city of Prince Rupert and the whole northwest trade corridor will accrue the benefits that will stimulate a diverse economy. Ensuring that the north becomes a major opportu- nity gateway for transpacific trade, investment in tour- ism was an effort that has crossed all political lines. I would like to express my gratitude on behalf of all the constituents in the North Coast for the hard work and dedication of all the federal and provincial government staff, all the MLAs and MPs who struggled diligently to make this happen. However, our region is not yet out of the woods as far as economic prosperity.

There are still many months or years before we reap the benefits, but we are very optimistic about the future. I must give special kudos to port president and CEO Don Krusel and all the port staff who toiled endlessly to make this dream a reality. Mr. Speaker: I might commend the members from both sides for sticking to the way two-minute state- ments are supposed to be. Oral Questions ALCAN POWER PRODUCTION IN KITIMAT R. Austin: For over four years people from Kitimat have attempted to meet with this government to ex- press their fears over the use of electricity generated from the Kemano power plant.

I'd like to ask the Deputy Premier: what has this government done to ensure that the people of Kitimat benefit from the wa- ter resources that should be powering the Alcan smelter? Hon. R. Neufeld: Y e s , t h e r e h a v e b e e n a l o t o f d i s - cussions in regards to Alcan's generation of electricity. It is this government's opinion, by recommendations from the Attorney General's ministry, that Alcan is living up to its agreements from the 1950s and the mid-1990s in how they handle the power that's generated at that site. [1420] Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. R.

Austin: Three weeks ago here the minister said that this was before the cour ts. I'd like to point out that the district of Kitimat is not suing the provincial gov- ernment, which is why I asked what this government was doing to help the people in my riding. My question, again to the Deputy Premier, is: what is her government doing to ensure that the people of Kitimat benefit from the local water resource? Hon. R.

Neufeld: This government continues to work with every community, regardless of where it's at in the province of British Columbia, to make sure that communi- ties benefit from the resources that happen in their area. We work with Alcan on as constant a basis as the government can to encourage them to actually up- grade, to build new plants in Kitimat that will employ people in Kitimat, to keep Kitimat going. We have worked with a project that was just announced for Kitimat, which will see a lot of jobs created, and that's the Enbridge proposal, if in fact it goes through.

There's also an LNG plant proposed for Kitimat, which this government works on, that the Ministry of Economic Development and my ministry work on. Y e s , w e h a v e d o n e a m a r v e l l o u s j o b o f w o r k i n g with every community in this province. It actually shows up in unemployment stats, which have never been lower — never been lower — in the province of British Columbia than they are today. Mr. Speaker: Member, there are only a few people who get further supplementals. Do you want to move on to the next question? Have you got another question? R. Austin: Yes, I do.

There is a serious disagreement between the people of Kitimat and their principal employer in the commu- nity. It involves the use of a public water resource. The government is sitting on the sidelines as though it is an observer. Will this government commit to standing up for the local community and all British Columbians by ensuring that Alcan uses the incredible water resource to generate jobs rather than making windfall profits? Hon. R. Neufeld: We continue to work with the community of Kitimat, as we always have, to make

1014 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005 sure that Kitimat remains a resourceful, bubbling community that provides all kinds of jobs for the peo- ple that live there. We will continue to do that. Looking forward to the futu re, to the things that are happening in Kitimat, whether it's Alcan talking about actually rebuilding a plant, whether it's a pipeline that would terminate there, whether it's a condensate line that would start there and go east, an LNG port….

There are all kinds of positive things happening in the area called Kitimat in British Columbia, as there are in a whole bunch of other parts of the province. But I would draw that member to think back just a short time ago to a member of a party that for ten years didn't do anything, and in fact rewrote agreemen ts that actually put some more difficult things in place for the community of Kitimat. He should read history. C. Evans: That obfuscation went on almost long enough to be a filibuster.

Okay, let's get past all the sort of "aren't we groovy, trying to help people out." This is a real simple one to the Minister of Energy. Is Alcan Aluminium Ltd. an aluminum producer that has a water licence to produce power at Kemano, which is appurtenant to their smelter at Kitimat? Or, as some suspect, is Alcan now registered as an independent power producer in British Columbia with a water licence to produce electricity appurtenant to nowhere? [1425] Hon. R.

Neufeld: Leave it up to the member for Nelson-Creston to try and take something that was signed in the 1950s, which had numerous interventions by the previous government during the 1990s — re- markable interventions by the NDP, some commit- ments that they never kept up to — and he wants me to speak to something that's before the courts in this House. I can tell you that what we're doing for Kitimat and what we do for every community, unlike the last ad- ministration, is actually wo rk with those communities to create employment. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Continue. Hon. R.

Neufeld: Anywhere across the province you can have a look. The stats are there — the lowest unemployment rate ever, since the 1980s, in British Columbia; the highest investment rates of any time in this province's history. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Hon. R. Neufeld: The highest rate of small busi- ness, regardless of what stat you want to use. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Hon. R. Neufeld: I t ' s g r e a t . M o r e g o o d n e w s , M r . Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. C. Evans: That minister is absolutely right. The deal was signed in 1949.

It was signed by Liberals and Con- servatives. It was then defended by Social Crediters. It was then defended by New Democrats. This govern- ment is the first ever to sit on that side of the House that said this multinatio nal aluminum company can abandon the people of Kitimat and sell the power in the United States — the first one. B.C. HYDRO POWER SALES TO U.S. C. Evans: Okay, I'm going to ask this really gently here because…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Put your question, member. C. Evans: It's a really simple question. Is B.C.

Hy- dro or Powerex selling now or negotiating to sell power generated at Kemano for the production of alu- minum at Kitimat to the United States aluminum pro- ducers to ship back into the world market to compete with the workers at Kitimat? Hon. R. Neufeld: Absolutely interesting question. First off, the member should check. We're a net…. [Applause.] Thank you. Give me a little more. British Columbia is a net importer of electricity today and has been about six out of the last ten years, simply because that government never built one plant in British Columbia.

In fact, you know where they went to build the plants? It was in Pakistan — in Pakistan. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Listen. Listen. If you want question period to continue, we're going to have some order. The minister continues. Hon. R. Neufeld: Do we trade electricity with the U.S.? You're darn right we do. We have always done that, and that makes an average of about $150 million a year for the Crown corporation called B.C. Hydro to actually keep rates low in the province. It was that government….

He was part of that gov- ernment that actually sold electricity to plants south of the border — aluminum plants, by the way — at an industrial rate of about two cents while he charged companies in British Columbia twice as much. In fact,

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1015 it absolutely amazes me that that member would ask that kind of a question. HIRING OF GARY COWAN FOR FAST-TRACK PROGRAM H. Lali: Will the Deputy Premier please stand up and enlighten this House an d tell us if the Premier's fast-track guru for economic development projects, Mr. Gary Cowan, was fired? Hon. M. de Jong: I know the matter was canvassed in estimates just within the last 24 or 48 hours. I'll take the question on notice. Mr. Speaker: Member, you don't get a supplemental. Is this a new question? Member, is it a new question? [1430] H.

Lali: I'd like to again ask the Deputy Premier if she maybe can give an answer to this one. For the price of $180,000 per year plus benefits, will the Deputy Premier please inform this House how many projects were successfully fast-tracked by Liberal insider Mr. Gary Cowan, and what did Mr. Cowan produce for this kind of sweetheart deal? Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I know the member canvassed the issue extensively. I'll take the question on notice. B. Ralston: Let me just briefly review this matter. The government hired Mr. Cowan on a contract. He was fired — we just learned that momentarily — after seven months.

He was paid $180,000 for those seven months of service, plus bene fits for two years. Plus, he received $75,000 in severance. He completed zero pro- jects — money for nothing, an d more money for noth- ing in $75,000 worth of severance. Can the Deputy Premier please advise the House when her government started providing severance for failed contract work? Hon. M. de Jong: I know that the hon. member asks the question because he wants specific, reliable and detailed information.

I've tried to communicate to him and other members, through the earlier round of ques- tions, that we're happy to provide that and will take the question on notice. Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey-Whalley, do you have…? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Do you have a new question? B. Ralston: Yes. Well, subject to your ruling, I be- lieve it's a new question. On his first day in office the Premier hired the president of the B.C. Liberal Party, Andrew Wilkinson, as a deputy minister.

In 2003 the Premier moved the same Andrew Wilkinson to the Economic Develop- ment Ministry, and he was the deputy who signed Mr. Cowan's contract. Will the Deputy Premier simply admit that this contract was a sweetheart deal for a B.C. Liberal friend and insider? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Hon. M. de Jong: The member needs to turn the page and go to what's called plan B when something isn't actually working out the way he wants it to. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Hon. M. de Jong: That's difficult to do if the page is blank, but nonetheless, Mr. Speaker….

Look, I don't think the member accomplishes anything by denigrating the reputations and names of people who come to the public service and decide that they want to work for the people of British Columbia. Now, he may think it serves some useful purpose to speak of those peo- ple in a way that besmirches their reputations, reputations earned over a long period of time — people who decide to come here and put their talents to work for the British Columbia people — but I think it's shameful. I've said to the member that if there's information he wants, we're happy to provide it.

But he should think twice before he comes into this chamber and starts besmirching the reputations of talented British Columbians that want to work for the province of B.C. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. OWNERSHIP OF SHIPPING TERMINAL ON RIDLEY ISLAND G. Coons: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. There is a major controversy brewing in my riding, in Prince Rupert. I've had numerous con- stituent inquiries regardin g Ridley terminal, the $250 million state-of-the-art bulk-handling facility.

The Premier, at a joint British Columbia–Alberta cabinet meeting, indicated that he wanted to ensure Ridley is available for everyone. Can the Minister of Transportation please explain why this government has backed away from a plan that would have kept Ridley terminal in public hands? [1435] Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, the member should know that while it was in public hands with the federal gov- ernment, it consistently lost tens of millions of dollars. One of the things I would think that member would

1016 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005 l i k e t o s e e , a s w e c e r t a i n l y w o u l d o n t h i s s i d e o f t h e H o u s e , i s t o a c t u a l l y h a v e a n o p e r a t o r w i t h p r i v a t e sector investment ensuring th ere's fair and open access for all the folks and the businesses that would utilize Ridley terminal. That's exac tly what we have been rep- resenting to the federal government, and that's exactly the outcome we would like to see. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. G. Coons: Thank you for the answer. It's interest- ing.

In April — just before the last provincial election, may I add — this province approached the federal government about taking over Ridley terminal. Since then you've backed away fr om open access, leaving it exposed for one company — an out-of-province com- pany — to control access to this facility. This will have a significant impact on the global competitiveness on B.C. companies. Can the minister please tell us if this was just an- other broken election promise or if there is some other reason you didn't keep this commitment? Hon. K.

Falcon: Actually, the member has his facts wrong again, which shouldn't be altogether surprising. The fact of the matter is that the federal government was in the process of engagi ng in a bidding process. We're well down the road with a potential purchaser, which the member indicated. Our government was c o n c e r n e d . W e w a n t e d t o m a k e s u r e t h e r e ' s f a i r a n d open access to all users of Ridley terminal.

We let the federal government know that we wanted to put a freeze in place on the proce ss that they were engaging upon so that we could have an opportunity to examine what options are available to protect the interests of shippers in British Columbia. We did exactly that. We have a commitment out of the federal govern- ment that whoever ends up operating Ridley terminals, it will be on the basis of fa ir and equal and open access for all users in British Columbia. That's exactly the right thing to do. GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR FOREST INDUSTRY B.

Simpson: The Minister of Forests and Range has made it perfectly clear that he doesn't like us to use the word "crisis" with respect to the forest industry. Well, there are many voices that are calling the situation in our forest industry just that. The Truck Loggers Association is calling it a crisis. The Coast Forest Products Association is calling it a crisis. Even the CIBC called it a crisis in the briefing that the minister was given just last week.

This week senior leaders in the forest industry have referred to the situation as "the perfect storm." When will the Min- ister of Forests and Range admit that we have a crisis on our hands? Hon. R. Coleman: That's not what CIBC told me. CIBC said that the next one to three years are going to be some of the most difficult years in the North Ameri- can forest industry unless jurisdictions adjust and in- dustries adjust to build long-term sustainability in their business. That includes governments. I have launched a review, frankly, with the Coast Forest Products Association.

All the people that the member has spoken to I have asked for submissions on what they think the fix is on the coast and what they think some of the fixes are in the interior. I've under- taken to move quickly on those fixes to see if they can be done sustainably for the people of British Columbia and for the companies involved. At the same time as we're doing that, we're working on a long-term strate- gic plan for forestry — period. I think it's important. I'm not going to say that the forest industry doesn't have its challenges today. The member knows very well, as well as I do, that it does.

I also believe that if we think outside the box, take the time to listen to our producers and the organizations affected by forestry and sit down with our officials and work out a long-term sustainable plan, we can get ahead of this thing. That's one thing CIBC World Markets told me. B.C. was better positioned to react to this situation in North America than any other jurisdiction in Canada, because it was already ahead of a curve on the changes it had made. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. [1440] B. Simpson: I would like to correct the minister on what the CIBC actually said.

It did say it was a crisis. It did say that if there was reasonable intervention, things could be turned around. But it also said that the inter- vention had to be timely and immediate. It also said that there is one portion of the B.C. industry that did show some positives, and that was only the interior. The coast industry was not in that comment by CIBC. This government, for example, has chosen to ad- dress the mountain pine beetle epidemic by lifting the allowable cut throughout the interior. That's what is driving the interior industry.

However, that has cre- ated a chip oversupply, wh ich has now reached crisis proportions, and independen t sawmillers in the inte- rior are now struggling with that. We will see mill clo- sures and job losses. Will the Minister of Forests and Range tell us what he is going to do now — not a plan, now — to inter- vene with that chip oversupply crisis? Hon. R. Coleman: As the member knows, the chip issue is to deal with the pu lp side of the industry and not just the sawmilling side.

It is basically the waste material that comes out of the sawmills and has been going into pulp mills across British Columbia over the last number of years. The member will also know, and I'm sure he does, that there is a pulp problem worldwide right now. There is a depression in the marketplace. Therefore, we have a situation where pulp mills that are cutting fibre

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1017 are only saying, "We want to take our own sawdust and chips," because frankly, they're at capacity. What we have seen is a reduction in capacity, and the reason is because pulp right now is at a significant situation. We have a Competition Council looking at that. Former Premier of British Columbia Dan Miller is one of the people working on that. I spoke to Dan at the UBCM convention. I have asked him to accelerate their recommendations on pulp to me. I haven't re- ceived them yet.

As soon as I do, I will be sitting down with that group to work on solutions. FUTURE OF PORT ALICE PULP MILL C. Trevena: Yesterday the Minister for Economic Development said of the Port Alice Specialty Cellulose mill: "We recognize the value of an operating mill to the people of Port Alice and all British Columbians." The minister also said that he is now willing to con- sider the environmental remediation suggested by the proposed buyer once his business plan is approved.

Given the government's recognition, albeit late, of the value of the Port Alice mill to the B.C. economy, I'd like to ask the Deputy Premier whether she will assure this House and the people of Port Alice that the review of the business plan is the final stage in this year-long saga. Hon. M. de Jong: There was a very poignant mo- ment at the UBCM about three weeks ago, when an individual stood up in the midst of a larger forum where people were exchanging ideas — civic leaders, provincial ministers and MLAs.

That individual said to the crowd that he wanted to thank, personally, the work of the Minister of Economic Development and the government of British Columbia. From anyone else, that might have been nice but somewhat less signifi- cant. It was from the mayor of Port Alice. So I do want to assure the member and, through her, her constituents, particularly the people of Port Alice, that the minister and the government are doing every- thing humanly possible to ensure that there is a satisfac- tory resolution. She is right.

The government takes very seriously our broader duty to ensure that the plan being presented by the proponent is a sound one. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental? C. Trevena: I do, Mr. Speaker. The mayor did recognize the minister, but the work started extraordinarily late. It started this summer. The people of Port Alice have waited a year. They are now desperate. There is no government subsidy involved in this deal.

So what I would like is for the Deputy Pre- mier to tell the people of Port Alice and to tell this House whether the government will commit to the reopening of the Port Alice Specialty Cellulose mill. [1445] Hon. M. de Jong: It's a curious question. With due respect, what do you think we're doing? We have been working as a government, and this pre-dates even the time period that the member is speaking of. I hope she hasn't forgotten that there was another proponent in- volved that came into town and then ran away from town, leaving a lot of people in the lurch.

We actually do take seriously the obligation of government to en- sure that we do everything possible. The member has been reluctant — and I think I know why — to explain that she apparently has a dif- ferent set of standards about when environmental li- abilities should be forgiven and when they shouldn't. I'm always interested to hear her views on that. But rest assured that the government and the minister are do- ing everything humanly possible to ensure that this proponent has every opportunity to work with the community, to work with government and to see that mill operate again.

CLOSING OF PRIVATE RAIL CROSSINGS D. Chudnovsky: On September 13 the Minister of Transportation was asked in this House to explain why hundreds of British Columbians received threatening letters from CN demanding that they pay for the main- tenance, operating and administrative expenses for pri- vate level crossings. The minister claimed: "Nothing has changed." That came as a co mplete surprise to people like 77-year-old widow Jean Davis.

She told the Quesnel Observer: "We have never paid for the crossing before." Can the minister explain why the government failed to consult with landowners like Jean Davis about the financial impact the B.C. Rail privatization would have on them, and why he claimed nothing has changed? Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, something has changed. What has changed is that under the previous govern- ment in the operation of B.C. Rail, what would happen — and what has always been the practice of B.C.

Rail and other railways — is that when they improved rail- road crossings, those costs have always been histori- cally passed along to the landowners, whether it's local government or individuals su ch as the lady that the member mentioned. The difference is that because of political interfer- ence, those bills are often either not sent, not collected or not paid. As a result, not surprisingly, taxpayers had to write off over a billion dollars as a result of the kind of mismanagement they imposed on B.C. Rail. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Hon. K.

Falcon: Today we have a situation where we have a private sector company leasing the railway from us, the operation of the railway, investing hun- dreds of millions of private sector dollars at no risk to the taxpayer for lower rates and better service. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

1018 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005 D. Chudnovsky: Let's talk about that private sector company for a minute, shall we? The contract that CN is pressuring B.C. residents to sign includes the follow- ing provision.

"The applicant — that's the person on whose land the level crossing lies — a g r e e s t o b e r e - sponsible for and to indemnify and save harmless CN from and against all loss and expense of whatsoever nature which may occur by reason of pollution or con- tamination." It goes on to say: "In the event of evidence of pollu- tion or contamination, the burden shall be with the applicant — the person on whose land the crossing lies — to prove that the pollution or contamination was not a result of this agreement or anything done in relation thereto." Was the minister aware that CN would demand that citizens give up their right to be presumed inno- c e n t i n t h e c a s e o f a n a c c i d e n t o n t h e i r l a n d a n d b e a r the burden of proof for contamination and pollution?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, I do know that CN was requiring that the owners had sufficient insurance in place, liability insurance in particular, to ensure that they are protected as well as CN is protected from eventualities such as the kind the member mentions. But one thing I will say that possibly the member and I are in agreement with is that I felt that the tone of the letter was totally unacceptable.

I felt that the way in which the letter was written was totally unacceptable, and my understanding is that CN is now working with all of the folks that it sent those letters to, and is mak- ing some changes to reflect the fact that they can actu- ally operate in a more cooperative manner with British Columbians. My understanding is that they are and they will. [1450] [End of question period.] Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 13 and in Committee A, continued estimates debate, for the information of members, on the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

Second Reading of Bills CIVIL FORFEITURE ACT (continued) R. Fleming: I t ' s a p l e a s u r e f o r m e t o b e a b l e t o speak to Bill 13 today and express my cursory thoughts on that legislation and maybe outline some reasons why I support the bill that the Solicitor General is bringing forward but also to express some reservations which I think this opportunity for debate is about. In looking at other jurisdictions that have adopted similar-style legislation, as the intent of this bill is, it's an evolving process. Th ere are amendments, subse- quently, that undoubtedly are going to be required.

What we try and do best her e is m ak e su re we g et as much of it right the first time and that the legislation can be saved from any potential flaws that there may be in the drafting. Let me speak to some of the elements and the prin- ciples within the bill that the opposition supports, which I support. First of all, the intent, very clearly…. To say this bill is timely might be understating the mat- ter. I think it is something that is perhaps best de- scribed as overdue.

When one looks at the in fluence and growth of or- ganized crime not just in British Columbia but across this continent, looks at the range of criminal activities that organized crime and gangs are now involved in….

They have expanded out of many of the core activities that they were notoriously involved in to take on many other types of narcotics, many other types of money- laundering activities, rack eteering, extortion, etc. — violent crimes, highly profitable crimes, crimes that are costing the taxpayer and society in terms of the reper- cussions that are felt by ordinary people and by tax- payers and business people, communities and police forces in our municipalities. [1455] It is high time, in other words, that our govern- ment, our province, had legislation that went to the heart of the matter of organized crime and tried to dis- rupt their activities becaus e many prosecutions have been unsuccessful to date not just in this province but elsewhere.

So we need new tools to combat the threat of organized crime in our province. I believe this bill will give us some measure of assisting in that disrup- tion of organized criminal activity. I think another element that is undoubtedly sup- portable by both sides of the House is that Bill 13 lays out remedies. It lays out a system where victims can be compensated for their losses, for the negative effects of unlawful activities in th eir community and on them personally.

That is the second important goal outlined in Bil l 13, whi ch this s ide of the House unhesitatingly sympathizes with and supports in terms of the intent of this legislation. But in reading this bill, there still are obviously some areas of concern, and those are areas we believe should be addressed by the government. Some ques- tions I have, in terms of not having the background available to us — although the minister may have, be- cause he's much closer to it than other members of this House — are on the actual track record of this legisla- tion in other jurisdictions.

I recognize that Bill 13 is basically copycat legisla- tion from Manitoba, Onta rio and other places. But what I would like to know is whether there has been a full and comprehensive review by this government, a study of similar laws in other jurisdictions. I'm sure there has. It would not be very responsible to proceed without one. In that discussion, I'm sure that what is of most interest to members of this House would be a

summary of what the effects of those laws have been. They're new bills, by and large. But it would be of great value to all members if we perhaps had some informa-

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1019 tion available to us on how this type of legislation has impacted the public and the justice system. Has it de- livered on the improvements that form the premise and motivation behind the bill in the first place? As I said, bills such as this are new. They're almost untested. In Canada the oldest is about two and a half or three years old. So it's going to take time to get legis- lation like this right. But I certainly do agree with the government that we must get started. On that there is no argument.

Secondarily, our concerns about this bill are with the substance of it, some of the implications of its pro- visions. Other members have talked about civil liberty arguments and have looked at some hypothetical situa- tions that would be very di fficult, where the bill might not work and might have unintended consequences that make victims out of suspects. I won't repeat those arguments. I think those are points well-made, and I've heard acknowledgments from members on the other side of the House that those concerns are valid. The member from West Vancouver was acknowledging that before we recessed earlier today.

The main criticism I'd like to advance is that the bill lacks specificity in the types of unlawful activity that it is targeting. I guess the question really is: should it not be first and foremost a priority to target the most seri- ous criminal offences, including organized crime? [1500] I noticed even the name of the bill is somewhat indirect. I don't know if that's intentional or not, but it contrasts with Ontario's act, which has a different name than the civil bill that we'r e talking about here. I think they call theirs the Remedi es for Organized Crime and Other Unlawful Activities Act.

Most importantly, I think — the members have talked of it before — our concerns ar e really around what this bill maybe doesn't do. Some of that is outside the purview of the legislation itself, but it forms the context for the debate we're having today. Those con- cerns about what this bill does not do primarily focus around things like crime prev ention in the first place, protecting and compensating the victims of crime and, part and parcel of that, addressing the needs and con- cerns of some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. I agree. I share the philo sophy.

As a former city councillor, I can tell you this. The government should be tough on crime. To tolerate it invites other problems, but I believe that governments — and I wish we could see it from this government — must be equally tough on the causes of crime. To be tough on the causes of crime means that a government has to have a commitment to the well- being of society, that it must dedicate equal resources to make work pay, for exampl e. I look at the record of this government in its previous mandate where they introduced a two-tier mi nimum wage a whole $2 an hour lower than the minimum wage.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't do it. That is not making work pay. Instead of providing more opportunity in our soci- ety, today we have less, undoubtedly, if one looks at the tuition fees or looks at the cuts to student financial assistance and those kinds of avenues or indeed — and this is topical — the education system. You know, teachers play such an impo rtant role in developing good citizens in our society.

The record of this gov- ernment, unfortunately, is one that has weakened our school system, rather than st rengthened it, with things like cuts even to English- as-a-second-language pro- grams and immigrant settlem ent services. To have a society that leaves new immigrants behind in poverty, who are unable to contribute their full potential to so- ciety, is not the action of a government that can claim that they are being tough on the causes of crime.

There are many social causes of crime, and to be tough on crime — the actual crime that is taking place in society — one must be a very good steward of soci- ety and be equally tough on the causes of crime. Mr. Speaker, when you close the doors to a better life in society for a whole

section of the population, you open doors to a worse life for those people — sometimes an unlawful life, unfortunately, and that is the reality. [S. Hawkins in the chair.] Continuing on this path , what the bill does not change, unfortunately — and the budget was a better opportunity to do this than this legislation obviously — is the fact that this government has eliminated services for victims of crime. It's leaving innocent victims of crime to fend for themselves, in effect, and to heal themselves alone after they have survived criminal activity that has borne cons equences on their lives.

The government record also indicates an insensitivity — I think that's the best word for it — towards victims of crime. [1505] This government's actions are best highlighted by things like the dramatic cuts that we've seen to victims services, to families who have lost children or parents to a drunk driver, a violent offender or a sexual of- fender. They can no longer turn to a counsellor work- ing alongside our provincial prosecutors to get help. That's a sad fact. I think it speaks to the bill that we're talking about today.

I think it speaks to the credibility of the government introducing it that they don't have a balanced approach when it comes to ad- dressing both crime and the tools we need to success- fully prosecute it but also to address the causes of crime in our society. You know, grief-stricken relatives of people who have been murdered, wounded, are now…. It's up to them to find information on their own, to access the help of a professional, to bring calm to their families, to lean on anyone for support and comfort. That's up to the individual now.

Govern ment no longer provides that type of victim services, and that is a shame. There are so many other important issues and prob- lems that this bill doesn't even come close to address- ing, which have been created by this government. Brit- ish Columbians are currently struggling with dramatic funding and service cuts that h a v e b e e n m a d e b y t h e

1020 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005 government, including cuts to the counselling funding that I spoke to — cuts to counselling funding for those even convicted of domestic violence, if you can believe that, cuts to funding for sexual assault centres. These are crimes taking place in our community. These are services that help victims of those crimes, and they have been cut relentlessly and deeply by this govern- ment. Rape crisis counselling has been cut.

Of course, who can forget that $40 million was removed from legal aid funding for ordinary British Columbians to access the justice system in this province? So there's a list of prob lems now occurring in our justice system, many of which have been created by the government, that this bill doesn't even begin to ad- dress. It forms an importan t context that is the back- ground to this bill. I've had the chance to speak to some people in the law enforcement community who have studied this bill, some who were consulted by the government on this bill prior to its drafting.

Of course, it had a previ- ous iteration that never came to pass in the previous session of the Legislature. I think it's important to be clear because there's been some expression of wh at people think the prom- ise of this bill is, particularly from the other side of the House. It's important that we look at how this bill will function in practice. What a number of police officers told me is that people shou ld be aware that Bill 13 — and any proceeding under it — is probably not going to happen unless a certain threshold of recovery can be met. It could be quite a high threshold.

The cost of pro- ceeding would probably be at a minimum $25,000 per- haps. So there's a whole ra nge of criminals and crimi- nal activity there, parties that are identified as having property that could be sold and used to compensate victims, where that threshold would never possibly be high enough. Let us not think, for example, that this bill will threaten petty criminals, though they may be organ- ized in our community, because it won't. It will simply be uneconomical to pursue justice under the terms of this bill, to seek compensation.

You will not, for exam- ple, probably ever see a landlord go after somebody who has rented their premises for a grow op to recover damages, given that the people who can be identified as tenants or parties to the lease are not likely going to be the big fish. [1510] That is for government to find another way to tackle, but it won't come thro ugh this bill. I think some members have been mistaken in thinking that perhaps it will. Indeed, to get compensati on through the processes of this bill, you're probably going to have to identify criminals with significant assets that can be disposed of.

You're probably talking about real estate in the realm of highly organized criminal activity. Generally, these criminals are clever enough to structure their assets in such a way that will avoid action that is possi- ble under this bill. I mean, that's just a fact. That's not my opinion. That's the opinion of senior persons in the law enforcement community. It may hold some promise to get, if you will, less-organized criminal activity brought to bear.

You may have some mid-level operators who can have their property dis- posed of so that a civil action would be successful un- der this bill and the compensation would flow to the victims. For that alone, the legislation is worth it.

But when you look at what is on British Columbi- ans' minds when they think of crime in the province, it's generally the things that most immediately affect them in their communities, in their neighbourhoods, on their block — things like property crime; persistent nuisance crime; rising levels of violence, unfortunately, from the proliferation of dr ugs and addict activity in the communities. That is the thing that unfortunately, makes some people live in fear, afraid to walk their own streets in the evenings. I know this is a concern in many commu- nities across British Columbia, not just the lower mainland.

It's important that we tackle that type of crime because it's the type that is most immediate and most frustrating for British Columbians in their daily lives. I think we're going to have to focus very hard, and this side of the House is certainly willing to work with the government to find solutions to those types of c r i m e . W e w i l l d o t h a t . W e w o u l d b e h a p p y t o w o r k with the Solicitor General on finding solutions to that.

I think we're, again, talking about those types of crime of most concern, those that have the closest ties to social problems that need to be addressed, the causes of crime. Taking the profitability out of crime for organized criminals is a laudable goal, and it's something that this government should have acted on before now, quite frankly — back when Manitoba and Saskatchewan were enacting bills of this type, perhaps. There is no objection to that, because there certainly are a number of social implications that affect all of our quality of life that have to do with organized criminal activity in B.C.

W e o n t h i s s i d e o f t h e H o u s e s u p p o r t t h e g o v e r n - ment on measures that will help address that, help attack the financial reward of crime that organized criminals thrive on and that gives them incentive for the heightened activities we're experiencing now in British Columbia. I outlined some of the elements and principles within this bill that we su pport. Obviously, the target- ing of organized crime is th e main one.

Depriving or- ganized criminal participants of the gains of their unlawful activity is something we wholeheartedly support. [1515] We believe that victims should be compensated where possible, but again, most victims of crime will never be able to access the measures set out in this bill because they aren't victims of this type of organized criminal. They're victims of smaller players. The costs of accessing justice will be too high to ever make this bill useful to them in their lives.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1021 But as I've said, the fact that this will give a tool to our law enforcement community in British Columbia to go after some of the la rgest criminal players out there, possibly successfully…. Where they cannot make criminal charges stick in the courts, they can at least inflict some damage and disruption through this civil process. That alone is the re ason why I certainly and, I believe, all members of the House will probably be supporting Bill 13. It speaks to the need of why we need to get started on having this type of legislative tool here and today.

D. Hayer: On behalf of my constituents, who have faced and are facing the threat of neighbourhood grow ops and meth labs, I wholeheartedly support Bill 13, the Civil Forfeiture Act. This bill, which allows the sei- zure of the profits from illegal activities, will be a sig- nificant tool in the war agai nst illegal acts. This act will penalize those who commit such acts where it counts most: in the pocketbooks. There seems to be little incentive for certain people to abide by the law. The penalties levied by the courts don't appear to be a great deterrent.

Many of my con- stituents and people from Surrey agree with that statement. This act, however, will not be part of the justice process. It will be applied through the civil courts, and any penalties applied under Bill 13 will be in addition to any fines or sentences handed down. That double whammy of penalties will help take away the incentive of illegal acts, pa rticularly in the area of grow ops and meth labs. In many of the neighbourhoods of my riding of Surrey-Tynehead, grow ops are permanent.

They have invaded all parts of my community at every level, and they are, as a matter of fact, in every city in Canada. We hear about them in the news almost daily. This act will allow the seizure of expensive homes that are being used to grow and harvest marijuana. This act will cause people who do things beyond the law to think twice before setting up an operation. They will know that their investment in their homes, in their cars, their vehicles and othe r products of their illegal activities will be seized and will be forfeited.

I don't think we will ever stop some people from pursuing illegal activities, regardless of what we do, but if we can cramp their style and cut out some or all of the profits of their activities, it will be a major step in solving the growth of those operations. The biggest concerns in neighbourhoods are the threat of fire from grow ops and meth labs and the safety concerns about the grow rips targeting the wrong home.

We have heard many times about those issues in the daily news — home invasions and simply the threat of being next door to people who care noth- ing about the law or for the respect of others, other family members or the neighbours. In addition, these illegal operations threaten the safety of our front-line safety personnel — our police officers, our firefighters and paramedics — when they respond to what, at first, may have appeared to be an innocent emergency call. We want to make sure we protect those there to serve us.

When we are leaving, out of the dangers, they are going to those places to protect the innocent. They should not have to face the dangerous chemicals, electric al hazards or even fire- arms when they're responding to an emergency. Because of that, I believe it is very necessary to en- act this bill to ensure the sa fety of our first responders and to ensure the safety of our law-abiding families in their own neighbourhoods and all British Columbians. [1520] This bill is not a first. Four other provinces of Can- ada have similar laws in pl ace.

Many countries across the world are using it in the battle against illegal activi- ties, and they have been su ccessful. If there is one way to slow these lawless people, it is to take away the profit of the activities, and th at is what this act is de- signed to do. Therefore, I fully endorse and support the civil for- feiture of the proceeds of illegal activities. This act is going to help all British Columbians, all Canadians, and I urge every member of this House who respects the law, who respects our constituents, to stand up with me in supporting Bill 13. I have held many forums in my constituency.

We had one a few years back, when my good friend Chuck C a d m a n , a p a s t M e m b e r o f P a r l i a m e n t f r o m S u r r e y North was alive. We had RCMP members there, and Surrey firefighters, school tr ustees, school counsellors, B.C. Hydro people and more than 500 of my constitu- ents from Fraser Heights community. They were all talking about something like this. They said govern- ment had to move on it and look for the solutions.

There are many different ways to achieve this, and I think this is one of the tools the government has that can help ordinary British Columbians, law-abiding British Columbians, and at the same time take away the incentive that some of the people who don't obey the laws have to make illegal profits. R. Hawes: It is, for me, quite a pleasure to stand up and speak to this bill. It's a bill that to me, has been a long time coming. We began talking about this quite some period of time ago un der a former Solicitor Gen- eral.

When he first mentioned that he was looking at bringing in legislation like this, I can tell you I felt ex- tremely excited about it. I thought about the prospe cts. I thought about what has been going on in my community and in, I know, communities all over this province. I thought about the frustrations that people are having on a daily basis with what they see as a lack of justice in their cities and j u s t a n a b s o l u t e l a c k o f a n y k i n d o f t o o l t o s t o p w h a t has been going on in their streets and neighbourhoods, affecting their families and their kids.

I thought about that legislation, and I thought, you know, if only we could get that through. It went out for some exposure. I spoke to dozens and dozens of people about this over the past number of months, and I've yet to meet someone who didn't think it was a wonderful idea. But I don't associate with those who are in illegal activities, really. I don't kn ow people who are in the

1022 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005 drug business or in other businesses that might per- haps feel the sting of this. They probably don't like it, but certainly, the moms and pops I talked to absolutely loved this piece of legis- lation or the prospect that it might come. I want to congratulate both Solicitors General for the work they've done to bring this forward. I've listened to some of the discourse from previous speakers. At least for the folks that I represent, I want to make absolutely clear the difference between crimi- nal law and civil law and the burdens of proof in both.

In criminal law, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, and in civil law, it's a balance of probability. I just want to cite an ex ample that for me, clarifies the differences. O.J. Simpson was found innocent of murder in a criminal court. When that verdict was handed down, there was outr age from at least the peo- ple that I associate with and, I presume, all across North America. There was some outrage because peo- ple had followed that trial. Th ere was, I think, in most people's minds, even beyo nd a reasonable doubt of guilt, but the jury said he was not guilty, so O.J.

Simp- son was not guilty. [1525] The recourse that was left for the relatives of O.J. Simpson was to take up a civil litigation, and they did that. As far as I know, O.J. Simpson was found guilty in a civil court and fairly hefty fines were applied against him. That's sort of what the difference is. There's a dif- ferent burden of proof. Certainly, the balance of prob- ability in O.J. Simpson's case was that he was guilty. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Well, a jury said no. That's sort of the same thing here. Now, all of us have seen in court cases all over the place people who have been let go.

From the ordinary citizens' viewpoint — certainly, from any reasonable person's viewpoint — they know there was an ille gal activity going on, but the courts for one reason or another said the person was innocent or allowed them to go. I'm thinking of a recent case in Mission where the RCMP spent some considerable time tracking a grow operation. They took their battering ram to the door. They knocked on the door, announced that it was the police at the door and then smashed the door open.

I n s i d e t h e y d i d f i n d a g r o w o p , b u t w h e n i t w e n t t o court, the judge said the time between the police knocking on the door and announcing that it was the police and battering the door down was not a reason- able time. Regardless of the evidence found inside, the case was totally dismissed, and the people walked free — the perpetrators, who were clearly engaged in an ille- gal activity.

In this case, if they had assets, I would suggest that if this went to a civil court, any reasonable person would say the balance of probability would be that those folks were involved in an illegal activity. The frustrations that moms and pops feel across this province, and certainly that I feel, the outrage sometimes, is when we see that kind of result falling out of our court system.

I get that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to protect us and all, but often, for many of us who are not engaged in any nefarious ac- tivity of any kind, it would sometimes seem that the Charter provides greater protections for those who would do illegal acts and impinge on the rights of those who are innocent. I'm extremely pleased that this bill is coming for- ward the way it is coming forward, and I really do un- derstand the balance of probability. I do think that's going to go a long way to alleviate the concerns of a whole lot of people who sometimes don't like what falls out of our court system.

There are times that other tools have been used to prosecute those who are involved in illegal activity. I think of things like Al Capone. He went to jail in 1947, or maybe earlier — I think maybe he died in '47 — and he went to jail for evading income tax. They couldn't get him for all the illegal activity — well, other than evading income tax — but they used a different tool. This is a different tool. I want to touch a little bit on what is happening in my community and probably, I think, in other commu- nities. The grow ops.

I was the mayor in my city for almost a decade, and through that time, grow ops were increasingly a problem, as they are all across this prov- ince. Our police chief did a bit of a study. He went back into 30 cases that the police had investigated, went through all the things they had to go through to get search warrants and actually busted the grow ops and charged the people that were involved — 30 cases. The average cost of each of those cases to the mu- nicipality for the investigation work was about $10,000, and he found that the maximum fine imposed was $1,500. That's the maximum.

There was one case where there was a prison sentence of 90 days handed down. That, I'm sure, was to a repeat offender. In a grow op situation, $1,500 is less than the cost of a business li- cence. That's nothing. The penalty for operating a grow op really is tan- tamount to nothing. The problems associated — for the neighbours, for the neighbourhood, for the community — are huge all around these grow ops, and I consider the people who live beside them to be victims. They go without compensation.

They li ve in fear of what might happen at any given time if their house is mistaken by those who are involved in that kind of activity and in the ripoffs and all that we hear about. [1530] But even worse, I think about crystal meth labs and the dangers that they pose in communities. When they get caught, the same kind of thing seems to be happen- ing. Whole neighbourhoods are being evacuated. Peo- ple in hazmat suits are going in to take these crystal meth labs apart, and the lawbreakers that are running them seem to get away with very, very little more than a slap on the wrist.

That's very offensive to most of the moms and pops out there, number one. Number two, there is no deterrence. The profits that these people are reaping are staggering. This does give an opportunity to go at that problem and at least take away the big profitability from a lot of these people. That's one.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1023 Mr. Wal-Mart, they called him. Mr. Wal-Mart is the guy who was arrested a couple of weeks ago in Maple Ridge driving a Hummer. He had two safes in the ve- hicle, both stuffed with drugs. He had — I can't re- member the dollar amount — $15,000 or $20,000 or $30,000 in cash. He has been charged before and is well known to the police. Well, he got out with $2,000 bail. There's every likelihood that he's out conducting his business now and recouping the $2,000. He'd do that in a night. Where's the penalty for this fellow?

He's going to continue pushing those drug s out there. I'm boggled when I think about the kinds of things that are happen- ing within the justice system with those kinds of peo- ple. This guy will leave. He'll drive away from the courthouse in his Hummer. Does anyone think he got that Hummer by working in a construction job or in an office? Where do you think he might have got that money? Gosh, I think the balance of probability…. Probably he got that Hummer by selling some of those drugs that they found in the two safes in the vehicle he was driving. Now, he's not convicted.

He hasn't been convicted o f t h i s o n e y e t . H e h a s n ' t b e e n t o c o u r t f o r i t y e t . B u t even if he were found innocent in a criminal court, the chances are that he got the a ssets that he has from an illegal activity. This bill would at least allow us to have some sense of justice, finally, in our community for what we see as obvious for all of us — what the rest of us think of as an injustice. In my community…. I think there are a lot of com- munities like that. I've he ard other members of this House talk about the Viper.

In my city, there are Hummers, Ferraris and Corvettes, and there are big houses and lots of gold and jewels and wads of money. These people are ostentatiously showing off their wealth with no other visible source for that money than what seems obvious to the rest of us. The kids out there also see that. I've got kids that I have talked to who know people who are engaged in that kind of activity, and they tell me that what's frequently talked about among these kids is: "If I'm not going to university, why should I get a job in the mill when I can get a job working for him?

Everybody that's working for him is driving a new Mustang and has a big wad of dough and has a boat, and he's bigger than the police now. The police can't touch him. We know he's bigger than the police." That's what our youth are saying in my community, but I don't think that's isolated. I think that's going on all over the place. I sit there burning, wa tching these guys drive around in those cars, know ing what they're doing and wondering why can't we touch them somehow. I have talked to the police, and the police say they're very clever.

They do have an army of kids out there selling for them, and that army of kids is divorced just enough that we can't hammer these guys in a criminal court. But you know what? If you were to examine them as to where they got those assets — "Where did you get the money for that Ferrari, sir?" — I guarantee you that the answer, though they may make it up, could easily be tracked back.

There would be absolutely no way they could show where they got that money other than, by the balance of probability, through some illegal ac- tivity. [1535] I've heard quite a bit of talk here in this House from other members about how this could be used. "There could be innocent people entrapped, etc." So I just think about myself. Nobody could ever come to me and say: "Where did you get those assets?" — if I had any. Nobody could ever say, "Where did you get those assets?" without my being able to show where I got them. I file income tax returns.

All the money that I make runs through and is re- ported to the government. If I buy something, I can show where I got the money, how the money left my bank account and how I paid for it. That's how I think everybody operates. If you operate with just the cash in your pocket, you still have a record of how you got that cash. Everyone has that. If Uncle John gave you the asset, Uncle John has a record of where he got it and h o w h e g a v e i t t o y o u , s o a l l o f t h a t c a n b e t r a c k e d back.

What this does is that this act — and this is where it's so different from the proceeds of crime legislation that has been in effect for so long in this province — takes the burden of proof off the state and puts it on the person who is in the illegal activity. Under this proceeds of crim e, the state has to prove conclusively that the money came from that illegal ac- tivity. They've got to track the money through bank accounts, and it's an impossible procedure, almost, for the Crown. That's why, un der proceeds of crime legis- lation, we don't see a lot of stuff taken.

This, though, says to the person in the illegal activity, "You prove where you got the money," rather than the state prov- ing it. It's a shift in the burd en of proof, and I think it's high time we went that way. I just want to speak for a moment about some of the stuff I've heard in this House. The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast said earlier: "If it has failed in the past to meet the needs of police forces because it makes their job harder, perhaps we need to make sure that they have the resources necessary to do their job.

But I don't believe in weakening the law to make law en- forcement easier." He's saying that the police don't like the burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" because it makes their job harder. I just think that's absolutely rubbish. This has got nothing to do with making the police job easier. The police aren't looking for a way to make their job easier, but they don't want to have a huge sack of rocks on their backs like they do now, where they work hard to bring a conviction, only to see a slap on the wrist, a $1,500 fine and all of their resources ex- pended. For what? So the fellow can drive away in a Hummer?

This has nothing to do with making the police's work easier. The same member said that if the purpose of this is just to raise money for general revenue — if

1024 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005 that's all it is — then we should say that. Well, this has also got absolutely nothing to do with raising money for general revenue. Again, that's just absolute rubbish. What this has to do with is bringing a sense of justice t h a t t h i s p r o v i n c e h a s b e e n c r y i n g o u t f o r . M o m s a n d p o p s h a v e b e e n c r y i n g o u t f o r a w a y t o d e a l w i t h what's been poisoning their neighbourhoods for a long time, and this bill does it.

Same member: "I would lik e assurances, eventually, that residents in the same home out of which phone calls could be made that involve an illegal activity will not be subject to the hars h and heavy hammer of this legislation." Then: "What about the mother of a 17-year- old who's dealing marijuana from his upstairs bed- room?" Would that mother lose her home? No, this is not aimed at that mother. This is not aimed at some- body who's living upstairs where there's somebody doing something in the basement suite.

This is aimed at those who are engaged in an illegal activity and the assets they acquired from that illegal activity. The member for Nanaimo said yesterday: "If I'm reduced to drug addiction by drug dealers and there are 50 of my neighbours in the same community who are in the same position, are we going to sue the drug dealer? Do we fault the drug dealer? Is it the drug dealer's responsibility?" Well, whose responsibility is it? You know, drug dealers are sick — some of them, the ones who are addicted. I think that's maybe what he's talking about.

But the ones who are dealing drugs strictly for profit, and particularly the ones who are manufacturing drugs like crystal meth, generally aren't drug addicts. They're profit eers. They are actually, in my book, murderers. There were 33 deaths last year from crystal meth, and the guys who make that stuff are murderers — nothing less. [1540] So to say, "Are the drug dealers responsible…?" You bet they're responsible, if it's the guys who are not addicted. We need treatment, as some members have said, for those who are a ddicted. But those who are profiting from crime, we need to punish.

If we can't get them in the court system, then we at least need to have some justice so that they're not going to profit from illegal activity in this province anymore. Are we prepared to take property away from peo- ple in our society who have not been convicted of a crime? Well, I've just spent a considerable amount of time talking about the burden of proof — and yes. Yes, we are. We are prepared to take away the property from people who aren't convicted in a criminal court of a crime. The Mr.

Wal-Marts of the world, who have absolutely no other means of support other than an illegal activity, are going to lose their assets. I, for one, certainly applaud the Solicitor General for this brave step and for saying, "Yeah, we're going to take property away from people who are very clearly involved in illegal activities," particularly the ones who are destroying our neighb ourhoods, preying on our seniors with the phoney lotto scams and all the rest of that. These people are getting bilked out of money.

If we can track their assets and they're in this province, we should be taking those assets and compensating…. Another wonderful part of this bill allows us to com- pensate victims. The money will be taken from the per- son with the illegal activity, and the victims of his ac- tivity can be compensated with the very illegal profits they made. Great stuff. The member for Maple Ridge–Mission: "Neverthe- less, we must never, in my view, take lightly the civil liberties we enjoy in this country and this province.

We must always guard them ze alously and jealously, be- cause they have been hard-fought-for and they are a true part of our freedom." I support that totally. I support the right to quiet enjoyment for every person that lives in a house in this province. When the drug dealers move in next door and when they endan- ger your children and when they cause a huge disrup- tion in your life and you're just sitting in your home, I would say that that's an im pingement on your rights. W e n e e d t o b e a b l e t o c o r r ect that.

This bill, I think, does protect rights — the rights of innocent of people and the rights of victims. I think it's a wonderful way to do that. And the message it sends — wow. The message is just perfect: if you profit from an illegal activity in this province, we're coming for you, and we're coming for your as- sets, because you can't keep them. You know what? There are other places in the world that don't have this legislation. Maybe the message is: if you're going to be involved in an illegal activity, pick one of those areas. Don't come here, because we're taking your profit.

These guys are in their illegal activity for one reason: money, profit, assets. That's the place we're hitting them here, and I think it's great. "Our prisons are full of many folks," said the mem- ber for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, "unfortunately, that are mentally ill, and we need to make sure that we take into account a person's mental illness.

That does have a bearing on their behaviour, and it is a mitigating factor, and I…hope…the law to be enacted is not over- bearing in respects such as th at." I wonder, then, if that member is saying that if someone has a mental illness and, because of it, commits an illegal act but acquires a lot of assets, should those assets then be exempt simply by virtue of a mental illness? I don't think so.

Why would being mentally ill say that you have a right to have assets purchased with illegally obtained funds, when someone else will have them taken away? [1545] I think that if you're mentally ill, you should be treated. This government has spent hundreds of mil- lions of dollars on mental illness — incidentally, money that was promised by the previous government and never delivered and that is being delivered by this government. I think that people who are mentally ill should certainly be given tr eatment. There are lots of mitigating factors, and criminal courts do take that into account.

But in terms of asset acquisition, I see no rea- son why, by virtue of mental illness, you should be allowed to keep assets that were acquired illegally — particularly when there are victims involved.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1025 The victim certainly isn't going to sit back in his or her home and say: "I've lost my wealth to that person because of an illegal activity, but it's okay because they were mentally ill." I don't th ink that's fair, and I don't think most British Columbians would think that's fair. The bill is a bold step. It's a bold step towards pro- viding justice. It's a bold step towards sending a strong message — a message to the young kids that are very easily influenced across our province: "You know what? Crime doesn't pay.

Illegal activity isn't going to make you wealthy. There are people out there who are looking to make sure that you don't profit from illegal activity. Better that you stay in school. Better that you get involved in an honest endeavour." I think that's a pretty good message to send, and I think this bill helps send that message. It also sends a message to municipalities across this province crying out for help.

I know how tough it is at the municipal level to sit in a city hall and try to get things under control in your city, to try to have your citizens feel they're safe in the streets and to have your citizens feel that their neighbourhoods aren't being infested with drug operations. I've sat at a city hall level and received desperate phone calls from people who say: "The cars come every day, all hours of the night and day. They're in; they're out. They're carrying packag es. We know what's going on. My kids see them. They 're walking up and down.

They're taking drugs openly in the front yard and in the back yard of the neighbour's house, and I can't do anything. I phone the police an d they aren't able to do anything." So when we try to intervene and talk to the police, the police tell us: "Look, we know about it. It's under surveillance, but we're very restricted in what we can do. We have to get a search warrant, and we have to do all of the things under the Charter of Rights that make it fairly difficult." "We will get there at some stage," they say, "but it may be some time.

We have to prepare a case." But in the meantime the neighbours are calling city halls all over this province, crying for help. I understand that. I understand their fear, and if there are assets being obtained, this at least allows us to do something that's based not on beyond a reasonable doubt but based on the balance of probability. When people are gathered in home s like that and are acquir- ing assets and you see the big cars and you know they're not working, the balance of probability is that it's funds from illegal activity.

I have to say again that I am not only proud of the Solicitor General for the way this has been developed and brought forward, but I' m proud that the govern- m e n t t h a t I ' m p a r t o f s a w f i t t o b r i n g t h i s b o l d s t e p forward now and to be openly pushing the fact that we are never going to allow the illegal activity to be profit- able in this province any further. With that, I really do appreciate the time to speak to this bill. Anytime that you can speak to a bill that has this much positive influence, everyone should think it's a great pleasure.

I think the members of the opposition, t o o , a l l k n o w t h i s i s w h a t t h e c o m m u n i t i e s h a v e b e e n crying out for. H. Lali: I rise to speak on Bill 13, which is meant to target and seize any assets criminals may acquire. You'll have to forgive me, Madam Speaker. I just broke my reading glasses, so they're sort of hanging on the tip of my nose here. To seize any assets criminals may acquire through illegal activity, the bill will use existing civil court rules and processes to go after pr operty, vehicles and other assets.

I'm rising to support this bill, but at the same time, I will be outlining some of the concerns that we on this side of the House have with this bill. I'll get into that in a few minutes as well. [1550] The intent is to actually go after the property, vehi- cles and other assets of th ose individuals who are in- volved in criminal activity where they make financial and property gains — for instance, if somebody is showing on their income tax papers they're making only about $10,000 or $15,000 a year and yet they're able to afford these big SUVs like Navigators, and even Hummers and the like.

They may have a big boat or a big house they're living in, yet they can't provide any kind of information as to how these were gained through any kind of an employment or through some investment that may have taken place. Other countries — like the United Kingdom, Aus- tralia, etc. — and also Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario already have si milar legislation. In the United Kingdom and Australia it is primarily used against the proceeds of organized crime.

Now, this bill says that the individuals and groups involved in organized crime and serious criminal activ- ity should not be able to enjoy the proceeds of their unlawful activity. Also, it says it ensures that the vic- tims are compensated. Preven ting unlawful activities and remedying the negative effects of unlawful activi- ties are also important goals as a result of this.

In one of the sections the bill allows the director to commence forfeiture proceedings in the Supreme Court, and the director must prove on a balance of probabilities that an unlawful activity has occurred and that the property at issue in the proceedings was either the proceeds of unlawful activity or an instrument of the unlawful activity. We're not against…. We actually support the idea that the bill allows the dire ctor, with the approval of the Minister of Finance, to make payments out of this civil forfeiture account for several purposes, including compensation for the victims of an unlawful activity.

The bill also allows victims of unlawful activity to ap- ply for compensation from the civil forfeiture account. Essentially, the bill allows the director to decide how much a victim is paid and the manner of payment that is to proceed. Our reading of the bill, as I mentioned earlier, has l e f t u s w i t h s e v e r a l c o n c e r n s t h a t w e b e l i e v e m u s t b e addressed by government, and I'm hoping that in the committee stage we will be able to get to that and point

1026 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005 out some of these to the mini ster in charge and also be able to see if we can't make some improvements to this. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] First of all, we are concerned with the track record of similar legislation in some of the other jurisdictions.

We want to impress upon the government that they should do a full and comprehensive study — maybe they have, but I'd like to know if they have — of simi- lar laws in some of the other jurisdictions to see what the effects of those laws have been and how they have actually ended up impacting the public and our justice system. We want the minister to actually point that out specifically. Perhaps we'll do that at committee stage. We also feel on this side of the House that the bill is not specific enough in the types of unlawful activity it's actually targeting, and perhaps that needs to be spelled out.

Should it not also be a priority to target the most serious criminal offences, including organized crime, in this province? More importantly, I think, is that we are concerned with what this bill does no t actually do in terms of crime prevention: protecti ng and compensating the victims of crime and also addressing the needs and concerns of the most vulnerable people in our commu- nities.

For instance, the bill does not change the fact that this government has eliminated services for vic- tims of crime, leaving many innocent victims to actu- ally go out and fend for themselves. [1555] Also, the government's past record over the last four years indicates a degree of insensitivity towards victims of crime. I'll get into that in a minute. Because of the government's dramatic cuts to victim services, for instance…. There are a lot of families who have lost young children — some even older children or even parents — to a drunk driver, for instance, a violent offender or a sexual offend er.

The thing is that these victims are worried that perh aps they're no longer able to turn to a counsellor who would work alongside some of the provincial prosecutors to make sure those offenders are not only brough t to justice but are also going to be taking some remedial kind of counselling, some treatment to make sure that they don't go out and repeat-offend.

A lot of grief-stricken relatives of people who have been murdered or have been wounded are being left scrambling for information, unable to access the exper- tise of a professional or unable to lean on anyone for comfort and support because of the funding cuts that this government has made over the last four years. There are so many other important issues and prob- lems related to this bill as well. A number of my col- leagues who have spoken before me from this side of the House…. I tend to agree with the points that have been raised. I won't go into detail or even repeat a lot of those. They're on the reco rd.

Members opposite are aware of that. The minister is here. He's listening to this debate intently, and I know both he and his staff will go through that record of the statements that have been made by various members on both sides of the House in the debate that is taking place. In terms of the many im portant issues and prob- lems that have been raised, this bill does not even come close to actually addressing some of those. Actually, these problems have been created by this government through its lack of action or through cuts in funding.

British Columbians are currently struggling with dra- matic funding and service cuts that have been made by this government, including cuts to counselling funding for those convicted of domestic violence — I've briefly spoken about that already — but also the cuts to fund- ing for sexual assault centres. You know, legal aid, for instance, has been dra- matically cut by this government. It compromises women's options in terms of leaving an abusive rela- tionship — which is being able to keep their children.

If they do leave, then we hear that the Crown may not prosecute cases of violence against women and, in- stead, offers offenders an alternative to prosecution. Then we also learned that many of B.C.'s sexual assault centres are being cut by ov er $100,000 each. Obviously, these changes and cuts to services will seriously com- promise the safety and the security of women and their children. I'm just going to go back to legal aid, for instance. Who are the people who use legal aid?

Well, the people who use legal aid are the ones who can't afford to go out and get a lawyer of their own, because they don't have the funds available through their employment to be able to hire…. It's the $100-, $200- or $300-an-hour fee or whatever fee lawyers these days charge. So they turn to legal aid. Who are these people? These are peo- ple who are amongst the disa dvantaged groups in our society. Often we call these groups equity groups — aboriginal people, for instance. Most aboriginal people in this province live under the poverty line and live on social assistance.

These are people of colour, visible minorities. [1600] You know, there are a lot of visible minorities across this great province of ours who have been here for a long time, who have been able to make economic and financial advances, employment advances through their hard work and through their education over the last ten, 20 or 30 years. [H. Bloy in the chair.] But these aren't the people I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about are the people in the visible minority groups who are lower-income or newly arrived immi- grants, who basically come to this country looking for a better life and better economic opportunities. They come here with just the shirt on their back, just the clothes that they're wearing and maybe just a small suitcase full of clothing. We're also talking here about women. A lot of women — especially single mothers or those women who have been involved in situations with an abusive

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1027 husband, etc. — are not higher-income. They're lower- income. Also, persons with disabilities. As you know, most people who are disabled, mentally or physically, are not able to compete in the workforce on the level that most of us, if not all of us, in this House are able to en- joy. You know, we're healthy. We've had good records of employment in the past with the skills that we have learned. We are able to go out and find gainful em- ployment commensurate with our education and skills and make a decent wage.

MLAs — we don't make a wage that's going to make us rich or anything, but we make a decent wage in this province that is able to sus- tain us while we do our duties. The people that I'm talk ing about are the ones who belong to this family of eq uity groups and also their disadvantaged slot in societ y. They are the ones who are most likely to use legal aid if they are in some sort of trouble or if they are th e victims of crime. So when the government made massive cuts to legal aid, these are the people they were hurting. What does this bill addr ess to help these folks?

I talked earlier, briefly, about the cuts to sexual assault services by this Liberal go vernment. For instance, I'm going to read from the B.C. Institute Against Family Violence. Penny Bain, the executive director, says: "The Solicitor General's cuts to sexual assault programs will create significant barriers to women obtaining the health and justice system services required to address the complex issues arising from these assaults.

The ministry should address the need for more sexual as- sault services in the province by increasing support for victims rather than by cutting well-established and oversubscribed services." There have also been cuts to rape crisis counselling as well. We're really concerned about that. In 2002 the government cut funding to community-based victim assistance programs and sexual assault centres by more than $1 million. I've already talked about legal aid. Hon. Speaker, legal aid itself was slashed by 40 percent, and I just gave you an example of the kind of cuts that are hurt- ing the victims of crime already.

This bill doesn't do anything to address that. We're also worried that by forfeiting a person's assets and property as a resu lt of this bill…. Without rehabilitation, how does this bill actually help that in- dividual who is a cr iminal, who is involved in criminal activity? How does this bill actually try and help to rehabilitate that person through social services or the criminal justice system? Or are we just putting that person in a position where they are more likely to be- come a repeat offender? That is a worry

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H1020pm-02
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H1020pm 02
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	31fabe4ce35a3fb882ea4926a05bcfc3e5c3adaa

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).