2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 34, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Earth Day events

R. Fleming

Prevention of violence against women

B. Bennett

Marjorie White

J. Kwan

Contributions of volunteers in Surrey

D. Hayer

Arts and Culture Week

S. Chandra Herbert

Rick Hansen’s Man in Motion World Tour and 25 th Anniversary Relay

D. Barnett

Oral Questions

Deltaport expansion and protection of farmland in Delta

L. Popham

Hon. D. McRae

Pacific gateway projects and protection of farmland in Delta

G. Gentner

Hon. D. McRae

Caseloads for social workers for special needs children and youth

C. Trevena

Hon. M. McNeil

Environmental assessment office funding and capacity

R. Fleming

Hon. T. Lake

Costs to B.C. of federal anti-crime legislation

K. Corrigan

Hon. S. Bond

Naval intelligence centre closing and human trafficking in B.C.

M. Karagianis

Hon. S. Bond

Timber supply and mill operations in Burns Lake area

N. Macdonald

Hon. P. Bell

Freedom-of-information request on government settlement with Boss Power Corp.

J. Horgan

Hon. R. Coleman

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 28 — Criminal Asset Management Act (continued)

N. Simons

Hon. S. Bond

K. Corrigan

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 28 — Criminal Asset Management Act

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development

Hon. M. McNeil

C. Trevena

[ Page 10905 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2012

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Coleman: Yesterday afternoon I gave the House some details on something that happened in my family yesterday afternoon, but I wanted to make sure that we had all the details today, hon. Speaker. Yesterday afternoon — actually, during question period — my wife tried to text me. I had told the Speaker that I might be looking at my BlackBerry. However, my wife is a bit technically challenged, and the text never reached me.

Otherwise, I would have been able to, at the end of question period yesterday, tell the entire House that during that period of time, somewhere around that period and a little before, Owen Thomas Coleman was born, my third grandson — I have a grandson and a granddaughter; this is No. 3 — 10 pounds 7 ounces, to my daughter-in-law yesterday afternoon. He does not hold the record, however. There are two grandsons, and the granddaughter, who was 11-3, holds the record in the House.

To my daughter-in-law Jodi and my son Adam, who are probably watching — or maybe not, but whatever — best of love and congratulations from all of us in Fort Langley–Aldergrove and all our friends. It's a special day in our household.

I'd like you to welcome this new member of the B.C. Liberal free enterprise coalition.

J. Horgan: I certainly want to congratulate my opposite number, the Government House Leader. Of course, Owen will be voting the next time we might see a free enterprise government, 19 years from now, so I wish him well.

On a happier note….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Well, four terms is about right.

I also want to introduce someone who might well be characterized as my grandfather. He was in this place in the last session, for Cariboo-Chilcotin — Charlie Wyse. Charlie was the first person to get up and ask a question when the new opposition arrived in 2005, on cattle guards and fencing.

I want to give a heads-up to the government. We won't be asking questions today on cattle guards and fencing because Charlie is not allowed to be acknowledged. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. J. Yap: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf and ours, I'm delighted to welcome to the House the hon. Madame Lei Yulan, vice-governor of the People's Government of Guangdong Province, China.

[1335]

Madame Lei and her delegation are here visiting British Columbia. They arrived yesterday and will have meetings with some officials, taking in the sights of beautiful British Columbia.

As we all know, we have a long and wonderful sister province relationship between Guangdong Province and the province of British Columbia. This is a part of a series of exchanges. Our Premier visited Guangdong Province last fall, and the vice-governor is here to have a visit with her delegation and to also continue to build on the relationship.

We had a wonderful lunch hosted by yourself — thank you, Mr. Speaker — at which the member from Nanaimo and the member for North Island, as well as the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services, joined us, and we had a great discussion. Would the House please join me in offering a wonderful, warm welcome to Madame Lei, the vice-governor of the Guangdong Province.

E. Foster: It gives me great pleasure today to rise and introduce two friends and constituents of mine, George and Gail Boucher. George and Gail own and operate the Echo Lake Resort outside of Lumby. It's a great campground and cabin rental fishing facility. They boast superb trout fishing in a pristine and almost private lake in one of our parks.

George and Gail are in the precinct today because they bought a trip to Victoria, a visit to the Legislature and lunch at a fundraising auction for Charles Bloom Secondary School. I might add they paid much more than retail for the privilege of being here today. I'd ask the House to make George and Gail most welcome and thank them for their generosity.

S. Simpson: Earlier today in the precinct I had the opportunity to meet with 22 students from Templeton Mini School who are here with their teachers investigating the precinct, learning a little bit about the Legislature and about how this place works. I hope that the House would make them all welcome here in the precinct.

N. Letnick: In the House today we have Richard Ingram, a good friend from the Kelowna area. He's an investor, adviser and manager. More particularly, he's a philanthropist and a volunteer, especially with BrainTrust Canada, if I remember correctly. He's here with his son Geoff Ingram. Some you might know Geoff as the legislative assistant to the chair of the government caucus leader, who is talking right now.

I'd also like to make special mention, just in case things get taken out of context, just to make sure I heard this

[ Page 10906 ]

correctly. The Opposition House Leader said that "four terms is just about right," so I guess we have one more term to go on this side of the House. I look forward to seeing him in opposition when the time comes.

B. Routley: I definitely want to take this opportunity to welcome Charlie Wyse back to this House. Charlie was there back when it was called Cariboo South, and it's now morphed into Cariboo-Chilcotin. I had the privilege of spending some time with Charlie up in that area. It's a beautiful area. We went to Big Creek Ranch. Again, I know him as a hard-working guy. He's not had enough fun, so I hear that he's thinking about running again. But in any case, welcome to this House, and I please encourage the House to welcome Charlie Wyse here today.

L. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to welcome two guests on your behalf today. Mark Ziebarth and his son Tomas are Penticton residents and are joining us in the gallery this afternoon. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Thomson: I'd like to introduce two good friends who have joined us in the gallery today, good friends from Kelowna-Mission, Dave and Andrea Taylor. I'd like the House to make them welcome. David also does great work for the agriculture industry in supporting farmers in British Columbia as the chair of the B.C. Vegetable Marketing Commission. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

[1340]

G. Hogg: While I'm a long ways off from being able to celebrate as often as my colleague from Fort Langley–Aldergrove or my colleague from Chilliwack, who seems to be standing up almost weekly to announce a grandchild, I can….

Interjection.

G. Hogg: It's the water in Chilliwack, perhaps.

Some 400 years ago Shakespeare wrote most significantly that some of us are born great, some of us achieve greatness and some of us have greatness thrust upon us. Well, on April 17 "great" was thrust upon me, albeit only as a prefix. My nephew Robert and his wife, Tania, gave birth, making me a great-uncle.

Interjection.

G. Hogg: Well, I did…. [Applause.] Thank you very much.

While I acknowledge that I did very little to achieve this title, I am still very proud. I ask the Legislature to join me in welcoming Noah William Dewinetz to British Columbia.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

EARTH DAY EVENTS

R. Fleming: Earth Day is a day in which events are held worldwide to increase awareness and appreciation of our planet's natural environment. Earth Day is now celebrated in more than 175 countries around the world and will be again this coming weekend.

In communities and schools and workplaces across Canada, Earth Day has, in many cases, grown into Earth Week and even Earth Month to accommodate a profusion of events and projects that are being undertaken. An estimated six million Canadians will participate this year.

It reminds us that while taking local steps to steward our water and air quality and clean up our parks and natural areas, it is also a day to think beyond the provinces' and our national boundaries that separate us and reflect on the global environmental challenges that bind us together in common cause.

Earth Day in 2020 is a celebration of what we can all do to live in economically prosperous and environmentally sustainable conditions. The challenge is real. This year the world's scientific community issued an even stronger update to the scientific consensus of all the major national and international academies of science and panels on climate change: our options to avoid the worst effects of global warming by 2050 are closing. Already dramatic and costly disruptive weather events are on the rise.

But Earth Day is about focusing on solutions, the ones that are before us now to innovate and create a low-carbon economy with new technologies in transportation and manufacturing, energy storage, food production.

For Victoria's annual Earth Day walk, a variety of private and public sponsors have partnered together again. They will walk together on Saturday, April 21. Participants can assemble here at the B.C. Legislature grounds at 10:30 a.m. The parade starts at noon, and we will end up together on Government Street, to Centennial Square.

I invite all of the members of this House to applaud all of the grass-roots organizations working in their own communities, the sponsors that get involved and the many volunteers for putting together Earth Day 2012 events, wherever they may be — and to get involved.

PREVENTION OF

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

B. Bennett: As we heard yesterday from another member, this is Prevention of Violence Against Women Week in B.C., a time to recognize that all of us have an important role to play in ending violence against women. All of us in this Legislature come together on this issue because we understand the terrible impact that acts of violence can have on us individually, on our communities

[ Page 10907 ]

and on our families.

It's important that women know they are not alone and that help is available. The province operates a multilingual, toll-free, 24-hour victim help line at 1-800-563-0808 called VictimLINK B.C. that can be accessed from anywhere in the province. There are also two excellent websites, one at www.victimlinkbc.ca, for women who have experienced violence, and another one at www.domesticviolencebc.ca, for those dealing specifically and especially with the issue of domestic violence.

In addition to the toll-free line and the two websites, outreach services and counselling programs are available in our communities all across the province.

The government will spend $32 million this year to fund transition houses that operate 24-7 across the province. Government also funds over 400 contracted programs that offer victim services, providing support and assistance to victims of domestic violence and their children. On top of that, government commits more than $40 million a year to prevention and intervention services and the programs that benefit victims of domestic violence and other crimes.

[1345]

Recently government set up a new provincial office of domestic violence that is looking at domestic violence supports, services and policies offered across government and is working to strengthen and coordinate them so we that can better assist victims.

During this important week and throughout the year I ask British Columbians to join all members here in recognizing the importance of prevention of violence against women and the role that we all share in preventing abuse. Together we can put an end to violence before it happens and make sure that each of our communities are safe places for everyone to live.

MARJORIE WHITE

J. Kwan: On March 29, I had the honour of joining the celebration of Marjorie White at the Aboriginal Mother Centre in East Vancouver. Marge, as she is known to so many in our community, was honoured that evening with the Community Courage Award for her many contributions to the aboriginal community spanning more than five decades.

A trail-blazer in so many respects, Marge began her volunteer work in 1957 with the Coqualeetza Fellowship, where she worked towards the creation of what was then called the Indian Centre in Vancouver. The centre was founded to address the needs of aboriginal people living in the urban centre of Vancouver. This single centre has spawned a whole movement of friendship centres, which continue to this day to be an important and active presence across B.C. and across Canada.

Marge went on and founded the Allied Indian and Métis Society in 1970. Now known as the Circle of Eagles Lodge Society, the society has assisted and empowered countless individuals to overcome many obstacles, to reclaim their traditions and lives as they transitioned out of the criminal justice system.

Marge has touched the lives of many people. That evening we heard tribute after tribute from people who Marge took time to show that she cared. We learned from Marge that there is no such thing as retirement. She is the ever-energizing bunny that never stops.

While Marge officially retired in 2005, she continues as a tireless advocate, including sitting on the boards of many organizations, such as the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres Elders Council and the Ministry of Children and Family Development elders advisory council.

It was beautiful to see Marge White — courageous, inspirational and a mentor for future generations — honoured along with Genoa Point, the first youth recipient of the Community Courage Award, a symbol of hope for the future.

I ask all members of this House to join me in honouring these two incredible women and to thank them for their dedication.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF VOLUNTEERS

IN SURREY

D. Hayer: This week is recognized as Volunteer Week throughout Canada, and today I want to celebrate the incredible contributions of volunteers across the province who do so much for so many.

As we all know, the true heart of the community is its volunteers, and in communities throughout B.C. so many people give freely of their time and energy to help others. The assistance provided to the province and to citizens by those who volunteer is priceless. Volunteers are worth more than gold. I am certain that our economy could never generate the funding to adequately pay for the services that volunteers give from their hearts. Without volunteers, elders would not be well cared for, pioneers would not be remembered and heroes would not be honoured.

In my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead, and everywhere else in the city of Surrey, there is an army of volunteers who do so much. In fact, there are hundreds of volunteer organizations who count among themselves in their memberships thousands of volunteers.

Some of the key volunteer groups in my riding are the Port Kells Community Association; the Fraser Heights Community Association; the Tynehead Community Association; the Fleetwood Community Association; the Guildford Community Partners Society; Surrey–White Rock Senior Support Services Society; Surrey Crime Prevention Society; the Serpentine Enhancement Society; Surrey Board of Trade; Shakti Society, which hosts International Women's Day awards; Job's Daughters,

[ Page 10908 ]

which hosts an annual event to help young women; the Surrey Canadian Baseball Association; and many Rotarians and Lions and other great service clubs.

There's also the Tynehead Women's Auxiliary, the Dogwood Anti-Poverty Society, the Surrey Food Bank, South Fraser child development centre, Fleetwood Seniors Planning Committee.

It is amazing how much service is provided for free by volunteers in Surrey. Please join me in recognizing and thanking all of those who volunteer in each and every one of our constituencies and ridings.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to remind members to keep the conversations down. Other members are having a difficult time hearing the two-minute statements.

[1350]

ARTS AND CULTURE WEEK

S. Chandra Herbert: Starting this Sunday, April 22, through to the 28th is B.C. Arts and Culture Week. This B.C.-wide celebration of all things arts and culture is all about recognizing the value of arts to our daily lives. Indeed, arts help us learn who we are as a people.

I myself probably would not be in this House if it wasn't for the arts. Back in high school, if you believe it, I was a little shy. I had a hard time making friends. I had a little bit of a difficult time because I was picked on. I was bullied a bit. My jokes always fell flat because I had to think about the jokes, so ten minutes later when I made them, the time had passed. Didn't work so well.

Indeed, through the arts I found my voice. I found a big voice, and I spoke a lot and more so. Indeed, some in this House have asked me to speak less. But no, arts and culture helps us find out who we are and who we can be, indeed.

Hundreds of arts councils, schools and community groups all across this province will be marking Arts and Culture Week in their communities to talk about the value of arts to our society. They've invited us all to participate in this celebration — all British Columbians.

Sometimes people in the arts field are not always acknowledged at the provincial level. This is a great way that we can show our support for the arts in addition, of course, to looking at the budgets that the province of B.C. provides to arts and culture.

Some will say: "Well, what is art? I don't really get it." Emily Carr said: "I think that one's art is a growth inside one. I do not think one can explain growth. It is silent and subtle. One does not keep digging up a plant to see how it grows."

Indeed, art can be mysterious. Art can make us question, but without art we are nothing. Art is vital to British Columbia. I invite you all to work with ArtStarts and ArtsBC to celebrate B.C. Arts and Culture Week.

RICK HANSEN’S

MAN IN MOTION WORLD TOUR

AND 25 th ANNIVERSARY RELAY

D. Barnett: The Rick Hansen 25th Anniversary Relay is currently making its way across the province and country, stopping in various communities for end-of-the-day celebrations. In my riding the communities of Williams Lake and 100 Mile House hosted celebrations that included sledge hockey games, family barbecues and medal ceremonies. The relay passes a commemorative medal among 7,000 medal-bearers across Canada as it retraces the Canadian portion of Rick Hansen's Man in Motion World Tour, which began on March 22, 1985.

The Rick Hansen Foundation has since invested nearly $252 million towards spinal cord research and initiatives. A monument in honour of Rick Hansen, with funds of over $60,000 raised by the community of Williams Lake, was unveiled during Rick's three-day visit to his hometown of Williams Lake on March 26, 2012. On the monument is written:

"Canada is a great nation. The values of this country made it possible for a young man in a wheelchair to reach his dreams. As society looks to the future, I imagine a world where the newly injured will walk away, where towns like Williams Lake are fully accessible, and that the only place you see a wheelchair is in a museum. Our youth are the next generation of difference-makers who will contribute in creating a healthy and inclusive world. After my injury at the age of 15, I received acceptance, support and guidance from the amazing community of Williams Lake. I am so grateful to my community."

Rick is truly an inspirational British Columbian. I hope we will all support him and his cause when the relay team visits Victoria on May 1.

[1355]

Mr. Speaker: Just to remind members that they're two-minute statements.

Oral Questions

DELTAPORT EXPANSION AND

PROTECTION OF FARMLAND IN DELTA

L. Popham: The B.C. Liberal government is well aware that British Columbians do not support a plan to remove land from the agricultural land reserve in Delta. This is 600 acres of the best agricultural land in the country,

[ Page 10909 ]

and it is becoming more and more obvious that there are plans for it to be excluded because of Deltaport. My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Has he made it clear to the federal government that agriculture is the only permitted use for this land?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm going to preface my response with a question first. The question is: what does the Office of the Auditor General, what does the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and what does the Office of the Children and Youth Representative have in common with the Agricultural Land Commission? Well, the thing they have in common is they are all independent statutory authority offices.

Instead of dealing with hypotheticals, I'm going to stand today and talk about what I do know. What I do know has been read from the paper, gleaned from things like the Province and the Sun newspapers.

Mr. Emerson, a private individual, has talked to private land owners. He has not talked to the ALC. I expect that the individual, if there is going to be an ask for a change, will do exactly what everybody else in British Columbia has to do: engage the ALC. The ALC will do what it does well. It defends its mandate: preserving farmland, protecting farmers in British Columbia. I have no reason to think otherwise.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Popham: I wasn't asking the minister about the Agricultural Land Commission. If this exclusion is allowed to proceed, it will destroy forever some of our best lands set aside for food production for the citizens of British Columbia.

The CEO of Port Metro Vancouver, Robin Silvester, is on record as saying: "Agriculture is emotionally important but economically of relatively low importance to the Lower Mainland. And in terms of food security, it's almost meaningless."

The CEO of the port authority has been clear about where he stands on agriculture and these lands. The developer has been clear about where he stands. We have been clear about where we stand. Can the Minister of Agriculture tell us where the B.C. Liberals stand?

Hon. D. McRae: As Minister of Agriculture, I stand from the position that I will not interfere with the good work of the Agricultural Land Commission. It's something I can say that I am very proud that this government has not done — something that the members opposite do not have the ability to say from their time in office.

Now, from this point I expect anybody who deals with ALR land — whether it be a company, an individual or the Port of Metro Vancouver — if they wish to change that designation whatsoever, to engage with the Agricultural Land Commission and allow the Agricultural Land Commission to do what it wants to do.

It wants to be a strong protector of agricultural land in British Columbia. While the member opposite does not like to admit this point, I'm also so pleased that under my tenure as Minister of Agriculture, we have strengthened the ALC to an even higher level of power. It has legislative changes and new dollars which allow them to strengthen and preserve farmland in British Columbia for generations to come.

PACIFIC GATEWAY PROJECTS AND

PROTECTION OF FARMLAND IN DELTA

G. Gentner: The remarks from the Minister of Agriculture show that abstention really is the matter of supporting the status quo.

[1400]

I want to talk about something more proactive relative to the surge of development in our agricultural land reserve. According to the B.C. Rail service plan, part of B.C. Rail's mandate is to "secure through purchase, option or…lands suitable for supporting" the Pacific gateway strategy objectives. If this includes intentional override of the agricultural land protections, this is not really acceptable to the people of British Columbia.

Can the Minister of Transportation tell this House how much land in the agricultural land reserve B.C. Rail has purchased or optioned to purchase to support this mandate?

Hon. D. McRae: As Minister of Agriculture I'm not going to pretend to say that I have great, intimate knowledge of B.C. Rail, but what I will say is this. Once again, if there is a land use decision…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. McRae: …dealing with land within the agricultural land reserve, then I expect every entity — private, corporate, or a port or gateway strategy — to come forward, deal with the ALC and make sure that they actually can do their mandate.

I don't think that this has been any clearer stated by myself in the House. It will continue to come forward. The conversations will exist. But at this stage there has been no conversation that I'm aware of between the port of Metro Vancouver and the ALC.

If the member opposite has some concerns, I know that the chair, Richard Bullock, will be more than willing to deal with yourself, the member for Delta South or the critic, as well, to make sure that these concerns are alleviated.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[ Page 10910 ]

G. Gentner: I'll try again to the Minister of Transportation. I guess this is called asphalt politics, where we create potholes and try and grow potatoes in Delta. It's unbelievable.

We know land is being optioned….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat, Member.

Continue, Member.

G. Gentner: We know that land is being optioned for rail yard expansion in Delta. Mr. Ron Emerson and his companies have option to purchase $100 million in agricultural land reserve properties in Delta for gateway and port-related developments, including $30 million to purchase Felix Farms, which is protected under the agricultural land reserve for continued food production on these very, very fertile lands.

Mr. Emerson asserted: "The plan for the land is to be developed as part of the Asia-Pacific gateway." It is clear that the B.C. Liberal government and real estate broker Mr. Emerson are working on the very same project, which is to secure lands in the ALR for port development.

The Liberals' fingerprints are all over this land grab. How can the Minister of Transportation justify paving over the very best agricultural land in British Columbia?

Hon. D. McRae: It saddens me that the members opposite stand there with such passion and are so, so wrong. The assertions made in this House, I would say, are utterly without any information to back it up. The reality is that the ALC works so hard to preserve and protect farmland.

A prime example is one that members opposite know, close to their own homes. Yes, the South Fraser perimeter road gets built, and it has some great transportation benefit, but they don't want to talk about the $18 million of agricultural benefit in irrigation that will come as a result, making the lands of south Delta even more productive than they have been, all in the future.

CASELOADS FOR SOCIAL WORKERS

FOR SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN AND YOUTH

C. Trevena: Social workers are stretched to the limit with crisis-inducing caseloads. One special needs worker in Vancouver wrote: "We simply do not have the resources to effectively case-manage 130-plus families, and children and families are being placed at risk as a result."

[1405]

To the Minister of Children and Family Development, how does she expect the safety of children to be guaranteed given these unmanageable caseloads?

Hon. M. McNeil: Firstly, I want to take this opportunity to thank the great people who serve as social workers across this province. They perform an absolutely vital service to children and families in the province, and the ministry values their commitment.

I also think it's important to recognize that MCFD social workers are dealing with very, very complex situations with families, families with high needs. I also want to say that the child protection caseload has remained stable for the past seven years. Since 2005 we've increased the total number of front-line staff by 20 percent.

Again, I want to absolutely stand up and acknowledge the great work of the social workers in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: Nobody is questioning the diligence, hard work or commitment of the social workers. In fact, it's the social workers who acknowledged the problem and brought this forward.

The minister also seems to be a bit confused. We're talking specifically about…. My first question did say special needs, not child protection, two very separate streams in her own ministry.

Last year the Representative for Children and Youth brought forward a very damning report about the care of special needs children and the relationship with social workers. In that report it recommended that social workers be mandated to see all children and youth with special needs very regularly. That was translated as once a year by this ministry.

Again, I quote from a social worker who has brought this forward: "Social workers have been told that we just need to be able to say that we've seen the child, a futile exercise simply to put a check in a box. This is the very definition of seen but not seen." To the minister, in the B.C. Liberals' looking-glass world, does she really think that checking a box serves the needs of vulnerable children?

Hon. M. McNeil: This government invests more than $1 billion annually on services and supports for children and youth with special needs, including more than $600 million to fund supports for children with significant special needs. Since 2001, MCFD funding for children and youth with special needs has more than doubled, from $84 million to almost $190 million.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OFFICE

FUNDING AND CAPACITY

R. Fleming: Science-based recommendations formed from environmental assessment reviews are the main line of defence that protects our water, soil and air from contamination and ensures that we don't further endanger fish, wildlife and habitat.

When the B.C. Liberals gave the green light to the Fish Lake Prosperity mine proposal, it exposed B.C.'s credibil-

[ Page 10911 ]

ity gap and lack of equivalency with the federal environmental assessment process, which completely rejected that mine proposal because it would destroy an entire ecosystem. If B.C.'s rubber stamp had prevailed under a devolved process, they'd be draining Fish Lake right now.

My question to the Minister of Environment is: can he explain how he plans to pay for the increased responsibility with a budget for the B.C. environmental assessment agency that is frozen for the next three years in a row?

Hon. T. Lake: The British Columbia environmental assessment office is a very dedicated group of individuals that not only have the ability to produce a comprehensive environmental assessment….

[1410]

The member opposite doesn't recognize the fact that not only the environmental assessment office is involved. All of the other line ministries — Natural Resource Operations, Energy and Mines; the Department of Fisheries and Oceans federally, Transport Canada; First Nations…. All of these groups come together to provide expertise.

In fact, the amount of resources that are dedicated to environmental assessment in the province of B.C. is substantial. This government is absolutely committed to ensuring that we have the best possible environmental assessment not just in Canada but in the world.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: From the minister's answer it begs another question as to why the minister came out yesterday in favour of these sweeping changes to the federal environmental assessment when he gives an answer like that today in the House.

We already know from the Auditor General in British Columbia that under the Liberals the environmental assessment office routinely fails to inspect projects and permit conditions after construction. They fail to perform areas of compliance activity.

B.C.'s environmental assessment office was in bad shape and in need of additional resources even before the federal government announced their plans to abandon responsibility and involvement in British Columbia. The minister has given this House absolutely no indication that he knows how his ministry is going to fill the gap left by the federal government getting out of the business of environmental assessment.

My question to the minister is: do the Liberals simply plan to lower environmental standards, lower the scope and quality of environmental reviews in British Columbia? Is that their plan to respond to what the federal government announced this week?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, on this side of the House we don't just answer every question with more money, more bureaucracy and greater timelines. On this side of the House we actually think that greater efficiency and better use of taxpayer dollars is something that we strive to do.

British Columbians — and, in fact, this government — have long advocated for a one-project, one-process approach. That is the responsible thing to do. It's not about lowering the bar. In fact, in British Columbia our objective is to have the very best environmental assessment process in Canada, if not in the world.

Everyone will come to British Columbia to see how we can develop our natural resources in a way that all British Columbians can be proud. That's our goal. That's what we're going to do.

COSTS TO B.C. OF

FEDERAL ANTI-CRIME LEGISLATION

K. Corrigan: Stephen Harper's federal crime bill, C-10, is now law. Quebec estimates that the bill is going to cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. Ontario estimated it will cost that province in the range of $1 billion.

The B.C. Liberal government said that it was going to look into the impact for B.C. and share that info, but months later we've heard nothing. In fact, four freedom-of-information packages on this matter are so severely censored that it's impossible to see if the work has even been done.

To the Justice Minister: after months and months, where is the assessment, and how much is it going to cost the taxpayers of British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: I can tell the member opposite that this government actually went to Ottawa and lobbied for important parts of Bill C-10, which include things like getting tougher sentences on people who exploit children in British Columbia. We actually support that.

Maybe just once the critic opposite might like to stand up and indicate whether or not she's prepared to support the important parts of Bill C-10 that talk about preventing exploitation of children. It's about time, maybe, that the member opposite stood up and made her view clear on that subject.

Interjections.

[1415]

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat.

The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Well, apparently the government has absolutely no idea how much this bill is going to cost. Both Ontario and Quebec told the federal government to fund their own legislation, and while our Liberal Premier was at a photo op with Stephen Harper getting her picture taken, he was slipping a bill to British Columbia. I'd be willing to bet that the Premier had the taxpayers of

[ Page 10912 ]

British Columbia paying for his coffee and hot dog as well.

This Liberal government either has no idea….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat, Member.

Continue, Member.

K. Corrigan: This Liberal government either has no idea how much Bill C-10 is going to impact our already strained justice system, or they're hiding it from British Columbians. Again to the Justice Minister: how much is the assessment going to cost British Columbians?

Hon. S. Bond: I can tell you one thing. What British Columbia has is actually…. We are currently expanding corrections facilities in this province, and the capacity, with the largest budget ever in the history of British Columbia.

We are adding capacity. We're going to make sure, actually, that British Columbia is better positioned in terms of corrections capacity. And it's a good thing that, in fact, we have that plan. Pretty rich of the member opposite to stand up and talk about the impacts of Bill C-10 when she said: "Let's add a prison anywhere — but not in my backyard."

NAVAL INTELLIGENCE CENTRE CLOSING

AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN B.C.

M. Karagianis: Yesterday we saw the Liberal government sitting on their hands as Harper shut down our B.C. regional oil spill response centre. Today we have found out that the Harper government intends to shut down the west coast naval….

Interjections.

M. Karagianis: We find out that the Harper government is intending to shut down the west coast naval intelligence centre in Esquimalt at a time when our Pacific coast faces a real problem as a key route for human trafficking. I'd like to let the government have another shot at trying to defend ourselves at the federal level, to stand up for British Columbians and not roll over on more of this downloading onto British Columbia taxpayers.

To the Justice Minister: what is this government doing to determine the safety implications of this move, and how do they plan to address this with the Harper government?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, we continue to work constructively with the federal government. We think that it's actually important that jurisdictions find ways to work constructively with one another. As soon as we knew that there was an implication regarding the federal navy intelligence office in British Columbia, we contacted the federal government.

Let's be clear. This has no impact on emergency management in British Columbia. In fact, the exceptional professionals that work on emergency management will continue to do the work that they do every day in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: I appreciate that the minister phoned Stephen Harper. We didn't hear what kind of response she got from Mr. Harper or, in fact, if we're going to push back against further downloading.

According to the B.C. Human Rights Coalition, our coast has been singled out by the U.S. State Department as an area of major concern when it comes to human trafficking. Incidents on our coast are handled by the Canadian Forces Base in Esquimalt.

This Justice Minister once said in this very House that she would take a really strong stand against human trafficking in British Columbia, but apparently, she's prepared to do nothing at this point about them shutting down the intelligence centre on our coast.

[1420]

Again, to the Minister of Justice, does she know what the impact will be? What is she going to do to keep her promise to strengthen the fight against human trafficking here in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, one of the first things we're going to do is to support Bill C-10, because it actually deals with human trafficking. In addition to that, this government was actually the first government in this country that had a dedicated unit dealing with human trafficking in British Columbia.

When we talk….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

We're just waiting for the other members to ask questions back and forth.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. S. Bond: Let's talk about positive relationships with the federal government — $8 billion in shipbuilding. The largest contract — $8 billion.

TIMBER SUPPLY AND MILL OPERATIONS

IN BURNS LAKE AREA

N. Macdonald: This question is for the Jobs Minister. We'll just return to the questions the Premier took yesterday. Hampton Affiliates has asked for guarantees of

[ Page 10913 ]

around 900,000 cubic metres per year for 17 years, and the timeline that we saw was by the end of the month. Yesterday the Premier and Minister of Jobs promised full public consultation before any decision would be made. Obviously, that cannot happen in 11 days.

The question I have is for the Minister of Jobs. Would he just lay out the timelines for decisions on commitments to Hampton and the nature of the public consultation that is contemplated?

Hon. P. Bell: The document that the member refers to is the one that I believe the minister's name is actually spelled incorrectly on, so I'm not sure how much validity I would put in that.

That said, the member opposite should know that WorkSafe B.C. actually just completed the investigation on site — I believe two days ago — at the Babine Forest Products mill. Up until that point in time insurance adjustors and other investigators were unable to be on site because of the protocols around the WorkSafe investigation.

The conclusion of the insurance investigation will take some time to complete. Therefore, the dates for decision points are unknown at this time.

FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUEST ON

GOVERNMENT SETTLEMENT

WITH BOSS POWER CORP.

J. Horgan: On October 24, 2011, we asked the government how much they had put aside to pay for costs of aborting the Boss Power uranium deal in the Interior. The final settlement was $30 million. We asked quite explicitly if the assessment would be released to the public. It was 178 days ago we asked that question. We put forward a freedom-of-information request 161 days ago.

My question is to the Minister of Labour, the minister responsible for freedom of information. Can she justify how it is that the government has withheld vital information on how they wasted millions and millions of dollars paying off a uranium company for 161 days?

[1425]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: As the member knows, legal cases are quite complex, and the severing and the information with regards to client privilege is sometimes complex. I do expect shortly that the freedom-of-information requests will be released. My understanding is in the final thing it's gone through…. It had to go through a legal review, which it has to do, because you have certain legal requirements.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know, I know that you guys don't like laws. You really, really do not like the fact that you might want to have to follow the law that we would….

I know that you don't like the fact that you actually have to follow a legal process to do something, and it bothers you. It doesn't surprise me, because given the earlier questions, hon. Member, it's clear that the love affair with the criminal by the NDP continues in British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Mr. Speaker: Government House Leader.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, I want to continue to hear the heckles first, and then I'll go on, Mr. Speaker.

In this House this afternoon in committee stage we'll be doing Bill 28, intituled Criminal Asset Management Act. In estimates this afternoon we will do the Ministry of Children and Family Development in the Douglas Fir Committee Room. Should we finish committee on Bill 28, we then go to Bill 24, intituled Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act. Should we complete that, we would move to second reading of the Motion Picture Amendment Act.

[1430-1435]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 28 — CRIMINAL ASSET

MANAGEMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 28; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

section 1 (continued) .

N. Simons: Just on the

definitions, I wondered if there is a list or if there is an enumeration of what is considered "quasi-criminal."

[1440]

Hon. S. Bond: We did give an example of one this morning. There isn't an exhaustive list. It is things that are not attached directly to the Criminal Code but may be part of a regulatory regime — for example, things related, potentially, to the environment. The example that I

[ Page 10914 ]

think is easiest to understand is that we could prosecute for fraud under the Securities Act. That would go through the court system, but it would not be criminal.

N. Simons: Does the minister have any concerns that, as stated here, the definition could be so broad as to include minor infractions that seem to contravene some other act but may not be considered criminal or even quasi-criminal until interpreted by the director? I'm just wondering. Why would there not be a list, an exhaustive list, of what is considered quasi-criminal, as there is a definition of what is criminal?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the framework of the bill defines that the offences that would be dealt with are the subject of criminal proceedings. We want the act to be flexible enough to actually allow the regulations to be inclusive. It isn't about a list. It's about the definition of the class, and the class would be offences that are the subject of criminal proceedings.

N. Simons: The subject of criminal proceedings is criminal offences. That didn't answer my question.

My question is: how can it be that there is a defined list of criminal offences yet there is no defined list of quasi-criminal offences? It seems to me so broad. My previous question was: does the minister think that it's probably something that needs better definition than to leave it wide open as quasi-criminal? It could be…. The broadest range of examples I could come up with, but I'm not interested at this point.

Hon. S. Bond: The question is: does the minister think it needs to be changed? The answer is no, I don't. In fact, the legal advice we've been given is that there is no need for that type of a list. In fact, the offences that are the subject of criminal proceedings are a category that is defined specifically enough.

N. Simons: If it's simply criminal proceedings, why did they include quasi-criminal proceedings?

[1445]

Hon. S. Bond: The definition, just as it's laid out here, allows for the prescription of a relevant provision, or it allows for a specific federal act, for example, to be part of the prescription. In fact, it could be to do with food and agriculture. It could be an environmental statute or regulation. This just allows the act to be broad enough to be inclusive. It certainly does allow for potential expansion of benefit to a broader group of people.

N. Simons: Can the minister help differentiate for me the difference between quasi-criminal and an offence?

Hon. S. Bond: There are offences that are under the Criminal Code, and there are offences that are quasi-criminal. The difference is that if you commit an offence under the Criminal Code, you end up with a criminal record. There are offences under provincial statutes which are processed through a criminal process, but they are not part of the Criminal Code. So there are offences under both.

N. Simons: It's very interesting. Just to maybe put it into an example. We had the incident of the motorcycle allegedly going 299 kilometres an hour. There are a number of offences that could be contemplated by any reasonable police officer and probably supported by a vast majority of British Columbians.

They could be prosecutions under the Criminal Code. They could be prosecutions under the Motor Vehicle Act. They could be prosecutions under a number of different statutes, both federal and provincial. For clarity, because we know that due process and good law is based on clarity, I'm just wondering how we differentiate between what is criminal and quasi-criminal? That, obviously, encompasses both.

In the case of a Food and Drug Administration offence, if someone fails to adequately inspect a meat-slicing machine, is that potentially a quasi-criminal offence? Where, within those specific statutes, is there a differentiation between criminal and quasi-criminal? Or is everything under the Food and Drugs Act a quasi-criminal offence if it's in fact a breach of the law?

[1450]

Hon. S. Bond: Well, anything under the Food and Drugs Act would be quasi-criminal. It is quasi-criminal because it's not part of the Criminal Code. If it's part of the Criminal Code, that's criminal. If it's not, if it's part of another statute — that is, the Motor Vehicle Act or the Securities Act or whatever other act — those are quasi. But at the end of the day, it's not part of the Criminal Code.

There are two streams. The question about meat slicing under the Food Safety Act, for example. That would be a statute or regulation that is not the Criminal Code. That's why it would be different.

N. Simons: If it's not criminal and it's quasi-criminal, we realize that every piece of legislation, in fact, probably has a

section for offences. The Child, Family and Community Service Act has a

section on offences — failure to report. That would be quasi-criminal, I presume.

Is it possible, in fact, for the director of criminal asset management to forfeit or to receive properties that may have been committed under any single provincial or federal legislation?

Hon. S. Bond: Okay. Obviously, we need to do a better job of my answers here, because it should be clearer

[ Page 10915 ]

than this.

This act is supplementary to what happens in the courtroom. We're not setting up a separate process here. The judge will determine through the criminal process whether or not there is a supplementary forfeiture hearing. So we're not making a determination. We're not prosecuting under this legislation. We're not doing any of those things.

This is a Criminal Code process where, after the judge has already considered everything, there may well be a determination that a supplementary forfeiture hearing would take place. This is not about prosecuting. This is not about us setting up a parallel system. This is supplementary to the courts dealing with Criminal Code issues.

N. Simons: This bill relates to Criminal Code issues only once a conviction is obtained. Am I correct?

[1455]

Hon. S. Bond: Once again, the vast majority of the cases that would move on to a forfeiture hearing would be on the Criminal Code side. They would come after a judge has considered everything. The vast majority would come as a result of Criminal Code convictions.

There is also the other route, the quasi-criminal route, which deals with other statutes. It has to involve a prosecution process, and only at that point would there be a supplementary forfeiture hearing. But the vast majority of the cases would come through the Criminal Code side.

N. Simons: I thank the minister for that response. I worry that the lack of clarity in laws involving rights is problematic. I think years and years of jurisprudence have pointed that out. I think that the answers we're getting seem to indicate that, unless maybe I need a briefing on this again.

I do think that there are some concerns, because the edges of the law should not be so fluid. The ink shouldn't bleed off the side of the paper. I think that's what's happening here.

I should say that the victims of crime are the ones who, ultimately, we're trying to ensure are not revictimized and are properly supported.

Can the minister explain why this government has specifically excluded non-pecuniary losses, as they removed that from the victims of crime compensation act as well? Why would it be that this be restricted to financial or pecuniary losses?

[1500]

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, in second reading there were a number of comments about this aspect. I'm happy to have that discussion.

The fact of the matter is that victims in British Columbia…. Supporting victims of crime is unbelievably important to members on both sides of this House. There was an amendment made.

In fact, the Criminal Injury Compensation Act was amended in 2002, and it did take out pain and suffering awards from that particular act. But they were removed for important reasons. Certainly, there is currently a way that victims in British Columbia are compensated.

The Criminal Injury Compensation Act was replaced by the Crime Victim Assistance Act. We began to work through that program, and there was a significant reason that the policies were changed. In fact, other programs in other provinces faced the same concerns. There were delays in how appeals were being done. There were a significant number of problems.

Victims are being compensated. Many other jurisdictions eliminated pain and suffering after there were a number of changes made. But the crime victim assistance program continues to be an important part of our government's effort and any government's effort across the country to meet the needs of victims.

While it does not appear in this act, this is about assets. This is about making sure we deal with property that we return to someone who's been a victim of a crime related to their property, under the Criminal Code. But we continue to support victims. There continues to be a way to meet their needs. It's simply not reflected in this act.

N. Simons: Well, it would look to me like the government seems to think that victims are adequately dealt with in this province, and I would beg to differ. The potential for compensating victims of crime for pain and suffering would be, in my mind, something that I would put higher on the priority list. Eligible victim in this particular case means only victims who have suffered some financial loss or loss of property.

The definition of eligible victim, the issue of whether or not they were involved "directly or indirectly, in the commission of the criminal or quasi-criminal activity." Can the minister, perhaps, let the House know who makes the decision as to whether someone is directly or indirectly involved? If a person is a joint tenant with someone or a business partner, or if it's a lien holder or an unaware purchaser, for example, would they be considered automatically indirectly involved, or is there some quasi-judicial or quasi–due process involved in the determination of who's an eligible victim?

Hon. S. Bond: As I said earlier, the vast majority of cases would be dealt with by a judge and through the criminal process. Ultimately, the judge would decide whether or not there was an avenue for someone to make a claim or not. In the event that there is — in those few cases that would not be dealt with in that way — the director would make the decision.

N. Simons: We're to be assured that the law that applies to everybody in British Columbia is going to be

[ Page 10916 ]

equally applied to everybody except in a few cases where we don't quite know.

Let me just ask a question for simple clarification. If there is a criminal conviction, it will then be up to the judge to determine whether or not other processes could proceed? If it's non-criminal, it's up to some adjudicator whether or not other processes….

[1505]

Okay, I can see shaking of the head. We could get a lot done if we just do hand movements or head shaking. Apparently, that's not parliamentary. I'll keep this one down.

I'm just wondering if the minister could indulge me in an answer. I don't mind if the minister wants to speak very slowly for my benefit. We're talking in very vague generalities here. What is in front of us is a very important act that could have a significant impact on the rights of British Columbians. I think it's our responsibility to protect those rights, which have been fought for.

I'm trying to figure out…. The vast majority…. It doesn't answer my question. If it's a criminal conviction, or if it's another sort of quasi-court process, for example…. Then my next question will be how the director will make the determination in the absence of a conviction.

Hon. S. Bond: There are no non-criminal processes related to this.

The individual gets two chances, actually, because the judge would decide whether or not, in his or her view, there is benefit available. They would deal with the process. Then, if that individual wants to have a second opportunity, they can apply to the director. In essence, there are two opportunities for there to be consideration of a potential benefit.

Just on the first question, there are no non-criminal processes. All of these involve prosecution and, as we said earlier, either criminal or quasi-criminal related to other statutes.

N. Simons: Would the minister agree with the characterization of the discretion of the director as being very broad?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, as we go through the process before forfeiture, it is a court process. The judge deals with the issue. At that point the director has zero discretion, because they're not involved.

[1510]

What we're concerned about is that people who may miss the hearing, may not know about what happened, have the opportunity to come back to the director and say: "Oh, wait. You need to think about me."

At that point the director has some discretion. The court process has already gone through. The people are missed in that process. That will be a very small group of individuals. So to suggest that the director has broad, expansive powers…. I don't think that's an accurate description.

Secondly, the major responsibility of the director is to manage the assets. That's the whole point of this bill. When there is an asset — let's say, for example, a house — while the court process is underway and while all of those things are being determined, someone has to look after the asset. That's the major job of the director.

N. Simons: According to the

definitions, proceeds of crime is broader than the federal definition of proceeds of crime. It includes anything that's "obtained or derived, directly or indirectly, as a result of

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

Let me just ask: if someone is convicted or pulled over and charged with an offence related to driving under the influence of alcohol above the limit, is it possible, under this legislation, that a car can be forfeited? Likely or not, is it possible?

Hon. S. Bond: No. Nothing gets forfeited under this act. The judge has to make that determination.

N. Simons: The conviction for impaired driving could result in the judge, subsequent to the conviction, saying: "You committed an offence with the use of a vehicle, and that said vehicle will now become property of the Crown and disposed of through the Criminal Asset Management Act."

Hon. S. Bond: As the court, and the judge in particular, examined all of the evidence, at the end of the day the judge could decide to issue an order related to forfeiture. This act does not do that. This act is about the management of assets. The judge would determine, on the face of the facts laid before him or her, whether or not there was a need for a forfeiture order. That would be determined by the judge, based on the Criminal Code.

K. Corrigan: I just want to clarify, because I was under a misunderstanding. I thought that some of these decisions about forfeiture would be, for example, determining who was an eligible victim. I was under the understanding that it was the director and not the judge who was making that decision.

Is the minister saying…? Just for clarification, as a result of the questions from my colleague, is it…? So this act will be applied by the judge in the criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings. This act is going to be applied by the judge in those proceedings.

[1515]

Hon. S. Bond: We're going to try this again. The place where the act kicks in is for those individuals who may

[ Page 10917 ]

have been missed in the courts. The vast majority of situations will be determined by the judge. Let's give you an example of that.

There is a massive fraud. It involves 100 people and $1 million. The judge hears the case, says, "Okay, we're going to forfeit the money," and in fact, the 98 victims that show up get their share. Well, the other two that were not included in that process get to come back, if we can find them, if they show up — whatever else — if somehow they find out that there has been that circumstance and they have been missed in that court order.

Let's be clear. The case goes through the courts. The judge issues the order. We manage the money. That's what this is about. We manage the asset, the $1 million. We manage that, but we manage it based on the judge's direction, who says: "You're going to pay back these 98 people. It's going to be this amount of money." Somebody has to do that. That would be the point of this bill.

The two people that are left can come back to the director and say: "Whoa, I was one of those people that were defrauded, and I want to be part of this process." There would be potentially $20,000 or whatever left in the asset management fund. The director's job would be to make sure that the additional two people, who have not been covered in the court process in that way, would have their benefits provided to them.

K. Corrigan: That makes sense, but the question then becomes: are the

definitions that are in here in terms of what is property, whether property is "obtained or derived, directly or indirectly," the definition of proceeds of crime? Do they square, or are they exactly the same as the

definitions that the judge will be working with prior to this act becoming relevant? If they don't square, then you could have a case where the judge is making a determination on the basis of

definitions that are in the Criminal Code, I take it, which could be different than the determinations that are under this act.

For example, the definition of property. How can a judge make a determination that something is property that should be distributed as a proceed of crime if the definition of "proceed of crime" or "property" is different?

[1520]

Hon. S. Bond: These

definitions are consistent. None of us have the Criminal Code in front of us, but they are consistent with

definitions in the Criminal Code. We don't think that there is an issue with there being a difference between what the judge would look at.

The fact of the matter is that if you look through the

definitions provided, some of them actually refer to sections in the Criminal Code as well. I'm assured that they are consistent with those that are provided in the Criminal Code.

K. Corrigan: Well, I noticed that the definition of proceeds of crime refers specifically to the definition, for example, of proceeds of crime in

section 462.3 of the Criminal Code, or "(

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

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

Where would property that falls under that subsection (b)…? Would that be decided in the court as well, or is that…? Yes. And that would be part…. Yet it's not a Criminal Code definition.

Hon. S. Bond: The answer is yes. In fact, the key is that it's consistent with the laws in other jurisdictions.

K. Corrigan: But would property that falls under subsection (

b) be decided by a judge? It says it's obtained as a result of

an act or omission in the jurisdiction in which it occurs. Under the criminal proceedings, would the judge be disposing of that property? You're saying that he would be making an order?

Hon. S. Bond: Forfeiture is always decided by a judge. This is about receiving assets from another jurisdiction.

K. Corrigan: Forfeiture is always decided by a judge. But what the minister was talking about earlier is that there would be a criminal case or a quasi-criminal case, presumably, probably in Provincial Court or maybe Supreme Court. Then the case would complete. The accused would be found guilty, and if appropriate, the judge would then have a supplementary forfeiture hearing.

In the case of subsection (b), what processes would have preceded…? In that case, are we talking about a criminal trial or quasi-criminal hearing? I'm just not sure where this property comes from.

Hon. S. Bond: It is designed to facilitate the receiving of assets from other jurisdictions.

K. Corrigan: Is the minister then saying that there wouldn't necessarily have been any kind of criminal process in British Columbia? This could have been through some other process? Property could have come to Canada or some other jurisdiction? It would come into British Columbia, and then there would be a proceeding that the judge would have a forfeiture hearing on — but not to do with the criminal proceeding in British Columbia?

[1525]

Hon. S. Bond: It's probably easier to explain with an example. If there is a multi-jurisdictional investigation — for example, our police are involved in helping someone in another jurisdiction — the case could be held anywhere. It could be in Ontario. For that matter, it could be anywhere.

[ Page 10918 ]

At the end of the day, if the judge makes a decision that there will be a forfeiture, if British Columbia has been involved in that investigation, this allows us to receive our share of that forfeiture and manage it. That's the role of the director. This facilitates the ability for that decision to be made and the asset to be transferred to B.C.

K. Corrigan: That is helpful. The minister has been very helpful in describing that. Just to complete the circle on this one…. I was going to ask for an example, so I appreciate the example.

Then for subsection (

b) to come into play, there has to have been a criminal process, a finding of guilt and a forfeiture by a forfeiture hearing, I would assume, in some other jurisdiction. And as a supplemental to that, could that be in a different country or does it have to be within Canada?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, in fact, that process as described is correct. In fact, it could be across Canada, but it could also be international.

K. Corrigan: What is the obligation under this act or what is the process under this act for ensuring that that which comes to the director as an asset from, for example, another country, to ensure that the process has appropriately protected the rights of all those involved?

[1530]

Hon. S. Bond: As we outlined previously, the judge would work through the criminal process, would determine that there was going to be a forfeiture hearing, and the Crown would notify whoever has been impacted by that particular crime. Those individuals get to show up at the hearing, have their say, and the ultimate decision about forfeiture then comes in the court order. All of that is court order. The individuals have the chance to show up and make their case, as it were, at the forfeiture hearing.

K. Corrigan: This is probably the last question I have on this subject. What the minister said was that it's possible that a piece of property, proceeds of crime, could come, for example, from another jurisdiction or even another country. What I'm trying to find out is: is it required, in order to receive that property and feel comfortable, that the director should be managing and ultimately disbursing that property, selling it or whatever happens?

Is there some mechanism within here, or is there some other mechanism that ensures that whatever happened, say, in the other country was an appropriate process? I appreciate that in British Columbia you can assume that in another jurisdiction in Canada the process would be appropriate, but is that also true about another country?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, we have agreements in place with other jurisdictions. There's a long list of countries. They are called mutual legal assistance treaties, and they're based on international principles. In fact, there are agreements in place that would help provide the kinds of assurance that the member opposite is asking about.

K. Corrigan: I thank the minister for that. I always find that when we are in the committee stage of a bill, we have a lot of questions, I know. But I personally — and I think that if anybody is interested in reading Hansard or watching this — will gain a lot of knowledge about how it works and how it fits with the bill. I appreciate that.

I wanted to ask one more question about the proceeds of crime definition. It's not about that definition itself, but it is about another part that is perhaps missing.

[1535]

In the Civil Forfeiture Act the forfeited goods can be not only that which is directly a proceed of crime, but also something which is an instrument of unlawful activity. I guess the example there would be that if a criminal were to drive a car in order to commit a crime, then that would be an instrument of unlawful activity, and under the Civil Forfeiture Act that vehicle could, I understand, be forfeited. But under this, my understanding is that an Escalade or whatever it is could not be forfeited. It would have to be something that's actually acquired through crime. I'm wondering why this was not included in this particular act.

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, the car could end up being forfeited, but it wouldn't be because of this act or because of us. It would be because the judge, in his or her wisdom, after looking at the case and under the umbrella of the Criminal Code, says: "Okay. We're going to take this, that and the next thing."

What this bill is about is managing the asset. What this does is set up the framework that allows us to receive, whether it's, you know, the car, or whether it's the money from fraud, or whatever it is. We need a framework in British Columbia to allow us to manage that asset.

The judge is going to say: "Forfeit it." He or she will issue that order. What they're going to say…. What the director will do is follow the court order. If it's sell it, they'll sell it. But in essence, this has little to do with what actual items are forfeited or anything like that. We're just trying to set up a management structure for the asset.

K. Corrigan: It's apparent to me that if I was going to understand all of the assets that could possibly be covered by the act, I will have to do an extensive reading of the Criminal Code, apparently. The fact that proceeds of crime is defined is not limiting this act to managing proceeds of crime. It can be a variety of other things, including the proceeds, instruments of unlawful activity or other proceeds. Is that correct?

[ Page 10919 ]

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct. Anything used in the commission of a crime could be forfeited, and that, again, is up to the discretion of the judge.

K. Corrigan: When we talk about property in the

definitions, it's a fairly straightforward definition, "property or a portion of an interest in property." I would presume that property can include tangible property, which would include cash, and it can include real property and personal property — all types of property.

[1540]

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, that's true, and it can include a portion of the property.

N. Simons: The minister might be pleased that I think I've figured it out. The Civil Forfeiture Act — I have to figure out how that plays into this. But in fact, this legislation is not creating new ways of forfeiting new property or assets from anyone. That legislation already exists in the various codes — Criminal Code or otherwise. This is simply….

I'm curious how things worked before there was this jurisdiction. Is it a new jurisdiction for the provincial government to manage Criminal Code assets such as this? Or is it perhaps just a decision to finally put it into legislation?

Hon. S. Bond: That's actually a really important question. I appreciate the fact that we've worked our way through. It's complex, so I appreciate that.

In essence, it's being done on an ad hoc basis, and really, if you look at the quantum, it's very small, nowhere near the scale of what happens on the civil forfeiture side. But the member opposite is correct in describing it that this isn't about looking at a new forfeiture process. It's about what we do on the other end. Rather than do it on an ad hoc basis, we think it's important to formalize it — institutionalize it, basically.

For example, if there is that asset or that order from a court in, you know, Saskatchewan, we actually have a formalized process for receiving that asset. It's being done on an ad hoc basis currently with a very small monetary value, but we would expect to see the use of forfeiture applications, for example — those kinds of things — grow, and we need to be prepared and, I think, better positioned to manage that.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

K. Corrigan:

Section 2 deals with the director of criminal asset management and says that "the minister may, in writing, designate as Director of Criminal Asset Management a person who is appointed under the Public Service Act."

One of the things I was curious about and asked about in the briefing was whether or not it is expected that the director of criminal asset management might, in fact, be the same person who is the director under the Civil Forfeiture Act. I don't recall the answer, but I believe staff was determining that it's largely a political decision but that it was unlikely. But I'll perhaps get the minister to put that on the record.

[1545]

Hon. S. Bond: That is not the intent. In fact, the criminal side would be managed out of the Ministry of Justice. It would not be linked. The civil forfeiture side is, in essence, arm's length from government in terms of the work that is done there. We will be looking at the criminal asset management director being part of the Ministry of Justice.

K. Corrigan: I think I had forgotten. I thought that the minister in second reading had said that they would be the same person. I'm obviously wrong in that, so I'm not going to pursue that any further.

Subsection (2) said that the "director may delegate, with or without conditions, any or all of the powers, functions and duties of the director under this Act to a person or class of persons." Delegation of powers is a common thing in government, but it seems a very wide delegation. Is it unusual to delegate all of the powers? Well, except for being director itself, I would assume.

Hon. S. Bond: It is not new. In fact, it is reflected in the Civil Forfeiture Act, so it is consistent.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister can give me an idea of what equivalent this position would be if you look at, say, assistant deputy ministers, deputy ministers — just an idea where in the Public Service Act this position would fall.

Hon. S. Bond: Not able to say specifically what category of public servant, but it will not be a new position. It actually will be added responsibilities to an existing position.

N. Simons: I appreciate those answers. We're getting clarity, and that's a good thing.

There are no new ways of forfeiting. I appreciate that explanation on the

definitions, but it seems to me that this will be, potentially, a growing position and potentially costly. Maybe it will pay for itself. I guess that would be the hope.

The question is: is the director going to go through a list of convictions and sort of comb through to see where assets could have been removed where they weren't? Is that likely a possibility, even?

[ Page 10920 ]

[1550]

Hon. S. Bond: There would not be a process that is retroactive. So no, the director would not be going backwards to look at those kinds of things. In the future the process would be that Crown would make the determination. The director doesn't have anything to do with that. A Crown would make the decision whether or not to seek forfeiture, where that's appropriate.

That would be the first point of contact for the director. Crown would inform the director to say: "We're going to seek forfeiture." At that point that would become something that would be obviously important for the director in terms of future work.

But not retroactive, and Crown would make the decision whether to seek forfeiture or not.

N. Simons: Is there any concern on the part of the minister that this proximity of the director to the actual administration of justice might be seen as a conflict or a potential conflict?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, Crown is independent. The director would not even be involved in those processes. Crown would make the determination.

This bill is, simply put, about supporting Crown in managing those assets. If Crown were successful and we today were to get a boat, for example, the question would be: what would we do with that? This director's job would be to manage that asset while the court process is underway and make sure that the order that's provided by the judge is carried out.

There would be no interference or any relationship with Crown other than supporting Crown.

N. Simons: The minister did indicate that there was an expectation that this program would grow significantly. How would it be? Who would be instructing Crown to go for forfeiture, if not the Minister of Justice?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the better way to look at it is: why isn't it happening more frequently now? No one directs Crown to do that, and that's certainly not my intention. But I think it has hindered Crown in looking at…. If there's no program available to manage the asset, why would you aggressively seek that asset?

I think the existence of a formalized, institutionalized program would have Crown more frequently contemplate seeking an application for forfeiture.

N. Simons: My understanding was that there's a federal Proceeds of Crime Act, and they have a process. Is it that it's closer to home or that publicity will promote Crown counsel to be more aggressive in seeking forfeiture?

Considering the relationship between the Solicitor and the Attorney General, could it not be seen as potentially a little bit of a conflict?

[1555]

Hon. S. Bond: Frankly, nothing changes. Really, what we have after this…. When we work through this, we'll have

an act that will help us manage an asset. So nothing really changes.

Certainly, neither the Attorney nor the director has any intention or ability to influence independent Crown. They will make their decisions as they do today.

But there is certainly, right now, an ad hoc process, and we need to ensure that we have an appropriate framework and the means with which to manage an asset appropriately.

N. Simons: This essentially makes it easier — an option other than going through civil forfeiture. Civil forfeiture could actually accomplish this, except that it wouldn't go through the director.

I'm not sure…. You could have two equal offences with two equal dispositions, one involving the forfeiture through criminal court and one without, and the Civil Forfeiture Act could come along and forfeit the proceeds or instrument or what have you. It almost looks like there are two different vehicles going on the same highway, and I'm just wondering where they crash or how they stay apart.

[1600]

Hon. S. Bond: The reason we huddle is so that when I get up, we try to come up with the most simple answer to this as possible, so thank you for the patience with the huddle.

There are two distinct processes. One is criminal forfeiture, which is what we're talking about today, and then there is civil forfeiture, which has been extraordinarily successful in British Columbia. The point of both of those processes is actually to make sure that criminals don't benefit from the assets of crime. That's pretty much what we're concerned about here.

To make it as simple as possible, an asset that's involved in a criminal case…. There will be no forfeiture until there's a conclusion of that case, one way or the other. If there's a vehicle that is involved in a criminal case, that asset is sitting there waiting for the outcome of the criminal case. In the event that there's a conviction, the judge would then move forward with a forfeiture hearing, and at the end of the day, that vehicle could be forfeited.

[D. Black in the chair.]

The place that civil forfeiture kicks in is that if there is no conviction, the police could then refer that item or that case to the civil forfeiture office, and a completely separate process would begin. There is not a criminal

[ Page 10921 ]

conviction required there.

This is about managing assets that are a result of a criminal process that ends in conviction. If that doesn't happen, it could be referred by the police to the civil forfeiture process. But those cases are only dealt with when the police refer them to the office of civil forfeiture.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

K. Corrigan: So this is

section 3. It talks about the director's responsibilities. Perhaps the minister can clarify for me. My understanding was that although it becomes a forfeited asset after that determination is made in the court, the first two subsections…. Maybe it's more than that. But there is also provision for the asset to be managed by the director and the director's office prior to the proceedings being completed. Perhaps the minister could clarify: is it sections (1)(

a) and (1)(

b) that are primarily dealing with, prior to conviction, the management of the asset?

Hon. S. Bond: Crown would actually seek the ability to manage. The Crown would seek to have the director manage the property during the process. That would be sub (

a) and (b). After the process would be (

c) and (d), and the director has to comply with those orders.

So Crown would seek a management order. It would then be managed during the process, and of course, depending upon the outcome, whether it's a conviction or not, at the end it would either be a forfeiture or it may well not be, depending upon the outcome of the criminal process.

K. Corrigan: This actually goes back a little bit, although it does deal with how the property is dealt with, to what my colleague was talking about.

[1605]

Would it be possible — and I'm not sure why it would happen or whether there's any advantage or any reason for this — for an asset to go to civil forfeiture despite the fact that there is a successful criminal proceeding? Is there any reason or any circumstance under which it could be envisioned that that asset could go to civil forfeiture as opposed to criminal forfeiture?

Hon. S. Bond: That would not be possible. There are three ways that a civil forfeiture process would begin. One, Crown decides to not seek forfeiture, and then the police could choose to refer that to the civil forfeiture office. Secondly, it would be that after the conclusion of the criminal process, there is no conviction. That would be the second. The third would be whether or not it's referred in the first place.

The Crown would not refer, or there is not a conviction from that process, or the third one is obviously that the forfeiture takes place. But civil forfeiture is determined by the police after the course of the criminal process is finished.

K. Corrigan: Let's say, in the case of where there is not a successful prosecution…. I understand, from when we were going through the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, that that could happen, and the minister has just explained that that could happen again.

What would be the process then? Would I assume that the property would be being managed — possibly, if it was appropriate — by the director under this act? Then what would be the process whereby the property would then move over to the director of civil forfeiture?

[1610]

Hon. S. Bond: Again, the reasons there would be a distinct civil forfeiture process would be only if there were no conviction or if Crown didn't seek forfeiture. In essence, there would be those. As a result of that, the asset could be, by court order, transferred to the civil forfeiture process. It would be that civil forfeiture would seek a court order to have the asset transferred to that separate process.

K. Corrigan: The minister has mentioned about deciding not to proceed. I'd misinterpreted. I thought the minister meant with a criminal charge. The Crown decides not to proceed with a criminal charge or with an order seeking forfeiture under the criminal process? Which of those is the minister talking about?

Hon. S. Bond: Either-or.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if I can get an idea about how the money works in all of this. I'm not talking about the money necessarily, the asset. I'm talking about how it is decided in a case where the money — the proceeds — where the assets are going to go and how it's distributed.

We had a little bit of a discussion of this in the briefing, but perhaps a bit more information. For example, if there's a criminal case, the federal government can be involved, there may be another province involved, there may be a variety of policing jurisdictions and so on. How would that be determined — where the proceeds were going to go, and the costs?

[1615]

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, if we're dealing with Canada, for example, there's a federal regulation where there is a sharing agreement — a cost-sharing agreement, in essence. In fact, there is a formula, and British Columbia would receive its share as laid out in that federal regulation.

[ Page 10922 ]

K. Corrigan: Is it appropriate to assume that the costs associated with managing the asset would be taken into account when that share is being considered? I mean, it seems to me that with some of the assets, there's storage, and there may be more active management. It seems like it under the act. Would those kinds of costs be taken into account in determining the financials?

Hon. S. Bond: Our understanding is that's correct. The costs of managing the asset would be considered first, and then the balance would be distributed by the formula that's in federal regulation.

K. Corrigan: At the present time, let's say a vehicle is seized related to a criminal proceeding, and it's presumably stored somewhere. Who would pay for the cost of that at the present time?

[1620]

Hon. S. Bond: Currently the province, actually through a system of asset investment recovery…. There is an agency, basically. But the value of the asset to date has exceeded the costs of management, so in fact there hasn't been an impact on the bottom line in that way.

What's important, as you can tell from how long it took us to answer that question, is that we need this bill to set up the formal, institutionalized way to make this a much more simplified process and to allow Crown, we believe, to seek forfeiture more frequently.

K. Corrigan: I'm partially looking ahead to

section 4, because

section 3 and

section 4 work closely together. Just to clarify, making sure that before the criminal proceedings are completed and before there is a forfeiture of the assets, the director will be fairly limited in terms of dealing with the property.

For example, let's say that it is what is described under

section 4 as a perishable or rapidly depreciating property. Is the director…? It's an ongoing proceeding, maybe for years sometimes in some criminal proceedings — very long. Would they be bound to not deal with that property in a way that they might want to because the property hasn't yet been forfeited?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, those details would be laid out in the management order that we are required to seek in order to manage that asset during the process. If there were something unusual that happened along the way and we needed to have the conditions changed, we would go back and seek further additions to that management order. In essence, they would manage according to the court order that's provided with the details and conditions contained in it.

K. Corrigan: I'm not going to presume to know what a judge would or wouldn't do. But a management order might possibly say in some circumstances: "Look, this asset needs to be disposed of now before the criminal proceedings are complete, because otherwise it's not going to be worth anything." Is that a possibility? Again, it's sort of looking inside the courtroom, but I'm just trying to figure out how assets will be dealt with under this act.

[1625]

Hon. S. Bond: It is possible that there would be a disposal order as part of a management plan.

We tried to stretch our brains and think, at this time of the day, what an example might be. Really, what we can bring it down to is something perhaps live — like if there was poultry involved or fruit or something — where there was the potential of the value being lost immediately, then there could well be a disposal order. It would be, "Go get rid of the chickens," or whatever it is. What would happen then is that the asset would then be put into trust. I believe that is in

section 5 coming up.

So it is possible, but we can't imagine many cases where that would be the case.

K. Corrigan: Again, my next question sort of straddles

section 3 and

section 4, but I'll ask it anyway. Once the forfeiture order has been made, the director then takes responsibility and is no longer under the management order.

How much leeway — it looks like quite a bit — does the minister envision the director is going to have in terms of the management of the asset? I'm thinking, for example, of funds. Cash or other financial instruments might be an idea here where there could be a fair amount of leeway. I'm just wondering what this act foresees in terms of how much leeway there is for the director in terms of managing those assets.

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, the asset would be managed with the principle of deriving maximum economic benefit. There are a number of ways that that can be done.

Obviously, the first agency that we use is the asset investment recovery agency, which is actually part of government. They are involved with disposal and management of assets. For example, if you're going to liquidate something or going to get rid of a vehicle, you can post it on the B.C. Auction website. There are ways already in place that the director could take advantage of.

There is also the additional point that, if necessary, there is the option here that if special expertise is required, there is the possibility for the director to choose to bring on someone to help assist with those kinds of decisions.

Of course, public servants have a long checklist of checks and balances in terms of the way they manage and work within the public service. This will be a public servant in the Ministry of Justice, but again, there are a number of mechanisms already in place that would be

[ Page 10923 ]

utilized. There is the possibility of specialized expertise being brought on if necessary.

K. Corrigan: Given that there's a variety of types of assets and a variety of ways that they can be dealt with, I'm wondering what the transparency mechanisms are.

[1630]

In other words, is the information going to be made public about how this fund is dealt with? I suppose we can talk about it in Public Accounts.

What is the accountability of the director, in terms of accountability for the management and the disposition and however else this property is used? What are the accountability mechanisms?

Hon. S. Bond: What we're going to do is…. The director's responsibility will be placed within our Ministry of Justice and within an existing position, so there will be an accountability mechanism built in there. They will work with property management and disposal service providers, as I said before, including the asset investment recovery agency that's located in the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government.

In terms of transparency, the account that will be managed will be managed with the rules of the Financial Administration Act, and as any other special account, estimated annual revenues and expenses of the fund would be included in the budget and presented to the Legislative Assembly within the provincial budget. There will be significant transparency and oversight, including scrutiny during the budget process that would be provided by Treasury Board and through the annual audit.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

K. Corrigan: This is a continuation of the role of the director, and it provides, basically, that the director may do anything that they consider "advisable for the ongoing management or operation of the property before its final disposition," including disposing of it. I would assume, following on what I asked regarding the last section, again, that all that accountability has to be there, that there has to be inventory and all those things that are required in order to ensure that this property is well looked after.

Hon. S. Bond: You know, first and foremost, I think the director is going to exercise their powers, and in the legislation, as guided by the ethical and professional obligations of the public service. There are a number of checks and balances for all public servants. Oversight will be provided through the ministry, and it will be managed through the reporting structure that already exists in our ministry.

The program is going to be, as I said, subject to audit by Treasury Board and to Treasury Board direction and supervision, and statutes of the Financial Administration Act will apply. There is, I think, a series of steps that protect the integrity of the fund and also the integrity of the director.

With the professional public service, the management structure we have in place in the Ministry of Justice, the additional oversight by the Treasury Board, an audit and the requirement to present both the revenue and the expenditure side in the provincial budget, I have every confidence that there will be a high degree of transparency.

K. Corrigan: The minister will recall that when we were talking about the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, I asked questions about how it was that the police force in Abbotsford got hold of a Hummer. I'm wondering if it is under this

section that similar types of uses could be found, for example, for vehicles. In that case the Hummer was decorated up with crime-doesn't-pay type of lettering and so on. Would the director have the ability to make those kinds of determinations under this

section of the act?

[1635]

Hon. S. Bond: I know that we have had the discussion about the Hummer. I feel obligated to say that in the case of the civil forfeiture office decision, there is a look at how you talk about crime prevention and deal with anti-gang issues. Abbotsford is doing a fantastic job. It was a decision to make use of that particular asset in a very creative way, so that decision was made.

Having said that, on the criminal asset side, obviously that would be far less likely to happen. The principle here is that maximum economic benefit be derived from that asset for the province, in fact. We're going to see management that focuses on maximum economic benefit. Ultimately, when you look at disposal, the revenue has to be placed in the special account.

I don't anticipate that happening under this particular regime. I mean, we can clearly say that there is nothing that would prevent that, necessarily, from happening. But it's certainly not something that we would expect to have happen here, when the major principle is based on maximizing economic benefit and ultimately, though, that revenue being placed in a special account.

K. Corrigan: Well, I'll have to go back and take a look at the Civil Forfeiture Act and the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, because I would have assumed that the same type of principle would have applied under the Civil Forfeiture Act. What we're talking about is the possibility of the director essentially making, I believe, policy decisions about the use of assets.

The minister said it's not impossible; it's not likely. But I'm wondering what the regulatory framework is or

[ Page 10924 ]

what it is that would define that, apart from an expectation. There's nothing here, to me, that says that couldn't happen.

I'm wondering what the relationship will be between those who do make policy — essentially politicians — and the director. If there was a decision…. If something came in — for example, a boat — through this act and there was an idea by somebody that perhaps a good use for that boat would be to talk about crime along the seas or something like that…. Could that happen, and if it was going to happen, how would that happen under this act?

[1640]

Hon. S. Bond: I think perhaps I may have been less direct about what the director's powers are. I mean, the fact of the matter is they're going to take possession of the asset, they're going to manage it, they're going to dispose of it and they're going to distribute the funds. I think it is clear that that is the purpose here. Any other consideration…. It's clear.

The principle is you're going to take possession of it. You're going to preserve it for the length of time that's necessary. Then you're going to make sure that you dispose of the property at the price and on the terms that are appropriate. In fact, that means we want to get best value for that asset.

I think that it's clear and that the member opposite can be assured by the direction that's laid out here that we're not going to see a Hummer being loaned out. The fact of the matter is that this is about maximizing benefit and then distributing the benefit that is derived financially to victims.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could tell me, then, how the powers and responsibilities of the director under this act are different than the powers and the responsibility under the Civil Forfeiture Act, wherein that very thing happened.

Hon. S. Bond: We are discussing the director's powers. I don't have the director's responsibilities under civil forfeiture, and in fact, that's a different act. We're setting up a regime here that is related to criminal forfeiture. The question was about what the process was for the disposal, the protection of property, the preservation and how we would manage that. I think the director of criminal forfeiture's powers are clearly outlined in this act.

K. Corrigan: I was asking the question because I'm trying to achieve clarity about what the director's responsibilities and powers are and what could or couldn't happen under this act. Under the Civil Forfeiture Act, where it appears to me that the powers may be somewhat similar, a Hummer was, in fact, used and given out.

The minister has said that wouldn't happen under this act, but the reason why I'm seeking a comparison is that it did happen under the other act, and I want to be assured. That may not be the intention of the minister, but what is there about this act that satisfies the minister that it would be any different than the Civil Forfeiture Act?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, it's by looking at section (2) and reading through (a), then down through (e). It's basically take possession and control of, preserve or manage, dispose of the property at the price appropriate; make sure that we're looking at the management of the asset on an ongoing basis; look at disposing of perishable — we've already had that discussion — or rapidly depreciating property value; and destroy property that has little or no value. I think that that's very clear, and the principle is deriving maximum economic benefit.

[1645]

That's important in this process, because at the end of the day what it means is that the better we manage this asset and the more value we're able to extract from that asset, we can actually provide more support to victims. That's what this is all about. Well, there are two reasons, actually. One is to deter criminals, reminding them that crime doesn't pay in British Columbia. Secondly, the better we manage that asset — which is why this bill is so important — the more we can provide support to victims.

K. Corrigan: Just a hypothetical here. Let's say there was a boat, and somebody in government saw that boat and said: "Boy, I think that would be great." Maybe not the minister. I don't imagine it would be. But let's say somebody in government saw that boat and said: "Wouldn't that be terrific to be used as crime prevention or some other thing?"

Is the minister saying that under the terms of this act, it would not be possible, if somebody thought that would be a good idea and would like to make that happen, for that to happen?

Hon. S. Bond: The director will have flexibility, and we think that's important. We have no idea today…. Standing in this Legislature, where we're creating

an act that will stand, we hope, for a fair degree of time, we don't know what those assets are going to be or look like. There's no way, in a list in the Legislature of British Columbia, that we could articulate exactly what the director should do with every asset. We actually need them to have the flexibility to determine the best use of that asset.

We have one priority here. Well, there are two, as I said. One is to say to criminals in British Columbia: "We're going to go after your assets, and we're going to do that so that we can provide additional benefits to the people who you have victimized in this province."

While it is not explicit about what we would do with a Hummer or a boat, we actually believe that the director will make those decisions based on the principles that are

[ Page 10925 ]

outlined in the legislation.

We need to look for maximum economic benefit. We want to make sure that wherever possible, we extract as much value….

[1650]

At the end of the day can I stand here and say that there won't be some unique arrangement about a particular asset? No, I can't do that. But I can say this. I actually think it's important that the director has the flexibility to deal with the assets as they emerge and make those decisions based on the excellence of the public service. There is a set of expectations. They will work with the agency within government that deals with disposal of assets, and they will bring on extra expertise if necessary.

Yes, I would assume that as I read through this once again, it doesn't preclude a specific arrangement, but on the other hand I think it's important that there's a degree of flexibility, but clearly outlined steps, that the director may take.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate that the minister is saying that getting maximum value is the aim, but the minister just said that sending a message out to criminals is an aim as well. To me it's not clear. The minister previously said that under this act the minister did not see that the Hummer-type situation would be possible, and now the minister is saying that it would be possible. It is not clear to me exactly what the limits are in terms of how the director is going to use these assets.

The reason that I'm asking these questions…. They are not flippant questions at all, because there are jurisdictions…. I've read newspaper articles about abuses. I'm not suggesting that anybody in our public service would abuse anything, but you want to do the maximum that you can to make sure that there are not abuses.

In some of the American states I've read about terrible abuses — forfeited property being used in ways that are completely inappropriate. As I said, I'm not suggesting that at all in our public service, but I think the way you make sure that there are no abuses or questions about how it is — what is the policy that determines that Abbotsford gets a Hummer? — has to be clearly enunciated, either in the legislation or in the regulation.

There certainly seemed to me to be a great deal of discretion. My community said: "Well, how do I apply for a Hummer?" I'm a little concerned that it doesn't appear that it is clear how this can happen, what can happen. I'll leave it at that, actually.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering. I don't quite understand the necessity of this section.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, we think, in thinking this through, that it probably speaks to the member's concerns that were just articulated around the long discussion about the Hummer.

[1655]

This is an emphasis that focuses on the fact that the director must comply. The ultimate way…. I chose not to stand up again on the last point. But, you know, the ultimate end to the asset is disposition, and that's clearly outlined in the act. This says that you must comply with that. In essence, it probably provides some of the comfort that the member was looking for in terms of how the public servant deals with the asset.

K. Corrigan: It's not entirely clear to me why referring back to sections that are already in the act — describe what the powers of the director are. I mean, essentially what it is doing is repeating references to

section 3 and

section 4, and we've already had the discussion about what the powers may or may not be. But I guess that I'll leave it at that.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

K. Corrigan: I didn't stand up under

section 7 because, essentially,

section 7,

section 8,

section 9 and a few others all deal with the same thing, so I'll ask questions under this section.

Could the minister confirm that this "Payment to eligible victim" section…? This would be a payment that would happen as a result of what would be the second situation that we were discussing earlier? In other words, the decision about the distribution to eligible victims had not been made by an order in the court, and instead it's being made by the director. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: That is correct.

K. Corrigan: It's tough sometimes to know exactly how things are going to work, because it refers to regulations that we do not get to see yet and which we will not have a chance to debate in this Legislature. But how does the minister see this

section being administrated and played out?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, it's a pretty straightforward section. What this does is provide the actual authority for the director to make the payment in the first place. We need authority for him or her to be able to make that payment to an eligible victim. Secondly, payment to a victim cannot exceed the money that is received from that specific property. In other words, the director doesn't have the ability to pay out more than the recovery of the value of that asset.

[ Page 10926 ]

K. Corrigan: How is it determined what that amount would be?

Hon. S. Bond: The amount of the payment would be the money that is recovered minus the cost of maintaining or managing that asset.

[1700]

K. Corrigan: There's no reference to…. The reference to the victims earlier refers to pecuniary loss. Is it the amount of that pecuniary loss that that individual is going to be paid? Is that what it is, or is it something else?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, it's the amount that was lost.

K. Corrigan: If the amount recovered from the asset is more than the loss, is it possible that there are any other payments apart from what that victim lost, their pecuniary loss? Could there be interest attached to that pecuniary loss as well?

Hon. S. Bond: The principle here is that if a victim has suffered a loss as a result of a crime and then as a result of the court process and the forfeiture, our goal is to help them recover their loss. For example, if they had a boat stolen and we get the boat back, we're not going to sell the boat. We're going to give them back the boat. It's about returning assets, and in the event that there is a disposal, they would receive the money that is recovered, net the cost to manage. They would receive that. But if a car or a boat is stolen and we are able to return that, then that's what we would do.

K. Corrigan: Well, I guess it probably would, in almost all cases. I'm trying to think of, okay, well, what about this? Would it not be possible for somebody to suffer pecuniary loss during the commission of a crime and then, actually, the forfeited asset is larger than that person's loss?

For example, let's say the crime was a robbery, and there were numerous people involved. One person was robbed of $100 and somebody else $1,000, and the pot came back together. I assume the person who lost $1,000 would get their $1,000. But let's say that person for some reason didn't show up, disappeared, you couldn't find that person, whatever. Then you have $1,100 in your fund associated with that particular crime. Could that individual recover any more than the amount that they actually lost?

Hon. S. Bond: No.

K. Corrigan: Where in the act does it say that?

[1705]

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, it's probably embedded in a couple of places in the act, but I think the most direct place is in the definition of "eligible victim." It describes the loss as "pecuniary loss." In fact, that's financial. The question may be how you quantify that, but it is what you've lost. What is that pecuniary loss?

Also, it refers to property. So if you lose the boat, you're going to get the boat back. If you lose something else that has value, you will receive back the value of that loss.

K. Corrigan: Well, I don't foresee that there would be, in practice, anything different than that. I'm sure that's how it's going to apply. But when I read

section 1 and

section 8 together, the scenario that I envision does not seem to be impossible to me, nor would it be outside of the powers of the director. That may not be what the director wants to do, but it doesn't seem to be outside of the powers. But I won't ask any more questions on that one.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

section 10.

K. Corrigan: This

section provides that there can be reconsideration of a decision on a payment to an eligible victim. I'm wondering who is expected to be making that kind of application.

[1710]

Hon. S. Bond: This is obviously the opportunity to have a decision of the director reconsidered. We were thinking about what an example of that would be.

Let's suggest, as the member did, that there was a robbery. At the time of the robbery, the victim is aware of three or four items that have been stolen but at some point later discovers that another item has been stolen. They would be able to come back and say to the director: "I wasn't aware of this at the time, and I'd like you to reconsider the benefit that you've provided."

K. Corrigan: Could it also apply in a situation where somebody was determined to be an eligible victim and then later, perhaps through further investigation, was determined to have engaged directly or indirectly in the commission of the crime or quasi-criminal activity, as in the

definitions? Is that a possible scenario as well?

Hon. S. Bond: Our intent is to support victims. What this allows for is the reconsideration of decisions. There may be a number of factors. The goal here is to give the director enough discretion that, in the event that some new information comes in — and it might be on a number of fronts — the director has the flexibility to actually say: "I'm going to reconsider that."

Our goal is to be as supportive to victims as possible. We want to make sure there is a chance for that second look if it's necessary, if new information comes to light.

[ Page 10927 ]

K. Corrigan: Just to confirm. The reconsideration could result in either more compensation or less compensation.

Hon. S. Bond: I think the intent of this

section is to allow individuals who feel that they haven't had an appropriate…. I'm trying to think of a way to say this. In essence, we think that the reconsideration would see amounts going up and not down. We can't imagine that someone would come back and say: "You gave me too much."

In essence, we think this is about the place where someone could come back and say: "That extra item was stolen" or "This was missed." We think this is about fairness. This is about flexibility to say that if there's a need for another look at this, this gives the director the ability to do that, and it is on application.

[1715]

K. Corrigan: That seems that's the intention, as the minister has stated. I'm just wondering if this

section could conceivably be used, though…. Let's say somebody is determined to be an eligible victim. Later it turns out that the police provide new information.

How that would get to the director, I don't know. But let's say there was new information that came via the police or Crown counsel that the person who had been determined to be an eligible victim, directly or indirectly, had been involved in the commission of the crime.

Could this

section conceivably be used by the director, on somebody's application, whoever that appropriate person would be — not the victim but some other person — to reduce the amount of compensation or the eligibility of that victim for compensation?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, we are working hard to try to think of how, if ever, that would happen. Probably where that would be dealt with is…. I think it's

section 13 where there is actually a

section that allows…. There is an offence related to this act so that if you give misinformation or if there are issues related to the veracity of what you've said, there are ways that there is an offence attached. So there is a mechanism for dealing with that.

We believe that the intent of this

section is to look at payment and make sure that there has been every opportunity provided to the victim to receive the benefit that they are entitled to.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

K. Corrigan: This

section provides for repayment if an eligible victim receives excess compensation. In other words, if they get more than they were awarded, then they're liable to repay the director the amount of compensation. That is a reasonable section. It makes sense. I have just a couple of questions.

First of all, is that irrespective of whose fault it is? I mean, I assume if they're being paid more than they should have been, that would have been the fault of the person writing the cheque.

Secondly, is there any flexibility that the director would have, for example, if the money had been spent and the person was low income? Is there flexibility that the director or somebody else could have in order that that money would not have to be repaid, under humanitarian circumstances?

[1720]

Hon. S. Bond: The principle is that if the person who is receiving an award receives more than they have been awarded, this gives us the authority to take back the excess. The classic example would be that if the award was for $1,000, and the cheque was made out for $10,000, we need to go get the $9,000 back, regardless of who put the extra zero on there, because what it means is that $9,000 is not available to other victims.

It is fairly straightforward. It doesn't look at who made the mistake or what the circumstances are. It says that if the award is in such amount, if an excess is granted, then in fact we have the ability to go and get it back.

K. Corrigan: I remember one of my many summer jobs that I had through the many years I went to university was working at the Unemployment Insurance Commission. My job that year was collecting from people who'd received overpayments of unemployment insurance.

There were some situations that were just really unfortunate — people that were out of work. Most of them continued to be out of work, and they had received too much. You know, they were in dire financial circumstances. There was the ability, I recall, to have some flexibility, certainly in the amount, of whether it would be paid over a long period of time. I think even forgiveness sometimes was decided in those cases.

I'm just wondering, again, whether there is any discretion under this act to account for the fact that there has got to be, or there could be, a circumstance where somebody has received too much but it is going to be very oppressive for them to try to pay that money back — given that the person who has written the cheque is government.

Hon. S. Bond: I can understand wanting there to be flexibility, but under the Financial Administration Act, the director does not have discretion. In fact, when an award is granted, the individual would also be aware of the amount of the award, and so in essence it would be a mistake.

As uncomfortable as that would be for the person that

[ Page 10928 ]

made the mistake, and as difficult as it would be to try to recoup that, the fact of the matter is there is no discretion. The award would have been communicated to the individual, the cheque would have been written, and we would have the responsibility of going back to get the excess.

[1725]

K. Corrigan: It sounds like there is not the ability under the Financial Administration Act to have that kind of compassion for somebody. I think it's unfortunate, because I think it is possible. You know, we're talking about victims here, who may have been through a lot, and you don't know….

I'm not saying at all every victim, but I think it is possible that somebody would get a cheque, that they wouldn't be aware, that they would have spent the money. They might be somebody who doesn't have a lot of money, and I think it's unfortunate that there is no mechanism there, under humanitarian kind of circumstances, to take into account somebody who really might, already having been a victim once, be revictimized because of the attempt to recoup the money.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I think to attribute a value statement like "the Financial Administration Act doesn't allow for compassion" is an unfortunate statement. It's not about that. This entire act is about trying to find a way to support victims.

The fact of the matter is that the person has made application for repayment of a pecuniary loss. They made application to either have their boat returned or the value of their boat returned to them. To suggest that because….

First of all, they make application. They would know what the award was. For them to receive a cheque and then be in a position not to return the asset that was in excess of their payment…. I don't think that speaks to compassion. It speaks to the fact that there are financial, appropriate mechanisms in place that create a liability to the Crown. If we said that in every circumstance….

I think it's unfortunate to add a value statement to something that is clearly outlined in the Financial Administration Act and is a requirement of the Crown to ensure that this process is in place. It may sound harsh. It's not meant to. It's meant to lay out the rules that apply to financial administration.

From my perspective, the eligible victim asks for repayment. I would suggest that if there is a large difference in the cheque you receive from the award you were given, that speaks to mutual responsibility.

K. Corrigan: I wasn't impugning the Financial Administration Act for lack of compassion. I'm just saying there's no provision within it, apparently, that could allow for compassion.

I know I'm talking about, probably, a very small number of potential people. But I think it's always, particularly because the minister said that the whole point of this is to provide fairness and that there's flexibility in order to provide fairness…. Certainly, under

section 10, that