2005 Legislative Session: First Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2005

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 3, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Electoral Boundaries Commission

Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 14)

Hon. W. Oppal

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

School libraries

J. Horgan

Bank robberies in Vancouver

R. Sultan

Homelessness

S. Hammell

Work of Dr. Shafique Pirani

J. Nuraney

Victoria's Chinatown

R. Fleming

Worker safety in forest industry

D. MacKay

Oral Questions

Implementation of recommendations to

resolve teachers labour dispute

C. James

Hon. S. Bond

Terms of reference for industrial

inquiry commissioner in teachers labour dispute

J. Horgan

Hon. M. de

Jong

J. Kwan

Government policy for child death

reviews

A. Dix

Hon. S. Hagen

D. Thorne

Call for reinstatement of independent

children's commissioner

D. Thorne

Hon. S. Hagen

Review of children's deaths by chief

coroner's office

R. Fleming

Hon. J. Les

L. Krog

Responsibilities of property owners for

private railway crossings

D. Chudnovsky

Hon. K. Falcon

C. Wyse

S. Simpson

Point of Privilege

J. Horgan

Second Reading of Bills

Civil Forfeiture Act (Bill 13)

(continued)

K. Krueger

M. Karagianis

K. Whittred

S. Fraser

Hon. J. Les

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests and

Range and Minister Responsible for Housing

Hon. R.

Coleman

B. Simpson

N. Macdonald

C. Evans

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and

Lands (continued)

B. Ralston

Hon. P. Bell

M. Sather

N. Simons

J. Horgan

R. Austin

D. Chudnovsky

S. Fraser

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation

D. Chudnovsky

Hon. K. Falcon

[ Page 1077 ]

MONDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2005

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

N. Macdonald: It is my pleasure to introduce my constituent assistant, here from Columbia River–Revelstoke. Her name is Joy Orr, and she has with her, her infant daughter Ainsley. If you hear a baby crying, that is a Columbia River–Revelstoke cry. Each one of us that is here realizes how much the constituent assistant does, and for me I'm very blessed with an extremely capable woman who makes the office work. Please join me in making her feel welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: It is indeed a pleasure today to make several introductions. I want to introduce members of the first Learning Round Table, which will be taking place here this afternoon in Victoria.

Some members of the Learning Round Table will be late, but I have been assured they will be here perhaps partway through question period, so let me introduce them now: Kim Howland, president of the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils; Debbie Desroches-Fulton, who is the secretary. We have Penny Tees, president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, accompanied by Dr. Lee Southern, the executive director.

En route and hopefully arriving during question period or before are Jinny Sims, president of the B.C. Teachers Federation, accompanied by Susan Lambert, Irene Lanzinger and Ken Novakowski. Here in the gallery already are Sheila Rooney, president of the B.C. School Superintendents Association, with Wendy Lee, the executive director. And also en route are Tom Hierck, president of the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association, and Les Stakowski.

We know that it will be a wonderful opportunity to dialogue this afternoon, and I ask my colleagues to please help me make them very welcome.

[1405]

C. Wyse: It is my pleasure today to rise in front of the House to recognize CAs from Cariboo South and from Cariboo North. Given the nature of our constituency, we share some resources up in our part of the world. Indeed, I would ask the House to make welcome Larry Day and Mark Woons.

J. Nuraney: I have the proud privilege to introduce some guests in the gallery today. We have a well-respected leader of the Ismaili community and my mentor, Mr. P.K. Pirani, who is accompanied by his son Dr. Shafique Pirani, of whom I will be speaking a little later on, and his wife Sally, whose dedication and support is critical in the work done by Shafique.

We also have in the gallery an entrepreneur par excellence, Mr. Sadru Ahamed, and I also have a friend and lawyer, Mr. Jalal Jaffer. May I ask the House to please make all them feel welcome.

G. Coons: I'm pleased to introduce a friend of mine from Burlington, Ontario — somebody I went to school with and played hockey with. He works for Pfizer Canada. He's a director of national accounts, dealing with consumer health care. He's here in our wonderful city on business. Please make my good friend Bill Mennie welcome.

M. Polak: Today in the House we have a longtime resident of my riding of Langley, Mr. John Hof. Would the House please make him welcome.

J. Yap: It's my honour to introduce to the House a couple who have become tireless advocates for stronger measures against the scourge of street racing. Dr. Chris Ng and Mrs. Therese Ng are the parents of Richmond RCMP Constable Jimmy Ng, who lost his life two years ago in a street racing incident.

They graciously attended this House when we had private members' statement time this morning, when the statement with regard to street racing was debated. Would members please join me in offering a warm welcome to Dr. and Mrs. Ng.

I. Black: I have two introductions to make today. First is Mr. Dave Sinclair, who is the command second vice-president of the B.C./Yukon Command of the Royal Canadian Legion. He was observing our discussion this morning with respect to Motion 34, pertaining to saluting our veterans and educating our youth on their sacrifices.

The second introduction I would like to do pertains to two extraordinary teachers — both of them retired — who have a combined 60-plus years of service to our youth and have touched, by my math, a little over 12,000 young lives. They also happen to be my parents. Would the House please make Ellen and Stewart Black welcome.

Hon. R. Neufeld: We have in the gallery today three gentlemen from the Cement Association of Canada: Derek Townson, vice-president; Robert Sloat, director of business development; and Larry Baloun, VP sales and marketing, B.C. Lehigh Northwest Cement Ltd. Would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2005.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

[1410]

Motion approved.

[ Page 1078 ]

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 14. This bill implements the commitments made in the September throne speech to use the Legislature's obligation to appoint an Electoral Boundaries Commission this session to address the challenge of electoral reform to its ultimate conclusion.

The bill gives the 2005 Electoral Boundaries Commission two specific tasks. The first is to recommend to the Legislature boundaries for electoral districts under the current electoral system.

Secondly, it will recommend to the Legislature boundaries for electoral districts under the single transferable vote system recommended by the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. With the intent of protecting northern representation in the Legislature, Bill 14 also gives the commission the necessary flexibility to recommend electoral boundaries up to 85 electoral districts under our current system or up to 85 members under the single transferable vote model. The commission will be required to recommend the same number of members under both systems.

In order to accommodate the extended mandate, the 2005 commission will receive extended time to produce its report. The commission will issue the first report no later than August 15, 2007, and the final report six months after that date. It should be pointed out that those dates are set in order to accommodate a federal census that will take place in 2006. In order for the commission to have at its disposal and rely on the necessary data that will come for that…. The dates have been set in order to address those issues.

Finally, in order to assist future commissions to have timely access to future census data, the bill provides that commissions will be appointed within one year of every second general election as opposed to the current requirement that they be appointed during the first legislative session following every second election.

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

Bill 14, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2005, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) SCHOOL LIBRARIES

J. Horgan: Today, October 24, is National School Library Day. I want to take this opportunity to speak briefly to the House about the importance of National School Library Day. It was first proclaimed at the summit of school libraries held in Ottawa in June of 2003 by Roch Carrier, the National Librarian of Canada.

The first National School Library Day was held on Monday, October 27, 2003. National School Library Day also coincides with International School Library Day, which was proclaimed in 1999. The aim of this special day in Canada and around the world is to draw attention to the importance of school libraries in the education of our children.

Why are school libraries important? Well, we all have fond memories of our youth and fond memories of our children in our school libraries. For some it was a place of solitude and refuge; for others it was a place of excitement and adventure as every page turned brought new worlds of excitement and wonder. My boys Nate and Evan are both avid readers, and sometimes I think our house looks like a school library.

Research has shown that students achieve far greater outcomes when they have access to school libraries that are well funded, curriculum-based and have strong school library programs with professionally qualified teacher-librarians who work collaboratively with classroom teachers. In addition, students become much better readers when they have access to a school library and books to read.

[1415]

In this time when our public system is under such pressure and scrutiny, it is important for us to never forget the importance of school libraries and the role that they play in our children's lives. Let's pledge today, National School Library Day, as we work to keep our school libraries open, to keep them properly staffed and adequately funded for all our children.

BANK ROBBERIES IN VANCOUVER

R. Sultan: Last week on the North Shore, three apparently drug-intoxicated men smashed their van through the front door of the Bank of Nova Scotia, pointed a shotgun at terrified tellers and drove off with the money.

Bank robberies have become so commonplace in Vancouver that they are no longer news. We have over one a day, twice as often as four years ago. When it comes to bank robbery, we're number one. For our population that's seven times more often than Toronto, eight times more often than Edmonton and nine times more often than Montreal, which we used to call the bank robbery capital of Canada.

Why is this so? The Canadian Bankers Association says that Vancouver has more of the underlying factors that contribute to crime in the first place, such as drug addiction, but a compounding factor is weaker judicial response when offences occur. According to the CBA, conditional sentencing and probation occur at a rate two to seven times more often in Vancouver than other cities. When sentences are actually imposed, according to the CBA, median jail times are typically half of what they are in our sister cities.

In today's Province newspaper under the headline, "Drug addiction is no mitigation for bank robbers," Mr. Mitchell from Nelson writes: "It is no wonder addicts and other criminals flock to B.C…." Alcohol use is not a mitigating factor on the highways. Why should drug use be a mitigating factor in the bank? This stuff will not impress our Olympic visitors in 2010. It's a criminal

[ Page 1079 ]

and social scandal which must be dealt with vigorously.

HOMELESSNESS

S. Hammell: Recently, the Greater Vancouver Homeless Count found that the number of homeless doubled over the past three years, and the number of homeless seniors grew from 51 in 2002 to 171 in 2005. In Surrey the homeless numbers increased by 134 percent.

I want to give life to these statistics by speaking of a person I met first in a former life. This man has many challenges and moves from employment as a day labourer to living on the streets and back again. However, he has one constant, and that is his determination to maintain a relationship with his growing son. I have watched this man deteriorate physically over the years and now, due to an altercation at his worksite, his leg is permanently damaged, as it was not attended to immediately.

At the best of times, this man has difficulty managing his life. He has difficulty filling out the forms and the documents we expect from those who are marginalized and want assistance. He is, for a multitude of good bureaucratic reasons, on the street and homeless again despite desperate efforts to keep the suite that he had rented.

My question is to all in the House. Is it right or good enough that our mentally ill are on the streets? Is it right or good enough that our elderly are on the streets? Is it right or good enough that those who cannot cope are on the streets? I know there is a notion that there is a deserving poor, but my thesis is that in this rich province, no one deserves to be homeless. It is in our best interest to house those on the margins and to support those who, for a variety of circumstances, are at the bottom of the economic ladder. But those reasons are for a future private member's statement, and I just thank the House for listening to my concerns.

WORK OF DR. SHAFIQUE PIRANI

J. Nuraney: There are about a thousand children born with club feet in Uganda each year. Seven years ago Dr. Shafique Pirani, an orthopedic surgeon at the Royal Columbian Hospital, decided to return to Uganda to offer his expertise. Dr. Pirani's family were victims of the unjust measures taken by the tyrant Idi Amin and had to leave Uganda 30 years ago. In spite of this injustice and the traumatic experience suffered by his parents, Dr. Pirani returned to Uganda.

[1420]

In the company of another British Columbia doctor, Dr. Norgrove Penny, he initiated the application of the Ponseti method and trained local doctors to treat the children with club feet. Several hundred children have been treated and their lives improved. Children with club feet become what is commonly called "crawlers" in that country. The work of Dr. Pirani and his associate have made it possible for these children to walk again. Dr. Pirani's work is well recognized by CIDA, Rotary International and other international organizations.

He has since been invited to other countries like Malawi, Madagascar and India where his projects are well underway. In today's world, these are in my opinion the true Canadian heroes.

VICTORIA'S CHINATOWN

R. Fleming: It's an honour to bring the House's attention to a significant celebration occurring this evening at the Royal B.C. Museum. Tonight's event will profile Chinatowns in eight Canadian cities.

Victoria's Chinatown, which I'm privileged to represent in my constituency of Victoria-Hillside, is a vibrant and exciting part of this city's cultural life. Victoria's Chinatown holds a very significant place in the heritage of Canada and North America as the central hub of the Chinese immigrant experience on this continent.

This evening the Victoria Chinatown Lioness Club welcomes award-winning writer and archivist Mr. Paul Yee, who will be presenting his latest book, Chinatowns in Canada . Mr. Yee is perhaps best known for his award-winning children's work, Tales from Gold Mountain: Stories of the Chinese in the New World . He is also known for his well-received book, Saltwater City: an Illustrated History of the Chinese in Vancouver . He is a recipient of many writers' awards, including the Governor General's Literary Award and the B.C. Book Prize.

Mr. Yee's work addresses such themes as racism, alienation and the New World versus the Old World. His original stories are set in the mid- to late-1800s when goldmines beckoned and workers were needed to build the Canadian and the American railroads. These stories inhabit the great historical movement that Paul Yee interprets so well — the immigrant experience.

The place of Victoria's Chinatown in Canadian history will be explored this evening. Many people do not realize that Victoria's Chinatown was the first and for over five decades the largest Chinese community in Canada.

There will also be someone very special to the Chinese Canadian community paid tribute to tonight. Mrs. Bessie Tang, who many in this community knew simply as Aunt Bessie, passed away unfortunately on October 17 at the age of 85. Bessie was a force for kindness and knowledge in Victoria and was loved by many. Bessie was the unofficial storyteller of Victoria's Chinese community. She will be greatly missed by all.

Those who are with us in the gallery and members of the House that can gain leave from their caucus Whips can still buy tickets to tonight's event. It begins at 6:30 p.m., and it's at the Royal B.C. Museum.

WORKER SAFETY IN FOREST INDUSTRY

D. MacKay: I rise today to speak about Healthy Workplace Week. It is a special week set aside each

[ Page 1080 ]

year to increase awareness about the importance of workplace health to personal and organizational performance. It is a reminder that a healthy workplace is a necessity, particularly in a province such as British Columbia where so many workers make a living in environments that are potentially dangerous if not properly monitored.

The B.C. Forest Safety Council indicates that there have been 34 fatalities in the forest industry to date this year alone. A recent report from the forest industry indicates that there are, on average, 25 deaths in the forest industry each year.

Forestry is an important industry for the riding of Bulkley Valley–Stikine, and this is of concern to me. The number of deaths that have already occurred this year is entirely unacceptable. We have to remember that these are not just numbers on a piece of paper. They are real people — lives cut short, children left fatherless. When put in that context, it is staggering and tragic.

Healthy Workplace Week reminds us that we all have a responsibility to resolve these issues. I'm proud to say that this government is committed to finding solutions. Our Labour Minister and Forests and Range Minister have met and will continue to meet with representatives from the industry to address this unacceptable situation. It's going to take everyone working together to have a meaningful impact.

[1425]

I encourage all British Columbians to recognize workplace health and safety and to implore employers and employees alike to ensure safe and healthy workplaces.

Oral Questions

IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS

TO RESOLVE TEACHERS LABOUR DISPUTE

C. James: My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier explain what lessons he has learned from the government's dispute with B.C. teachers?

Hon. S. Bond: We are pleased that today, most importantly, we have our students back in classrooms in British Columbia. It's become, and it becomes increasingly, and it certainly has reconfirmed for all members in this House the passion that people in British Columbia feel about public education…. As we move forward now we have the opportunity to work, beginning this very afternoon, with partners to ensure that our students in this province will receive and continue to receive the excellent education they deserve.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: I think it's very important for all of us to take a look at our history so we don't repeat our mistakes. Judging from the answer I received, I don't think a lot of examination has gone on in that area. The government's dispute with teachers caused enormous disruption and uncertainty for families across this province. The deliberately confrontational approach of this government created the conditions for this dispute. We've seen those conditions created by this government over and over again with teachers, hospital workers, doctors, forest workers, government employees, transit workers and Crown prosecutors.

So my question again is to the Premier. Will the Premier admit that his approach doesn't work and that his government has to change its confrontational approach to the people of British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: I think it's interesting that when we talk about history lessons, they seem to have stopped about four years ago. In fact, let's look at a system that for over 12 years in this province has simply not worked. Let's talk about the issue of leadership. Not once — not once — during this period of time did the Leader of the Opposition actually stand up with us and call for members of the B.C. Teachers Federation to obey the laws of British Columbia. Let's talk about leadership.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: One lesson — and it's very clear from the answer just received — that this government should be taking is to be straight with British Columbians. After months of telling the public that there was more than enough money in the education budget, the government discovered the fact that classrooms are overcrowded, that students with special needs do need more support and that, in fact, parents are seriously concerned about the challenges in the education system.

The Minister of Education has implied that the money saved as a result of the government's dispute with teachers will go back to school boards. We heard the Premier say — and he is on record — that the money saved will be used to in fact implement Vince Ready's recommendations. So I would like to ask the Premier to explain how his government intends to fulfil Mr. Ready's recommendations and where it intends to get the money.

[1430]

Hon. S. Bond: At least the Premier is on record. We were incredibly clear on Friday. We accepted the recommendations that Vince Ready laid before us as the opportunity to look at a new and more productive relationship — not unique to this government. Certainly, the history of teacher bargaining in this province has been a challenging one. We look forward today to a new opportunity, the beginning of a round table, an opportunity to have the dialogue that's essential. Despite the comments from the Leader of the Opposition and how negative they might seem at this point, we're optimistic that will make a difference.

[ Page 1081 ]

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR

INDUSTRIAL INQUIRY COMMISSIONER

IN TEACHERS LABOUR DISPUTE

J. Horgan: On October 19 the official opposition asked the Minister of Labour a series of questions with respect to the role and function of Mr. Vince Ready. At that time the minister said that Mr. Ready had been appointed October 6 and was fulfilling a role as an industrial inquiry commissioner under the Labour Code. We asked the government repeatedly if they could clarify what Mr. Ready's mandate was, and at every turn the minister twisted. On Friday Mr. Ready wrote in his own report: "On October 17 my mandate was expanded to include facilitating a return to work, in order to proceed with the other terms of reference of the IIC."

My question is a simple one to the minister. Why did he not trust British Columbians with that information?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the member and I agree on one thing: all of the material is there for the members and for the public to judge. The terms of reference under which Mr. Ready was operating from October 6, which is the date actually that he was appointed…. The member knows that, because I tabled those terms of reference here in the House. Of course, his comments in his report, where he acknowledged having begun that work and discovering that it was impacted in a very negative way by the fact that the parties — one of them, at least — were engaged in illegal strike activity compromising their ability to speak.

He asked for and sought permission to conduct the work necessary to try to remedy that situation.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: We asked for and sought some clarification from this government on where they were going — from pillar or to post. We asked very clearly of the Minister of Labour what the role and mandate of Mr. Ready was, on the 19th of October. You chose to ignore that question; you chose to not inform the people of British Columbia what the plan was at that time.

Again, a simple question to the minister: why wasn't he straight with this Legislature? Why wasn't he straight with the people of British Columbia on October 19 when we asked him a direct question and he did not answer it?

Hon. M. de Jong: I must say that at times I'm perplexed by some of the questioning and some of the issues raised by members on the opposition side of the House. Are they angry that Mr. Ready conducted this work? Are they angry or disagree with the proposition that he was asked to fulfil a role as an industrial inquiry commissioner? Are they angry? Do they disagree with the fact that that work is going to continue? Whether this member wants to acknowledge it or not, Mr. Ready's work is only partly done. I hope this isn't true, but you could make a good argument that the easy part has just happened.

He's still got to work with these parties to rebuild a broken negotiating structure. So I don't know; they're either for Mr. Ready or against Mr. Ready. I know what I'm for. I'm foursquare for having students back in school today.

J. Kwan: The critic for education called on Mr. Ready to intervene when the dispute was at its height as a result of this government's inaction — as a result of this government's provocation of the issue before us. The Minister of Labour was asked a specific question several times on Wednesday, October 19 about whether or not the terms of reference for Mr. Ready had changed from October 6. He willfully provided wrong information to this House.

Will he admit today that he was wrong and, in fact, Mr. Ready was asked by the government to intervene — and hence, the resolution of the teachers dispute?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the member hasn't, but I will read from his report: "On October 17 my mandate was expanded to include facilitating a return to work in order to proceed with the other terms of reference of the IIC."

[1435]

Now, I don't know what part of what I said in this House contradicts that. It's a fascinating line of questioning. I would have thought that members on that side of the House, despite our political difference, would be celebrating the fact that Mr. Ready was successful, that he can continue with his work and students are back in school today.

GOVERNMENT POLICY FOR

CHILD DEATH REVIEWS

A. Dix: Can the Minister of Children and Family Development confirm that in July of 2005, the ministry changed its process for case reviews of death and critical injuries of children in care? Can he confirm that his new policy eliminates the right of independent reviewers to make recommendations?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'll take the question on notice.

D. Thorne: On September 19 the Minister of Children and Family Development stated in this House: "I can say categorically in this House that this ministry is more open and transparent than any other ministry of its kind in Canada and probably the United States and Europe as well."

Mr. Speaker, there have been six reviews now into the death of one child and now, under this minister's own watch, a quiet change to the sign-off policy for child death reviews that totally eliminates any accountability. How can this minister stand by his original statement?

Hon. S. Hagen: I took the previous question on notice. I'll take this one on notice.

[ Page 1082 ]

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a new question?

D. Thorne: Yes, actually, I think I do.

Mr. Speaker: Go ahead, member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Go ahead.

CALL FOR REINSTATEMENT OF

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S COMMISSIONER

D. Thorne: My question to this minister is: will he please stand up in the House today and do the right thing? Will he give the people of this province the assurance that he is putting an end to this culture of cover-up that his government has created and finally, once and for all, bring back the children's commissioner?

Hon. S. Hagen: I can say categorically that we are not afraid of asking the tough questions about whether or not the ministry is doing the top job we ask it to do. That's why we've appointed a review panel to have a look at what the ministry does and come back with any recommendations. I don't know how you could be more open than that.

REVIEW OF CHILDREN'S DEATHS

BY CHIEF CORONER'S OFFICE

R. Fleming: I have a question relating to the chief coroner's office. This side of the House has obtained a document from the chief coroner's office. The document reveals that the chief coroner's office has had changes to its investigation practices that have resulted in a reduction of the number of autopsies and toxicology examinations it carries out and that this was as a direct result of this government's budget cuts.

As a result, the chief coroner has instructed that only a reasonable presumptive cause of death would be required for a full autopsy in place of a definitive cause. A change was also made to the policy concerning coroner recommendations so that any language that was fault-finding is now prohibited. My question is for the Solicitor General. Was he aware of this consequence of the government's budget cuts?

Hon. J. Les: The chief coroner of the province is clearly on record as having said that no child's death in the province has gone unreviewed as a result of the transfer of those responsibilities to the coroner's office.

[1440]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: That's an interesting assurance, because the chief coroner has stated that the funding that was shifted to him from the children's commissioner for its new child death responsibilities was used towards funding a database manager and also a research officer and, finally, a manager for training, disaster and forensic programs.

My question is again for the Solicitor General. Why did he not see fit to correct the Minister of Children and Family Development a few weeks ago when he told this House that every child's death is always subject to a full coroner's investigation and that it's not an option?

Hon. J. Les: When the chief coroner of the province assures us that no child's death is unreviewed as a result of the transfer of those responsibilities, I take that at face value. Indeed, I am confident that all those deaths are being appropriately reviewed.

L. Krog: The Solicitor General has said that no case goes unreviewed. Yet the office of the coroner is an ancient one with significant responsibilities. The coroner's mandate is to answer who, when, where, how and by what means any deceased person in this province died.

It's my understanding that the direction in the document referred to says quite simply: "In those cases where a full autopsy is not required to meet our mandate and the family wants an autopsy for their purpose, they should be directed to the nearest pathology department to arrange for this private autopsy at their expense."

We know that children have died in the care of the ministry. We understand all of this. It appears that the work that was done by an independent children's commissioner has now been shifted to the coroner's office. The coroner's office has had its budget cut. How can the people of British Columbia be satisfied that children's deaths in this province are being properly reviewed by the coroner when his funding is not appropriate?

Hon. J. Les: I repeat again, as I said a few moments ago in response to the question of the member previous, that the coroner has made an assurance to all British Columbians that there are no issues with respect to lack of review of child deaths in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Out of protest and outrage at the circumstances, some British Columbia physicians are now refusing to sign death certificates for unexpected and unexplained deaths. In light of this information and in light of the minister's responses to the question, my question to the Solicitor General is this. Will the Solicitor General commit to this House that in future, the deaths of all children in British Columbia will be the subject of full autopsy and full and appropriate reviews by the coroner's office?

Hon. J. Les: Clearly, I cannot stand in this House and suggest that every child's death in British Columbia should result in a complete autopsy. The chief

[ Page 1083 ]

coroner makes those decisions on a case-by-case basis and, I assume, very appropriately. If the member opposite has any indication that other professionals in British Columbia are not discharging their responsibilities, I would be happy to receive that information from him.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROPERTY OWNERS

FOR PRIVATE RAILWAY CROSSINGS

D. Chudnovsky: On Thursday, under pressure from this opposition, the Minister of Transportation admitted in this House that the tone of the letter from CN to private crossing landowners was "totally unacceptable." This is in marked contrast to his earlier statements, when he refused to take a leadership role on this issue. Now that he's finally speaking out, will the minister state whether he believes British Columbians should sign the contract with CN?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm not sure I fully grasp the nature of the question. One thing I can tell the member is that he should be very confident — in fact, excited — about the fact that as a result of the CN–B.C. Rail partnership, we now have hundreds of millions of dollars of private sector investment in the railway.

[1445]

We now have huge private sector investment in the port of Prince Rupert, which is going to open up that area as one of the great ports in British Columbia. We've now got tens of millions of new tax revenues to communities up and down the B.C. Rail corridor. It's part and parcel, I think, of the fact that this is what happens when you have a government that recognizes that the public interest is actually in the ownership of the railbed and the tracks. It's the private sector that is there to make sure they make the necessary investments to ensure that our economy can grow with that kind of private sector investment.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Chudnovsky: Clearly from his answer, the minister believes that private land owners are to bear the brunt of the privatization of B.C. Rail. Does the minister believe that private land owners should be on the hook for the government's privatization plan? Or will he join this opposition and the Canadian transportation authority and advise British Columbians not to sign the contract with CN?

Hon. K. Falcon: I do owe that member an apology. I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about the original CN contract.

The member is referring to the rail crossing issue. What I would say again to the member — and I think this is very important to note…. I quite candidly said — and agreed with the member — that I actually thought the tone of CN's letter was inappropriate, and I have no hesitation in saying that. However, the substance of the letter does not change.

In fact, B.C. Rail, when it was under Crown ownership and operating as a Crown railway, undertook improvements to those rail crossings in 1996. They billed the appropriate landowners, as they do the cases of improvements to rail crossings, and because of political interference, many of those bills were not paid nor collected. Under

section 103 of the Canada Transportation Act, it has always been the case right across the country of Canada that if there are improvements to railway crossings, those improvements are to be borne by the landowners. Nothing has changed.

C. Wyse: When it sold B.C. Rail, the government took steps to protect its own interests but refused to protect the interests of average British Columbians. That was a political choice that this government made.

The revitalization agreement between the government and CN is clear.

Article 10.1 states: "The tenant shall be solely responsible, at its own cost, to effect replacements, rehabilitation, reconstruction and upgrades."

Article 11.4 states: "The landlord shall have no obligation to make any repairs."

Can the minister explain why the government, as the landlord, made the choice to protect itself from maintenance and operating expenses but subjected average British Columbians to CN's bullying tactics?

Hon. K. Falcon: These members keep going on about this, but again I tell them that nothing has changed.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: But I'll tell you what has changed. What has changed is that British Columbians are no longer on the hook for over a billion dollars written off when it was a Crown railway. What has changed is that we have $185 million in the northern development fund for northerners — for the benefit of northerners, with decisions made by northerners — that is going to improve the province. What has changed is that we finally have a government that recognizes there is tremendous opportunity in the port of Prince Rupert.

Under our Premier's leadership, we've actually got almost $100 million of investment in the port of Prince Rupert. Finally, what has changed is that we actually have a private railway company, CN, now investing tens of millions of dollars to the benefit of communities and property taxes that were never paid under B.C. Rail.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

C. Wyse: It's not just operating and maintenance costs. The government protected itself from insurance and liability expenses but allowed CN to go after land-

[ Page 1084 ]

owners for those very same costs. Why did this government make the decision to leave landowners with the bill for their broken promise?

[1450]

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, I would remind the member that actually nothing has changed. The member should look right across this great country of Canada and find that under

section 103 of the Canada Transportation Act, that's always been the case. It has actually always been the case, except in British Columbia where we had governments — particularly the previous NDP government — that loved to interfere with the operations of the railway and would not allow the railway to make the proper economic decisions.

As a result of that kind of interference, not surprisingly, taxpayers had to take it on the chin with over $1 billion being written off on that railway. That wasn't right then. It wouldn't be right today. Those appropriate fees that are directly related to the improvements of railway crossings are, of course, the responsibility of the landowners, whether that's a private land owner or the local government. That has not changed, and it will not change anymore.

S. Simpson: Again to the Minister of Transportation. The first time this issue was in the House, this minister stated that he was comfortable with this agreement. Then last week he said that he felt the tone was totally unacceptable. The minister's confused responses demonstrate a clear lack of leadership on his part and a lack of leadership by this government.

My question to the minister: did he really believe that his government would be able to sell off B.C. Rail, off-load all of the financial and legal costs onto private land owners and walk away without being held accountable?

Hon. K. Falcon: I have sat on this side of the House, and from the very beginning, when we entered into this arrangement — an arrangement with enormous benefit for British Columbians — I have listened to members opposite try to grasp any straw that could somehow justify their opposition to this deal.

Let me just remind that member opposite: $1 billion in revenue to the province; paying off half a billion dollars of B.C. Rail debt that was put in place as a result of that government's mismanagement — which will save taxpayers, by the way, over $30 million a year in interest costs alone; $185 million for a northern development fund; almost $100 million of investment into the port of Prince Rupert; tens of millions of dollars in new taxes; property tax revenue to communities up and down that rail line.

Those are all tremendous benefits for British Columbia. That member should go and actually talk to small communities and talk about the kind of benefits they're receiving and ask them whether they think that was an appropriate trade-off.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: What I would tell this minister is that I have been talking to people around British Columbia, as we have on this side. We've been talking to communities, talking to taxpayers. What they tell us time and time again is that this minister and all of his colleagues on that side don't stand up for them.

We will stand up for taxpayers. We will stand up for communities. You failed time and again, minister.

An Hon. Member: Calm down.

S. Simpson: Calm down there. That's right.

I guess my question would be…. On a recent CBC Radio program, one of the landowners affected by this was quoted as saying: "The B.C. government got a billion dollars when they sold my railroad. What do I get? I don't get any benefit from having the railroad go through the middle of my farm."

He went on to say: "Why doesn't my government in B.C. look after my interests in this matter?" So what we know is that while the government clearly covered its own assets on this, they haven't listened to British Columbians. They haven't looked after the interests of British Columbians.

My question to the minister would be this. Why didn't the minister take steps to protect private land owners in this issue and prevent British Columbians from having to foot these financial bills and from being bullied by CN?

Hon. K. Falcon: The short answer is: because nothing has actually changed. In fact, that member should actually go do a little homework. In 1996 under that member's governance, when they were responsible for B.C. Rail, B.C. Rail undertook improvements of all the rail crossings right across British Columbia.

[1455]

They sent out invoices to the landowners to ask them to pay their share, as has always been the case. Just because that member may have interfered or that member's government may have interfered and said, "Oh, better not allow that. People are complaining and not wanting to pay. So we're going to interfere and not allow them to pay — and therefore add to the substantial…."

An Hon. Member: That's called leadership.

Hon. K. Falcon: That member says it's called leadership. Well….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: That leadership, Mr. Speaker, led to over $1 billion being written off of taxpayers' dollars on B.C. Rail. It was wrong then, and it would be wrong today.

[End of question period.]

[ Page 1085 ]

Point of Order

Hon. M. de Jong: During the course of question period — and I think I'm following the rules of the House in waiting until the completion of question period — the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant inadvertently, I'm sure, made comments that might be construed as having suggested that I had misled the House previously. I know that would not be her intention, and I do ask that she withdraw those comments now.

J. Kwan: Mr. Speaker, if I offended anybody in this House, I withdraw those comments.

Point of Privilege

J. Horgan: I rise at this earliest opportunity to reserve a right of privilege. I believe that the comments made by the Minister of Labour today and also on October 19 may have breached my privilege, and I reserve the right to come back and present my case at an early opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: So done.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call continued second reading debate on Bill 13, the Civil Forfeiture Act, and in Committee A, continued estimates debate, for the information of the members, of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

Second Reading of Bills

CIVIL FORFEITURE ACT

(continued)

K. Krueger: It is my privilege to stand and continue the debate on second reading of Bill 13. Members of the public who are watching the activities of this House today may have seen and hopefully did see the debate last Thursday when the former Solicitor General and present Minister of Forests rose and gave a spirited account of the activities of this government in its first term in office, while he served as Solicitor General, in fighting crime in this province and protecting the victims and potential victims of crime. It is a record of which this government is justifiably proud, and I believe that as we continue these efforts, the members of the opposition….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Could the other members just please keep the noise down. There is a member speaking.

K. Krueger: I believe that the members of the opposition are pleased — it's obvious they are, on this bill in particular — to join with us in that fight. I'm not going to speak long, because I think it has become clear to us, as I have listened to this debate, that we are unanimous in this House in our endorsement of proceeding in this direction.

I am particularly fond of

part 6,

section 27 of this bill, which sets out how the payment out of the civil forfeiture account will occur. It discusses the funnelling of the proceeds into compensation of eligible victims, prevention of unlawful activities, remediation of the effect of unlawful activities and other prescribed purposes including the administration of this act. That will be some small measure of justice to at least some of the victims of the heinous activities of criminals in this province that we all love on both sides of this House. I think it is clear that everyone is supportive, and they should well be.

[1500]

There was a notable example early in our first term in office of some of the problems that were leading to the success of criminals in this province. It was not far from where I live, in the little community of Merritt. We heard about it in Kamloops immediately, and we grieved about it. A beautiful young woman named Cherish Oppenheim was picked up by a criminal and sexually assaulted and murdered.

It turned out that man had been in RCMP custody earlier that night, and he was unlawfully at large with an outstanding warrant. They didn't know because they were operating with outdated equipment and computers that didn't give them the information they needed in real time. He was allowed to go free on the streets because the RCMP didn't know they had a legitimate reason to detain him, and he rewarded that opportunity by killing an innocent young woman.

The former Solicitor General brought in a state-of-the-art computer system called the PRIME-BC system so that that should never happen again in British Columbia. That's the sort of thing we can do when we work together and listen to the experts who are proud to serve in our public service and who help us come up with the means to stop criminals in their tracks, to protect their potential victims and to deal with the potentially awful consequences of things that they would like to do and that they scheme to do.

We're going to keep up our crime-fighting activities as a government, and we're going to enjoy the support of the opposition in these things, because these are the right things to do. This is a bill that steps up our crime-fighting activities. I'm not going to recount the Minister of Forests's — the former Solicitor General — chronicle of achievement, but I do want to commend him and the present Solicitor General, as well, for this determined fight against what really are the forces of evil at work against childhood innocence and the innocence and goodness of a society in this province we love.

I want to commend the army of public servants who helped conceive, prepare and implement the approaches that this government brought on in its first term and continues to bring on presently, particularly with the legislation before us. The battle we and those public servants are engaged in is not like the battles of

[ Page 1086 ]

wars of times past, when both sides fought with honour. There's only one side with honour in this battle, one side with goodness and one that fights for the right, and it doesn't include the kinds of people that do the kinds of things with which they buy the assets that this act is pursuing.

The prize over which we fight is the flower of a generation — our children, our grandchildren — and the very type of society that we want to live in and that we do live in, in British Columbia, because we have not lost this fight. Some days it feels that way to the public when they read about the horrific things that are happening to people on our streets by virtue of the greed and the avarice of the kind of rotten people that make crystal meth, that peddle drugs, that create the traps that young people and others throughout our society are falling into.

We also fight to protect and restore as much as we can the sad and ruined lives of people already enslaved by the tentacles of organized crime.

The people against whom we in this House must fight to defend the vulnerable are motivated by greed and personal vanity. They are perfectly willing to kill children and countless random victims, to disable people, to ruin their lives, to destroy them — all for the sake of money and flashy living. This legislation hits those people in their soft spot — the only thing they really care about, the only soft spot they actually have — and that is the ability to show off something they never should have had in the first place, to satisfy that vanity, to give them money and the things that it can buy for them.

[1505]

We all have sad vignettes, I'm sure, from our constituencies, from the lives of people we know and people we've heard of. There was a young man in Kamloops, where I live, who was loved by his friends. He was very popular in his high school. He was loved by his family, and he had a good home and a good family. One day he committed suicide by putting his throat on his father's table saw. You think: how could anyone be that dismayed by their life that they would commit suicide in such a painful and brutal way and leave something so awful for their families and their friends to deal with?

That young man had been caught up in a web of drug dealing, selling drugs to his friends and not being able to collect the money, and being deeper and deeper in debt to pushers and to the whole stinking network behind them. He saw no way out. He was ashamed of what he had been drawn into, and he couldn't see any way out. And that's what he did.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

There have been others who have committed suicide for the same reasons. We hear of incidents, and it's all too frequently…. The young girl here in Victoria, 13 years old, thought she was buying Ecstasy and bought crystal meth and died as a result. This horrible drug can addict people when they've used it once, when they didn't even know they were using it, and do such awful things to their lives. People make that stuff and sell it just so they can buy things to show off with. Every one of us knows of families and individuals who have been hurt, crushed, shattered by criminals who care only for money.

This legislation makes clear the response of every member in this House that we will not allow such people to profit, to live high on the blood and misery of innocent victims.

I was on the government committee that reviewed this legislation during the last term in office. As the Minister of Forests said, we put this bill up for the public to have a look at over the summer, through the election, and brought it back now in its current form — the current Solicitor General having dealt with the issues that were raised.

I was on the government committee which reviewed the original legislation, and I asked the former Solicitor General about whether the government had considered using some of these assets seized from criminals as is done in some other jurisdictions. I was part of traffic safety programs in the education system in the past, and I looked at what other jurisdictions were doing around the world. Some will seize things like fancy cars that might attract the interest of young people and then use them in the police programs, reaching out to talk to them — having secured their attention — about the dangers of things like using drugs and dealing drugs and getting involved in various types of crime.

So I asked if we were prepared to consider that at all. I admired his answer, and I'm proud of his answer, which was that British Columbia doesn't want the ostentatious belongings of these criminals. We don't want their fancy homes; we don't want their flashy cars. We don't want anything that they've prized above the health, the happiness and the well-being of our citizens, especially our young ones. We will seize those things and sell them and use the money to help victims and do the things that

part 6,

section 27 sets out.

One of those things is to pursue those criminals until we have them locked up once and for all, put away where they can't hurt people anymore. We don't put the criminals who manufacture crystal meth or other drugs or those who import and distribute them or enslave their victims in prostitution and degrade their lives in any better category than the vermin who raped and murdered Cherish Oppenheim. Their activities are disgusting and sick and deplorable, and we'll deprive them of those things that they have appallingly prized above the lives of other human beings. We will sell those things, and we will use the money to put them in jail.

I know we've got the unanimous support of the House, and I'm looking forward to seeing this legislation passed into law.

M. Karagianis: I stand today to speak in favour of this act being proposed. Like many of the previous speakers, I understand clearly the inherent nature of the Civil Forfeiture Act and why it is a tool that is very effective. My past experience in the municipality of Esquimalt and working very closely with the police

[ Page 1087 ]

there has certainly shown me that policing does need more tools with which to come to grips with organized crime.

We've certainly seen the results of some of that, and the fall of some of that, in my community over the years and have had to deal with the problems as a result — whether it be petty organized crime from gang members or whether it be a larger and more sophisticated organized crime network that deals with drug distribution. My community, like none other in the region, has suffered at the hands of criminal behaviour.

[1510]

I also agree with the fact, and the statement and sentiments expressed here by previous speakers, that criminals should in no way be allowed to profit from their activities. It is unfortunate that we are all victims of those profits by organized criminals. The time that I have spent working with police in my community and certainly with the very successful amalgamation has shown me that we need to give more support to police and more tools for them to use to their advantage in pursuing these criminals.

I do, however, know that the devil is always in the details, and certainly we'll be looking forward to going through this clause by clause and debating the specific language around this. I do have some concerns with some of the language here. I know that a previous speaker, the Minister of Forests and Range, said that there had been extensive efforts spent to make sure that the language was right, and yet going through it, I do still see some terms and clauses and phrases in here that give me some concern and that I would like to have some security around the long-term implications.

Perhaps it's because I come from municipal government that I'm always worried about the liabilities around some of the language here, and I do know that often in enforcement, language is where the rubber kind of meets the road. So, I will be looking to go through, during the committee debate, the actual specifics of the language clause by clause.

I do have some concerns around some aspects of the actual forfeiture clauses — that's 11 through 13 — not so much on how it affects the actual criminal and the seizure of any of their homes, boats, cars or any other personal belongings, but I think of one other victim that we often overlook, and that's often sometimes the families of organized criminals. The fact that a family has a member who is involved in organized crime is not always necessarily something that they can control and is often something they may not be fully cognizant of.

I have some concern, in reading all the language around forfeiture, around wives and children who may, in fact, be impacted by the seizure and are then are left either owing mortgages or are left homeless or having their possessions removed. I don't see in any of this language enough protection there. Perhaps that will come out in the debate, but it does concern me.

I do know, from seeing the impact on families, of some criminal behaviour where families, children, and wives often are very innocent sometimes to the actual, full implications of what the chief earning person in the house brings in or how those funds are achieved. I would want to be very cautious that families don't become victims themselves of this forfeiture and seizure.

I guess the other thing that gives me some concern and that I would like to have some assurance around is the whole language around victims and how proceeds are going to go to victims. You know, one very tragic case, which is very well known by everyone here and probably most people in British Columbia, is the Nicholas Johnson case which occurred in my community. In fact, in looking at any remuneration to go to that family or that victim of violent crime, we see that there's very little recourse — any moneys that may or may not be gained from those people who committed that crime.

Although not big, sophisticated organized crime, those were petty organized gang members that perpetrated that crime on Nicholas Johnson. Again, it's how the money flows through to victims; it's how that whole program works. I would like to really be assured in the language there again that some of that is really spelled out.

You know, the experience of communities with traffic fines has been sometimes a bit questionable, maybe less than satisfactory all the time. Communities at UBCM are letting their voices be known about how traffic fine revenue has been delivered to them. Again, I think government's got to be really clear on how that program is going to work, really spell out how the money is going to go to victims, how that is going to be dealt with over the long term as well.

[1515]

The other thing I alluded to here was liabilities for municipalities. Municipalities, in fact, are responsible for policing. Ultimately, at the end of the day, liabilities out of any of those actions often can come back to municipalities. I can already see clever legal minds thinking about how municipalities become responsible for forfeitures or seizures of property that upon appeal or at some later date may have been found to be inappropriate. Maybe they were done hastily.

I did hear some speakers in the House talking about the fact that there doesn't have to actually be a criminal charge laid before some of these seizures can take place. That concerns me greatly. It concerns me that municipalities as the masters of policing may, at the end of the day, end up bearing some of the brunt of that. I have seen in the past that when a good legal action starts, it's like a scorched earth policy. Everybody sues everybody in sight.

Certainly, if we have seen that properties have been inadvertently seized and maybe later upon acquittals or appeals — or even a mistake in justice, because it does happen — it turns out that those properties were seized, liquidated and, in fact, there may have been some error in that process along the way…. I wouldn't want to see municipalities and their police departments get caught in the way of that because of a law that is really aimed at a specific aspect of criminal behaviour. Those things concern me greatly.

[ Page 1088 ]

Consultation, I guess. I would like some assurances of the kind of consultation that has gone on in putting this together. I know that many speakers from the other side of the House have been very enthusiastic about this bill and have said it's a long time coming. It may be, but again, you know, the devil is in the details. I don't want to find us later having to go back and revisit how this legislation was written because we weren't careful enough at the beginning. B.C. Civil Liberties has called into question some aspects of the language of this and the process around this. I think that is a little caution, again, that we should all be paying attention to.

The recent Florida gun law has become a little bit of an absurd kind of news item. Last week, I think, there was a lot of speculation on the fact that a law has been written that says if you think someone is going to do damage to you, you're allowed to shoot them. There was a lot of speculation; some of it was fairly absurd. But it was also very disturbing that legislation had been put into place, for I'm sure very good reasons, that has turned out now to have some very morbid and unpleasant aspects of it that can be used in a court of law at a later date.

I remember listening to some debate on the radio over it. I think one speaker said: "What happens if you've got two people who both think that they're going to do damage to each other, and now we have duelling occurring over that gun law?" Sometimes you can see where a law has gone a little bit too far, and then it goes off into a kind of theatre of the absurd. I don't want any laws that I'm involved with in this House to go too far or not to go far enough. There are a number of aspects of this act that do concern me, and some of those I will be speaking to and questioning at the appropriate time.

However, the general purpose and intent of the act I agree with absolutely. I agree with the fact that criminals should not in any way be allowed to profit. I agree that if we can use this as a tool to further implement civil obedience here in this province, that's always a good thing. I have seen in my own community the results of drug abuse, the results of violence against young people and certainly the insidious and heinous crystal meth problem that is currently kind of a scourge here in our province. I've seen all the results of that.

[1520]

Whatever it takes to get to the people who stand at the top of that pyramid and that hierarchy and manage that crime below them, then I say: let's do it. Let's just make sure that we are protecting all of the people along the way, especially those most vulnerable — the direct victims and the indirect victims like the families. I will actually be voting in favour of this moving to the next level.

K. Whittred: I, too, am very pleased to rise in the House today to support the Civil Forfeiture Act. I was very pleased to hear the member opposite speak in support of the act, and I was also pleased to hear her say that she was going to be very studiously looking at the wording and context of the bill during committee stage. I'm very pleased to hear that, because certainly, we on both sides of this House want good legislation at the end of the day.

There probably isn't a single person in this House that has not been touched by some degree of crime. We all recognize the feeling of being violated when that happens to us. I recall that a number of years ago my home was broken into. I'm pretty certain that it was a young person or young people — and the police agreed — probably looking for things to fuel their drug habit. Whoever it was, was quite clever and only took things that were gold.

Now, we are not a wealthy family and do not have a lot of gold in the house, but you'd be surprised how much gold can be accumulated by, you know, the gold chain you wear around your neck, your grandfather's keepsake gold cufflinks, your father's gold Masonic ring, these sorts of things — all of which have more sentimental value than real value.

There is the feeling one has, at the end of the day, when your baby locket is stolen and you know it has gone to somebody and that that gold is going to be melted down for a fraction of the cost, and at the top of this pyramid is probably organized crime. I think there isn't anyone in this House who doesn't say that somewhere along that chain of command, there should not be profit for this particular activity.

The scenario that I've described is, I think, a good example of how drugs ruin people's lives for their own financial gain. In this process, public safety is often at risk. What this bill does is try to say to the victims that somebody should pay for that crime and that you should have some sort of restitution for the victims.

I'm pleased that this last spring my government introduced this bill and put it out as an exposure bill. That's a process we've tried to use since we introduced reforms in the House and have had two sittings. I have to say I think it works very, very well. We're able to put out legislation. It can go out to the parties that are knowledgable about the bill, they can come back with their recommendations, and appropriate revisions and changes can be made.

This bill is very easy to defend on a number of levels. It authorizes that someone who makes profit from crime will lose their property, that this is an instrument of unlawful activity. It goes on to say: "Let's take the profit out of this illegal activity." It further goes on to say: "And let's use that money to help to repay victims and, also, to introduce preventative initiatives to try to deter crime." That is one of the things that I think I like the best about the bill.

Now, many of my colleagues and members opposite have spoken about the bill in terms of sort of the larger crime aspects. I would like to take a few moments and speak about this bill in the context of the community. This bill didn't just appear as one piece of legislation in isolation. It is, in fact, part of the government's plan to increase and improve public safety.

[1525]

One of the areas that I've had a great deal to do with over the years has been the area of seniors. I've

[ Page 1089 ]

worked very closely with the organization to eliminate abuse of seniors and so on. I think perhaps all of us are offended equally when we hear of scams that target our elderly population.

Recently my constituency actually sponsored a workshop put on by the Better Business Bureau specifically for seniors on how they can try to not get involved with scams and so on. We have to remember that at the top level of all of these scams is probably a big organization that is reaping huge profits. Nearly always these scams are around some sort of con artist. There is, of course, the one that we all know about, the so-called pigeon drop, where someone is contacted and you're informed that you have won a large amount of money, and all you have to do is to send them a bit.

This is in good faith, and this is so that you can get your really big prize. We know of people that have been out tens of thousands of dollars on those kinds of scams.

Another one is the one that's called the bank examiner, where elderly people, and sometimes people who are suffering from a wee bit of dementia, are contacted, and they're told that this is a representative of a financial institution, and they're looking for a crooked employee. It's only going to take a little bit of money to find that person. Again, people are bilked out of their savings.

Then there's the door-to-door salesman that comes around saying that they are in the neighbourhood and want to do a free inspection of your property. Maybe they say that they've just finished doing a job down the street and they've got some materials left over. People fall for that and get taken for many, many thousands of dollars.

Another that I've heard about personally from a friend of mine is a bogus health and wellness products scam. I actually have an elderly friend in Edmonton, and she's quite a well-off woman. But she was contacted by, theoretically, someone that was going to come and care for her for a price, and this turned out to be a price that went into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. I believe that the family may very well still be involved in legal action trying to get around that particular scam.

Then there's the one that we're all very aware of right now, and that is identity theft. I was recently on a holiday in Europe — in fact, this last summer — and while I was gone, my family got a phone call. Of course, I didn't know about it, but it was from the bank that I have my credit card with. They were notifying me that my number had appeared on, apparently, a list of someone that was dishonest and collecting credit card numbers. It luckily had not been used, but that is an example of how vulnerable we are. I like to think that I am a very careful person about that.

These are all examples where somewhere in that scam is a big organization, probably organized crime, that is going to make a great deal of money off the profit of people that get taken to the cleaners, so to speak.

Now, within the context of our public safety plan was the announcement last spring that there were 215 additional RCMP officers. This was part of the crime-fighting strategy. There was an additional $122 million invested in policing, correction and courts over the next several years. In my own community that translated into two new police officers.

[1530]

I'm also happy to say that another part of the public safety plan had to do with the return of all traffic fines to municipalities. In my community that has resulted in what were called community safety initiative grants, and this is one way…. Every community has been enabled to use those funds in different ways, and in my community, much of those additional moneys were put into community safety.

I was fortunate to be able to attend a meeting last, oh, probably June, I think — possibly early July — where the community of lower Lonsdale had come together to deal with the crystal meth problem and other problems related to crime that existed in the eyes of people who lived in that community. I have to say that it was a very interesting meeting. It was a very rewarding meeting, because it was one of the few meetings I'd been to in some time where it was a true community endeavour. It was truly people that lived there who had a genuine concern.

Out of all of that process and all of that concern, a group was formed. They were able to go to the city of North Vancouver and apply for a community safety initiative grant which would enable this community organization to move forward and to work with the community police, with the social planners at city hall and with the people that are involved with addictions at North Vancouver's Lions Gate Hospital and the Crystal Meth Task Force. Hopefully, over the next several months they will be able to work on finding some solutions.

Another part of our public safety plan was to increase support for women's programs and to combat violence against women. I'm very pleased to read into the record — and I really do want to read this letter into the record, hon. Speaker, because it's written by Maureen Gabriel, who is the executive director of Sage House. She is the person that runs the programs for North Vancouver, and she says:

The Liberal government has continued to provide core operating funding to North Shore Crisis Services Society to provide Sage Transition House and the women's 24-hour support line, and to Family Services of the North Shore for the Stopping the Violence counselling program. Funding for these programs and ones like them throughout British Columbia has not only been retained at the levels of the previous government but has been significantly enhanced in regions and programs that have traditionally been underfunded.

The government has provided more than

$12.5 million to transition houses and has recently issued a request for proposals for additional services for women and children affected by violence throughout the province. The request for proposals includes new programs for the North Shore.

She goes on to explain. She says: "We would be distressed if women who need the services of Sage House or Stopping the Violence counselling programs

[ Page 1090 ]

thought that these services were no longer available on the North Shore." I wanted it read into the record that in fact, these programs are very much alive, very much intact, and that they, too, are part of our larger public safety plan.

Another part of the public safety plan was a commitment to fight crystal meth through education, enforcement, policing and the Meth Watch program. I've already touched on that a bit to illustrate to you how, in my community, the moneys that were raised from the traffic fines have been used in that regard.

[1535]

In conclusion, I wanted to give some indication about how this actually gets down to the community level and how it is part of a larger public safety plan that includes everything from the bait car program to road safety.

We have improved standards around road safety so we can take and impound vehicles involved in street racing. We have improved the graduated licensing program. I am pleased that we are adding to our toolbox, if you like, for improving public safety in the province — the addition that we're going to ask criminals to help to not only not profit from their crime but to actually pay something back to the victims and to add to the coffers for programs that will prevent crime.

S. Fraser: I, too, will be speaking in favour of Bill 13. I've listened to this debate over the last week, and as the member opposite has mentioned, there's been a number of examples, often personal examples, that everyone has felt regarding crime. They're often emotional, and that brings a sense of realism, I think, to this House.

However, as legislators, we must also try to remain objective. I hear comments which I empathize with about B and Es where the picture of the youth, drug-induced, breaking in…. There's an outrage when your own personal possessions are disrupted or your personal space is invaded. It's understood, but to be clear, it's not always what we think it is. Sometimes people commit crimes because they are poor or because they're hungry. Some of us have been lucky enough to avoid those situations, and that's good.

But as long as we have systems in place that exacerbate the difference between those that have and those that have not, we will be exacerbating those conditions that create crime and, to some extent, exacerbating the conditions that create drug abuse.

I think we should be mindful of that too. We all look for the big enemy, but crime has been with us for a long time. We must look at all policies in this House to make sure that we're dealing with all aspects of crime.

I will be speaking in favour of this bill, but to some extent I do so reluctantly because I feel somewhat rushed here. No one could argue against the merits of taking away the proceeds of criminal activity, especially when brought into the context of organized crime or examples like the Hell's Angels. No, Madam Speaker, with these examples there is no argument, especially if the bill is looked at in this context. However, I have some more subtle concerns with this bill, and I hope they can be dealt with at committee stage. That's why we have this process. So I will voice those.

When anyone is speaking of removal of civil rights or reducing the burden of proof or of punishment based on balance of probability, we as legislators must, I think, proceed somewhat with caution. We must look at the worst-case scenarios of those changes to ensure that the system and the legislation, if you will, cannot be used inappropriately or emotionally or be abused in some way. That, too, would be a tragedy and in my mind would be a crime.

There are places in the world that do not provide the protections of the law that we as Canadians and as British Columbians often take for granted. I do not believe that as much emphasis has been placed on ensuring that this legislation is not used for the wrong reasons or wielded as punishment or wielded for political reasons. Lessened rights can sometimes open the door for these things, and we've seen examples of that in other jurisdictions in the world.

[1540]

I've heard from members in this House, on the other side of the House, last week of their support for the bill. I respect their opinions, but I found the reasons that they gave somewhat disturbing. One member spoke last week, and I got a quote out of Hansard . He says:

I want to tell you what happened years ago in our court system because law enforcement people didn't have the tools. The people would be taken into court, and quite often they were convicted. The courts were more concerned about the guy who had committed the crime, and we started down this road called rehabilitation.

Well, I have to tell you: rehabilitation, in my

world, doesn't work. You don't rehabilitate somebody.

Madam Speaker, when it comes to issues of crime and punishment, when the purpose of the legislation is only to punish, to deny the world of rehabilitation or to get around the rule of law or the standards of the courts, red flags, I believe, should be popping up. Again, I'm speaking in favour of this bill.

The member went on to point out that

section 18 of the act allows that "…an unlawful activity may be found to have occurred even if (

a) no person has been charged with an offence that constitutes the unlawful activity, or (

b) a person charged with an offence that constitutes the unlawful activity was acquitted of all charges."

Now, I assume that being mindful of their civil liberties, the hon. member was raising a cautionary flag here, but that was not his rationale. The concern of the member was…. The rationale concerns me. The member went on to say: "So he can be found not guilty in the criminal courts, and we can still go after him in this new Civil Forfeiture Act. That's really great and exciting news."

I think as legislators we have a role to play that is mindful of all aspects of criminal law and not just getting the bad guy. There are many people in the prov-

[ Page 1091 ]

ince concerned with protecting civil liberties, and those have been mentioned — many organizations in this country and in the world. These are civil liberties that Canadians have fought and died for. Those concerned may feel uncomfortable with legislation that is enacted for the right reasons but without being mindful of all aspects of the reason of having the criminal law.

We see in this province more policing being provided — 250 new officers, and that's no doubt needed — and more resources for those police officers, and that, too, cannot be argued with. We also see legislation like this bill that gets around — potentially, if we're not careful — things like civil liberties, reasonable doubt and guilt under the law — the law, Madam Speaker. When this is combined with cuts to correctional facilities, cuts to court workers, cuts to legal assistance and closed community courthouses…. When all that is combined, we as legislators might be missing the big picture.

Having this venue to discuss these issues, I think, is healthy in creating a bill that is mindful of all of our civil liberties, because we don't want to risk those. This bill does not go far enough, or at all, towards addressing victims or victims' rights.

Now, the benefit payouts in the 2000-2001 year for the crimes and victim assistance programs were more than they were over the last 20 months. There was more paid out before the new, improved program was brought in, so I think maybe there were mistakes made in the new program dealing with victims' rights and assuring victim assistance.

I don't think the new law was scrutinized in that respect well enough to actually provide for what it is meant to provide for, which is victim assistance. The victims haven't decreased, but the assistance has. We must take that in context and think of that when we're looking at this bill.

[1545]

We also see no movement towards restorative justice. There are some really innovative examples of restorative justice. As the member across has mentioned, there are victims in crimes — in B and Es and that. There are examples, even in this province, where restorative justice systems are used that bring, in coordination with the RCMP and local police forces, the perpetrator of the crime and the victims together. There is restitution for the victims, and there is actually a form of rehabilitation for the perpetrator of the crimes. So there are other systems out there. I know members are all aware of that, but I see that somewhat lacking in just looking at this bill in isolation.

In closing, I support the bill, but I ask the House, in the future…. I as a member feel that I was put in the position of having to support a piece of legislation that may put in jeopardy the basic rights of British Columbians. No matter how noble the causes are for the bill, it makes me feel uncomfortable not to have the time to personally consult with the public or my constituents and to learn of the concerns of other groups concerned with civil liberties and hear those points of view, too, because they're important, and to allow for amendments if necessary.

Now, the committee system that comes next…. I'm hoping that system will be open to allow for amendments, if necessary, to ensure that civil rights are protected, also, in this law. The public deserves nothing less. It is so easy to take away rights, no matter what the rationale. It's much more difficult to get them back.

Hon. J. Les: It's been an interesting several days as Bill 13 has been in second reading. First of all, let me say that I appreciate all of the comments made by the various members of the House who have commented on this bill. I think the comments have largely been constructive, and I'm heartened by the fact that apparently, as I read it, all members of the House at this stage are in favour of the general principles of the legislation. I look forward to the committee stage of this bill.

Just in closing my remarks, I want to underline once again that what the House is considering is, in fact, civil law in this bill. It is not criminal legislation. I've heard some references in discussion at second reading that…. I think there's some confusion around that point. I think, as we go into third reading, members may want to take that into consideration.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This bill is simply another tool that removes the incentive to commit crime in British Columbia. It ensures that when people are involved in illegal activity, they are going to be less likely to be able to retain the proceeds of that illegal activity and, in fact, will have to forfeit those proceeds of the crime.

This legislation is not a substitute for criminal prosecution. However, it is also important to realize that decisions pursuant to this legislation are still going to be made in the courts. I've heard references to the balance of probability being, perhaps, a lower standard. It is an appropriate standard for civil proceedings, but any decisions made in terms of forfeiture are going to be made by the courts. The director of civil forfeiture is going to have to make the application to the courts for the property to actually be forfeited.

[1550]

There's been some speculation, as well, as to what would give rise to proceedings under this act. I think I heard somebody say that if somebody has accumulated some considerable assets — maybe a very nice house or maybe a very nice car in the driveway of that house — that ought to give rise to proceedings or, at least, to the director of civil forfeiture moving in on that property to see what's up. I want to assure you that simply the accumulation of wealth is not a suspicious consequence. As a matter of fact, I as a member of this House celebrate the fact that people accumulate wealth.

I know that for members opposite it is sometimes a trigger to start taxing, but in and of itself, the accumulation of assets is not a bad thing.

[ Page 1092 ]

However, we need to keep clearly in mind that the trigger for the operation of this act is the commission of unlawful activity. Where that activity is established, the act then takes over and the remedies laid out in the act are pursued.

It is also not

an act that lays out further assistance specifically to victims of crime, nor does it get into a complete iteration of restorative justice, for example. This is

an act about the operation of civil forfeiture and how that proceeds in the province of British Columbia — for the first time and, I think, very appropriately.

Some of the discussion that I've heard has been, I think, very good and very focused on the act. Others have tended to look at sort of tangential issues that are not clearly the focus of the act. As we go through committee stage, I am sure that we're going to be able to enlighten some of the various sections of the act that apparently have caused confusion.

For now, I'm very pleased that members of the House support the principles of the bill. With that, I'm pleased to move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13, Civil Forfeiture Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call estimates debate: Ministry of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

AND RANGE AND MINISTER

RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 3:54 p.m.

On Vote 31: ministry operations, $418,644,000 .

Hon. R. Coleman: I'd like to move Votes 31, 32, 33 and 47.

[1555]

Opening the estimates today, this ministry's focus is twofold. It is forestry and housing. Forestry is to protect the public interest and provide leadership in the protection, management and use of the province's forest and rangeland. On the housing side it's for safe, stable and affordable housing for British Columbians, with programs ranging from the residential tenancy office to emergency shelters to social housing to other programs as they evolve.

Today we are going to begin with forestry. The Forest Service was established in 1912. The Forest Service is the main agency responsible for the stewardship of 47 million hectares of provincial forest. The Forests Ministry has 3,224 full-time-equivalents on staff and a budget of $647.9 million.

The core business areas for this ministry include, first of all, protection against fire and pests, which is managing wildfires to protect provincial and Crown land investments in the forest land base. Without fire protection, about 500,000 hectares of productive forest would be lost annually. On October 4, 2005, a new national wildfire strategy was developed with the expertise from British Columbia and has been adapted by all Canadian provinces — something that we as a jurisdiction should be proud of, because we were the leaders of that on a national basis.

With regard to pests, there are all kinds of pests in our forests, Madam Chair. The one we talk about the most these days is the mountain pine beetle, which we'll expand on later and which I'm sure we'll discuss during estimates. There are other bark beetles: the spruce beetle, the Douglas fir beetle, the western pine beetle, Dosistroma and gypsy moths. As well, the Forests Ministry is responsible for sound forest stewardship. Sound environmental stewardship of the forest resources to ensure their use in a sustainable way is one of the goals and objectives of this ministry.

We manage the range issues with regard to invasive plants, in cooperation with other ministries; land alienation; and forest encroachment on grasslands. We evaluate the range practice and restore damaged rangelands under our range in stewardship and grazing. Under compliance and enforcement, we uphold B.C.'s laws protecting forest and range under the Ministry of Forests and Range jurisdiction. For example, we enforce environmental practices and enforce revenue and pricing legislation governing removal, transport of timber and forest crimes like theft, arson and mischief.

Through the forest investment side, we have the forest investment account. Some stumpage revenues are invested back into the land base to ensure that we have productive forests for future generations — for example, restoring watersheds. On the pricing and selling of timber, we ensure that the province benefits from the commercial use of forest assets. We provide a fair pricing system and effective allocation of timber harvesting rights.

In the next area we also have B.C. timber sales — offering through auction a significant portion of the provincial allowable annual cut to generate pricing and cost data. This drives market-based pricing on the coast and provides competitive access to timber for industry.

The ministry has some key priorities. There's the forest revitalization plan of 2003, which has continued on its implementation. These were very significant policy changes, the most substantive in over 50 years. Reallocation was a cornerstone of the plan, aiming at providing new opportunities for British Columbians, with 20 percent of the long-term replaceable logging rights being reallocated — about 8.2 million cubic me-

[ Page 1093 ]

tres. Over half of that volume has been transferred, and the remainder will be available by March 2006.

The B.C. forestry revitalization trust — administered by a board made up of major licensees, contractors and workers — set eligibility criteria for that, and $125 million was set aside. To date, $16 million has been paid out to impacted workers and contractors. Increased timber volumes, available competitively through B.C. timber sales, are on track to issue sales totalling over 15 million cubic metres in 2005-2006, up from nine million cubic metres in 2001. They will award the first two new community salvage licences shortly.

We've created an expanded community forest opportunity for 29 communities since August 2004 and continue to work for the delivery of those programs to those communities.

There are some issues that face the ministry, of course, not the least of which is the ongoing trade issue with the United States with regard to the North American Free Trade Agreement, which has got some interesting issues attached to it and negotiations that go on and on and on. We are in what we refer to as Lumber 4 in British Columbia. We have been working hard to try and find solutions both on a national and provincial level so that we can go back to the table with the Americans, should the opportunity arise. Now, we have no idea whether that is going to be available to us or not.

Basically, what we do with this issue is we try and take a leadership role in supporting the federal government — seeking an ability to get back to the table and seeking resolution — while we pursue litigation at the same time. We will still return to the negotiating table to pursue a long-term resolution to this dispute should it arise. But we want to avoid…. The most important aspect of whatever we do is the plan…. Our position is that we would not only like to find a solution here — which would deal with the litigation side and not having to do it — but we'd also like to avoid further disputes down the road.

The objective in any trade deal, as we make it, as we go forward, will be that we will avoid Lumber 5, which is something that our producers would rather not have to live with.

[1600]

In the interior of British Columbia everybody knows that we have an infestation, the largest in B.C.'s history, affecting seven million hectares — as of the fall of 2004, 283 million cubic metres of timber killed by the mountain pine beetle. It's an interesting thing when we talk about the first aspect of us being part of a national wildfire strategy as a ministry and then recognizing the fact that in 1905, British Columbia had 300 million cubic metres of mature pine in our forests, and today, a hundred years later, we have 1.2 billion.

We know there are two things that deal with this beetle on a natural basis. One is severe cold — at this particular time of year the temperature in British Columbia has gone up 2.6 degrees in the last 100 years — and the other is fire, which we put out. As a result of our own management of our forests, we allowed our mature pine to grow from 300 million cubic metres in 1905 to 1.2 billion cubic metres in 2005.

We have a five-year action plan developed with input from a Ministers' Community Advisory Group representing first nations, environmental groups, community, forest companies, contractors and universities.

For the federal government agreement, we have dedicated $200 million over the next three years to many tools and tactics, including fuel management treatments for communities and first nations located in mountain pine beetle–infested areas, controlling the beetle spread in parks and areas along the outer edge of the infestation, economic development and diversification planning for impacted communities and first nations, research and development of new wood products and markets for our forest products and fibre, and research on forest stewardship principles and preventative measures.

Funding to support communities. We committed $185 million in the Northern Development Initiative Trust and $50 million in Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust funds. Portions of those are for mountain pine beetle. Funded regional and communication associations include the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition and the Omineca Beetle Action Coalition.

The first nations, which I met with a month ago at a summit in Prince George, put forward a beetle action plan of their own. They have requested funds, which they will receive, to be able to work through that plan and have it ready by the spring of 2006. Also, we will be addressing their issues as we come through that as they work with the communities in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and other areas affected by the beetle for the long-term plans and strategies.

The allowable annual harvest rates have been increased 14 million cubic metres per year in the hardest-hit areas. Forest for Tomorrow program, starting at $26 million in this year's budget to address reforestation issues where industry is not operating, is going forward, working with scientists, industry, communities, the Canadian Forest Service, universities, licensees, first nations and others on research activities and to plan for our future forests.

With regards to first nations, which this ministry touches on a great deal…. First, government is to set aside revenue-sharing funds for first nations. We committed to increasing first nations participation in the forest sector. Since September 2002 we have signed agreements with 94 first nations to provide access to over 15.2 million cubic metres of timber and to share forest revenues of over $106 million. That includes direct awards and forest and range agreements.

Under the new relationship, we're committed to working with first nations on improving forests and range agreements and also finding ways to make those work better. We've created and expanded forest opportunities for 29 communities since August of 2004.

With regards to forestry, we have so many issues facing us as we go forward. We know, for instance, that we have some technological and efficiency upgrades

[ Page 1094 ]

that are going to be required, both in our coast and interior, in order to make our industry competitive. We know we're facing challenges in the pulp market internationally and worldwide with regards to that fibre and that waste product of forestry being able to be used by the industry — and to find other markets for it. As a result of that, we have issued some additional licences recently that will see pellet plants built in the interior of British Columbia in four communities with an investment of $110 million, and we're now working with a number of people with regards to oriented strand board opportunities in the region.

[1605]

On the housing side, all programs related to housing are consolidated under one ministry to provide seamless, continued homelessness and home ownership…. We have 96 full-time-equivalents on staff and a budget of $207 million for that side.

Ninety-two percent of the budget is transferred to B.C. Housing for subsidies and operation of social housing in British Columbia. B.C. was recently appointed the co-chair of the federal-provincial-territorial ministers responsible for housing and will host next year's housing meeting with ministers across the country in June of 2006.

We have the responsibility for 15 pieces of legislation, ranging from the Building Officials' Association Act to the Commercial Tenancy Act, Residency Tenancy Act, Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters Act, Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act and others. Housing is divided into three core business areas: housing policy, building and safety policy, and residential tenancy office.

I will, at the beginning of housing debates, go into more detail with the other aspects of housing, but since we're going to start out with the Ministry of Forests, I think I'll stop my remarks there and look forward to questions from the opposition with regards to the ministry.

B. Simpson: This is a very large ministry with lots of changes over the previous four years. So there's lots here, and with the minister's forbearance, what I'd like to do is kind of start at a bigger level and then kind of drill down. This ministry was reorganized somewhat. Housing was rolled in, but there were some other reorganizations that took place with the new government forming. I'm wondering if the minister would inform me of what other changes have been made to the ministry, particularly in the area of forests, as a result of this last cabinet change and his appointment as minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: With the exception of housing…. Some people still ask me how that ended up here. The recreation programs which formerly were in the ministry, like the forestry campsites, were moved to the Ministry of Tourism because we felt that there was a better synergy there, and an MOU was signed with that ministry with regards to that. The grazing licences were brought over from Land and Water B.C. to this ministry because of more of a focus on grazing. Some indirect issues with regards to grazing also came into the ministry from the Ministry of Agriculture.

The rest of the Ministry of Forests has, basically, stayed the same throughout. Obviously, sometimes you move responsibilities — with regards to beetle — to one group or another or some operational stuff internally, but the structure of the ministry has basically stayed the same otherwise.

B. Simpson: Have there been any areas of responsibility that the ministry has given up as a result of other ministries changing? I'm thinking specifically — you've mentioned the recreation sites, which I'll come back to — of land-base issues, land-base planning activities, anything to do with Crown lands and anything to do with the interface between the Ministry of Agriculture and the ministry's range obligations. I can tell the minister there's some confusion out there about how the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Forests and Range line up.

[1610]

[J. Yap in the chair.]

Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, we took some inventory back from what I guess you would say…. It used to sit with the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. It moved to Agriculture and then moved to us on the transfer through. It's basically forest inventory that shouldn't have been there to begin with — on Crown lands.

Land-based planning, for the overall look of land-based planning, sits with Agriculture. Obviously, we do the forest planning and the forest management side of that. That hasn't changed.

The range stuff has moved over to us to try and give better focus to it. That's why we recently hired a director to head up a department — that was, frankly, welcomed by the B.C. Cattlemen's Association — as the appointee that we decided to go with there. That individual will maybe start to get rid some of the confusion on the range side. Certainly, on the other side, we work on land-based planning with the Ministry of Agriculture.

B. Simpson: One area of particular concern — which, as the minister's aware, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association has raised, among others — is: who owns invasive plants? In the ministry's service plan, on page 3, it indicates that the minister has a renewed emphasis on the health, restoration and management of rangelands and Crown forage. On page 7 it states that the ministry champions integrated provincial responses or strategies to address serious threats such as invasive plants. Then on page 37 it's got a measure of area restored to open forest and grasslands — in particular, an area designated as an area degraded by invasive plants or ingrowth of trees.

I can tell the minister that there's a lot of confusion out there about who owns the invasive plant strategy.

[ Page 1095 ]

Where does it rest? It would be helpful if that issue was clarified.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I guess we all own the invasive plants. I don't think any particular ministry or landowner would like to say they own them.

Our measures, our involvement, on invasive plants is this. The overall coordination for the invasive plant strategy in B.C. is the Ministry of Agriculture. They work on a coordinated response with a number of ministries, including Forests, highways and parks. Highways has it on the highway corridors. Parks has it in the parks. We have it on the forest lands and on some of the rangelands. Then there's also where they interact with other agriculture aspects.

[1615]

The Weed Control Act basically delegates responsibility on the land base to agencies throughout government, so it allows for that delegation so that we have the delegation on our land base. We try and do a coordinated budgeting process with Agriculture. In the meantime, we'd like to try and be a little bit ahead of it on our end, because we think we may have, in some cases, a bit more information than some other ministries have. We're a bit more aggressive on it.

Certainly, right now there's an overall coordinated approach taking place with the Ministry of Agriculture with the four ministries.

B. Simpson: I take the minister's point on "own." He's right. I was looking for the lead agency.

The invasive plant issue, as the minister well knows, is a significant issue and a significantly growing issue. I did take my questions into the Agriculture and Lands estimates as well, and I can tell you that the minister had to sit and spend some time trying to figure out whether he led the issue or not. In fact, he informed me that he had responsibility for the Weed Control Act. Of course, we discussed which weed we were talking about.

But in this case, with invasive plants, it does require a coordinated approach. Because it's not sitting in anybody's plan, my concern and the concern of many of the constituents in my area is that it's not being dealt with appropriately. So what does the ministry's service plan mean when it says that this ministry will champion this initiative? In what way is the word "champion" being used in this particular instance? What kinds of things is the ministry going to do to address invasive plants specifically within the domain of the ministry?

Hon. R. Coleman: At the resistance of breaking into the song that just went through my mind…. The invasive plant issue is one that when I sat in government for the previous four years, probably being a lower mainland MLA at the time…. I didn't really have an understanding about it until it was explained to me, and I realized how many invasive plants are even in the lower mainland of British Columbia, in some of our creeks and streams and areas like that.

The Ministry of Environment, the ministry of highways, the minister responsible for parks, us — we're all involved in this overall strategy. I think when we say that we want to champion it, it is because we want to make sure that we as a ministry, because we have such a large amount of the Crown land base in our ministry that we have operational relationships with…. We don't hold the title to the land, but we have these tenures and what have you that we manage and coordinate on the land, and we felt it was important that we identify in our service plan that we were going to be one of the champions with regards to invasive plant strategies in British Columbia.

We have an ongoing biological program within the ministry that does review and research on these types of plants and these aspects. We work with so many stakeholders that this can affect that we felt we needed to be at the table, as much of a champion as anybody else. So that's what we're doing. We are obviously, in our budget presentations, going forward and reading the budget presentations that come out of some of the regions of the province identifying with some of the stakeholders that have identified concern about the investment in invasive plants. We'll do our best in our budget, as well, with regards to this issue.

We will be very forthright with the minister responsible and ministry responsible that we want a coordinated approach on the land base on invasive plants, because it needs to work for all of us. It's no good for one of us to take care of invasive plants in one area of our jurisdiction only to have them grow from somewhere else. I know going back through history on this that we worked very hard to get to that coordinated approach, identifying which ministry had responsibility for the Weed Control Act, identifying which one would be the coordinator. The other ministries will champion, basically, the fight against invasive plants.

[1620]

B. Simpson: Again, it's easy to speak in generalities. As the minister well knows, when you look back in history around the mountain pine beetle, people would suggest that if we were having this discussion back in the early '90s, we might be having a similar conversation around the generalities of, well, somebody's going to take care of it.

I'm curious what specific steps the ministry is going to take to make sure this is going to be taken care of. In particular, what performance measures would the ministry establish? The only performance measure I can find in the ministry's service plan is an after-the-fact performance measure. On page 37: "Area restored to open forest and grassland" is an after-the-fact. It's a rehabilitative measure that we go in and do something after invasive plants have already taken over a site.

I want to come back to that one, but my question is: why is there not in here a pre-emptive performance measure or something that would indicate that the ministry is committed to measuring itself against a proactive approach to invasive plants, either under the

[ Page 1096 ]

forest health and stewardship component or under range, stewardship and grazing? There doesn't appear to be a measure to deal with that.

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess the pre-emptive measure is that we're spending millions of dollars this year in our budget on invasive plants, obviously to remove them off our land base. In addition to that, the Ministry of Agriculture will be setting the targets and objectives on the coordinated approach for us going forward. We would then as ministries have the responsibility to meet those targets. As we meet those targets, we also will have to meet the budgetary pressures they may bring with regards to how much and where and how much we're spending versus other ministries.

As the member knows, a few years ago it was thought by some people that a couple million dollars invested in invasive plants might do it. Now I think this ministry is probably spending close to double that by itself with regards to invasive plants. The same can be said for other ministries.

I am not quite sure we would draw the same parallel as we would to the mountain pine beetle because of some of the protections that could have taken place differently back then. But this, certainly, is something that is way up on the radar screen now in government. The Minister of Agriculture will come back to us, as I understand it, with specific targets that we as ministries will have to reach and to achieve.

B. Simpson: Is there a date that we can expect those targets to be tabled, and will those targets be tabled publicly?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think through the budget process coming into 2006 you'll see the additional funds in the ministry. Attached to those, as we come through into 2006, will be some objectives that will be outlined. I don't have a problem with publicly tabling objectives and the finances that go with them. However, the invasive plant strategy is not here.

I would expect that that question should be asked of the Minister of Agriculture directly. Certainly, I will talk to the minister about how we would do that, because I think it's important that people on our land base know what our involvement and commitment to the land base is.

[1625]

B. Simpson: With respect to the Ministry of Forests specifically, I'm being told that one aspect of invasive plants' impacts on our forest lands is the extensive biomass. They grow very quickly. They can take up a lot of biomass, a lot of weight. On the snow load, they are killing off and have the potential to kill off plantations quite substantially.

Is the ministry doing any work in that area to examine that and, in particular in light of how much we need to regrow the plantations, how many openings we have — how many plantations we're going to have? In light of mountain pine beetle, this could be a substantial issue that's specifically within this ministry's domain.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll harken the member back to my previous comments that we have an ongoing biological program in the ministry, which is always ongoing with regards to forest stands and reforestation. Our first objective, obviously, is to try and biologically control these without having to use invasive chemicals that cause some difficulty to some people on the land base. That's where our first objective is.

We had set standards, as the member knows, on reforestation with our licensees. They have to bring their stands to a certain level before they actually achieve their credits or their completion on the land base. We work with those licensees through our ongoing department with regards to the biological side of these things to control them so that we have ongoing information as to how we can keep our standards in place and protect against the incidences of these invasive weeds.

The member is right that these things can grow quickly, and they can be a real pain. That's why we have the ongoing programs to go with it. It's sort of like a daily or annual fight with the invasive plants on the land base.

B. Simpson: Thank you to the minister for that. As he knows, one of my constituents is a leading proponent for us to do much more on invasive plants. I'll be able to take those comments back, and we'll be looking for the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands to bring something forward.

Switching tacks, then, still under the guise of reorganization of the ministry, the minister mentioned that recreation sites were taken out of the ministry. I would like to understand the rationale behind that decision.

Hon. R. Coleman: There's been longtime advocacy that wildland recreation should be under one umbrella with tourism. Tourism supports culture, so have it underneath them. But even though they have it under them, they're still located in our Ministry of Forests offices.

Under an MOU the staff are basically the same staff. It's just that now they tie into the larger recreation and tourism goals for the province, because they have everything from the sites like ski hills and what have you for recreation development right through to campsites and other recreation activities under that ministry to promote. It was just felt that it really wasn't the core business of this ministry to spend its time managing recreation sites when it should be managing the land base.

[1630]

B. Simpson: My understanding of the rationale behind forest recreation sites being in the ministry in the first place is that it had to do partially with fire management and maintaining locations where those who were recreating in our forests would curtail their

[ Page 1097 ]

use of fire. Given that it has switched out of the Ministry of Forests and Range and over to Tourism, first off, my question is: is that correct — in my understanding of that? Secondly, how does that integrate with the ministry's fire plan in locating fires in those recreation sites and managing them, with that overarching purpose of limiting sites in which those activities occur?

Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, it's, in part, to integrate the various tourism and recreation sites, programs, and to take a more holistic approach to tourism and recreation management on Crown lands, so the actual use of the site is tourism. At the same time the reason they're housed with us is because we still have the initial attack crews that are coordinated with that group, with regards to forest sites, that are in our ministry. We also have the forest warden program, which we continue to operate with regards to the forest management. They seem to integrate very well. The transition has been fine, and it seems to work well.

Before, you had a ministry that was sort of managing some campgrounds and was really using them for the purposes that the member describes. We're saying that we're going to use them for the purposes, as far as the initial attack, the forest warden program and that sort of thing. But to coordinate them into the overall recreation package of British Columbia for tourism — where they are, how they're located and who might maintain certain aspects of it — we felt was better coordinated in Tourism.

B. Simpson: I just want to pause here and ask if the minister would introduce his staff and their roles, please.

Hon. R. Coleman: I apologize for that. Actually, I usually do that. I guess with not having been able to give all four budgetary items, up to whatever hundred-millions of dollars it was, I forgot that.

On my left is Peter Fuglem. Peter is a director within the ministry in the protection program. Behind me is Tim Sheldon. He is an assistant deputy minister. Tim is on the operations division side of the ministry. On my right is the deputy minister, Doug Konkin.

B. Simpson: Thank you to the minister and the staff. Thank you for your time in helping guide me through this — and the minister.

One thing I note, though, is that in that restructuring of the recreation sites, the ministry is maintaining enforcement. Again, on the service plan, on page 8 under "Compliance and Enforcement," it says "enforcing rules governing the use of forest recreation sites" remains with this ministry. If the Forest Service is out there, if they're going to do the compliance and enforcement, if we're going to be…. Through the fire warden process, through the forest protection process, we've got some obligations around there.

Again, then, why were those sites removed from under the domain of the Forests Ministry? It seems like you've fractured it up even more. Now you've got that issue of coordinating other agencies, rather than having them all housed in one agency. Why maintain enforcing the rules and the other functions and hive off just where they're located or…? Cleaning them up, I guess, is all that's been hived off.

[1635]

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, the policy and packaging for forest recreation sites sit with the Ministry of Tourism. That's because it's into the integrated tourism side. It wouldn't make any sense, when we're already out on the land base on the compliance and enforcement, for them to create another body of people that would do compliance and enforcement in those areas. What we did was sign an MOU continuing to provide that service to the land base.

It's actually not a bad integrated approach. I mean, you're actually integrating one aspect of government, as far as the creation of opportunities and jobs and tourism activity, and being able to take forest sites and put them into a larger package to promote them with things like tourist information centres and things like that, which this ministry never had any ability to do as far as marketing these sites. We were basically the managers of the land base, and these things grew out of the growth in the forests, as far as forestry was concerned.

To maintain our stewardship of the compliance and enforcement on the land made a lot of sense. It actually gets us some more efficiencies for the same people that we have and allows for a better promotion of the opportunities for back-country tourism within the overall, global context of the province.

B. Simpson: The other reorganization of the ministry, as the minister pointed out, is Housing. If I understand correctly, the deputy minister is for the Minister of Forests and for Housing, so the deputy minister has both those portfolios. Is there a rationale for bringing housing under this ministry?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the Deputy Minister of Forests concentrates on forestry. He is the deputy minister responsible for the overall ministry, but we have Associate Deputy Minister Lori Wanamaker, who is on the Housing side and who does most of that stuff. They coordinate on the budget process and communicate to each other.

The reason housing is here, hon. member, is because I was the Housing critic back in opposition many years ago. I had some particular initiatives and thoughts about housing that I guess I expressed one too many times. At a point in time, when we were making the changes in the ministri