2011 Legislative Session: Third 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)

Monday, May 16, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 2

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Kootenay Ice hockey championship win

B. Bennett

Introductions by Members

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, report No. 2, 2011-2012, Audit of the Academic Ambulatory Care Centre Public Private Partnership: Vancouver Coastal Health Authority

British Columbia Legislative Library, annual report, 2010

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Mining industry award recipients

R. Hawes

Coastal Douglas fir ecosystem

D. Routley

Local Government Awareness Week

J. Les

Emergency services awareness

S. Fraser

Dalian delegation visit to Burnaby

R. Lee

Festivals in Kootenays

M. Mungall

Oral Questions

Government tax policies after harmonized sales tax referendum

B. Ralston

Hon. K. Falcon

Announcements by Premier and government information on harmonized sales tax

D. Donaldson

Hon. K. Falcon

Government tax policies after harmonized sales tax referendum

K. Corrigan

Hon. K. Falcon

J. Horgan

School district payment of property insurance premiums

R. Austin

Hon. G. Abbott

M. Elmore

Environmental assessment process for proposed Vancouver Island coal mine

S. Fraser

Hon. T. Lake

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 6 — Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2011

K. Corrigan

Hon. S. Bond

N. Simons

C. Trevena

M. Dalton

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2011

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2011

Hon. B. Penner

L. Krog

J. Horgan

B. Simpson

C. Trevena

Hon. B. Penner

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

Hon. S. Thomson

N. Macdonald

B. Routley

[ Page 7013 ]

MONDAY, MAY 16, 2011

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

N. Macdonald: I would like the House to join me in welcoming to the House Anthony Britneff, who's a good friend from Victoria and who has a lifelong passion for forestry. If the House could please join me in making him welcome.

Tributes

Kootenay ice

hockey championsHIP WIN

B. Bennett: It's my great pleasure to announce that the Kootenay Ice beat the Portland Winterhawks on Friday night to win the WHL championship. They're going to the Memorial Cup.

Introductions by Members

S. Fraser: Joining us in the gallery today is a friend of mine, Barbara Murray, from Nanoose. She's representing Pacific Wild of the Great Bear rain forest at an international conference. It's called the International Marine Conservation Congress, held every two years. It's in Victoria this year. It was in Washington, D.C., last year. She's taken time from that conference to join us here today. Please make her feel very welcome.

[1335]

R. Hawes: In the gallery today is Sandra Clarke. She is the executive director of the ACT Foundation. The ACT Foundation works with the B.C. Ambulance Service and the B.C. paramedics union providing CPR training to students in high schools across British Columbia. She is here today to have meetings with the Minister of Education regarding this program. Could the House please make her welcome and thank her for all the work that the ACT Foundation does for the kids in our high schools across British Columbia.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: It's my great pleasure to introduce to the House members of the Technology Education and Careers Council — that's TECC — who hosted many of our members for lunch today. I'm looking forward, actually, to meeting with them this afternoon.

TECC was formed in 2008 by the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians to bring together leaders in industry, education and associations to advance engineering and applied science, technology education and careers. Many of the TECC board members are here today. I'll just introduce the chair to the House: Sandy Innes. Please make him very welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today is my executive assistant Chris Sandve. He is joined by a number of guests, including Kirsten Harvie, who is his fiancée; Maggie Harvie, who is Kirsten's mom; Jennifer Harvie, Kirsten's sister; Sue Bermies, who is Kirsten's aunt — the whole family pretty much is here; Margaret Harkness, Kirsten's nana, which I interpret to be grandma; and Susan Walker, who is a great-aunt of Kirsten and who is visiting here from Glasgow, Scotland. So could I please ask the House to make all of our guests welcome.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General's 2011-2012 report 2, Audit of the Academic Ambulatory Care Centre Public Private Partnership: Vancouver Coastal Health Authority , and the annual report of the British Columbia Legislative Library, 2010 .

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

MINING INDUSTRY AWARD RECIPIENTS

R. Hawes: Each year during Mining Week the miner of the year is announced and recognized. Last week was Mining Week in British Columbia, and this year two giants of the industry were recognized.

Rob Pease has been a miner for over 30 years, working the bulk of his career in senior management with Placer Dome. In 2006 he formed Terrane Metals to develop the Mount Milligan mine northwest of Prince George. This is a copper-gold project. It's been fully permitted and is now under construction. Last year Terrane was acquired by Thompson Creek Mining, and that project is moving ahead and going to provide employment and an economic boost to the area. Mr. Pease is now a director and strategic adviser to Richfield Ventures, a gold exploration in northern British Columbia.

The irrepressible Jim O'Rourke was part of a team that brought in the Endako mine, Gibraltar mine, Quinsam Coal and Huckleberry mine. Jim managed the Similco mine in Princeton in the '90s when the mine closed. He later acquired a lease on the minesite and began planning for the Copper Mountain mine. This major redesign and expansion of the old Similco site has given a new lease on life for the people of Princeton.

This pine beetle–ravaged area had been suffering, but the jobs and investment provided by Copper Mountain

[ Page 7014 ]

have turned the local economy around. Copper Mountain has been a game changer for the Princeton area and its people.

Mr. O'Rourke is also a director of Compliance Energy, which is working to develop the Raven coal project on Vancouver Island. While this project has its opponents, they should be comforted by Jim's past. He's always shown great respect for the communities in which he has developed mining projects. Sustaining families requires jobs and revenue to government to pay for the services those people require.

Rob Pease and Jim O'Rourke have supplied both in abundance. Congratulations to each for the well-deserved miner of the year awards.

COASTAL DOUGLAS FIR ECOSYSTEM

D. Routley: I rise to speak about the coastal Douglas fir ecosystem, which is the smallest of the 14 B.C. ecosystems. It is restricted to low elevations along southeast Vancouver Island. The coastal Douglas fir zone is in the rainshadow of Vancouver Island and the Olympic Mountains.

[1340]

Rainstorms hit these mountains first and discharge much of their moisture. Consequently, the summers are warm and dry, and the winters are mild and wet, although drier than most other B.C. coastal zones. This climate creates a unique set of conditions allowing for a diverse group of plants and animals.

Coastal Douglas fir ecosystems are among the most imperilled coastal ecosystems. Since they occur along the coast in regions favoured by people, they were some of the first forest types targeted for logging and cleared for urban and agricultural development.

Today very few older ecosystems remain as isolated islands among a landscape altered by human development. Trees such as Douglas fir, western red cedar, grand fir, western flowering dogwood, Garry oak and arbutus, as well as endangered species, large animals, black-tailed deer, black bear, cougar, bats, amphibians, the marbled murrelet and the sharp-tailed snake make this area home.

Coastal Douglas fir ecosystems are adapted to warm, dry conditions. They may have a special role to play if this part of the world warms due to climate change as predicted. Particularly near urban areas, forests are valuable for providing spongy soil and organic matter that allow rainwater to soak into the ground, where it replenishes groundwater and is naturally decontaminated as it filters through rock, soil and plant roots.

An emergent industry is the non-timber forest products, involving collection and sale of mushrooms, medicinal herbs, berries and floral greens.

As the human population grows in this region, old-growth and older second-growth forests continue to be cleared. Only about 0.5 percent of the land base formerly occupied by coastal Douglas fir forest is now comprised of older forests. Invasive species also present a hazard. We need to act to protect this essential eco-climate.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AWARENESS WEEK

J. Les: I am pleased to announce that May 15 to 21 has been declared Local Government Awareness Week in the province of British Columbia. The purpose of this week is to generate awareness and educate the public on the importance of locally elected officials and the role that they play in making decisions through municipal councils, regional district boards and school boards. It's an opportunity for the public to learn more about how local government works and how they can participate in creating sustainable, family-friendly communities by making their voices heard.

In fact, this year's theme is "Be heard," a theme that reinforces the importance of voting, attending public forums and town hall meetings and learning about candidates' platforms. As we're all aware, this fall on Saturday, November 19, voters will choose their local representatives for a further three years.

Communities are celebrating Local Government Awareness Week throughout the province, so I encourage members of the public to call their local government or school district to see what activities are being planned in their area. I read in the news, for example, that Kelowna is offering school tours of city hall, holding a "Be heard" open house and giving the public access to advisory committee meetings. Kelowna also has a new website designed to encourage public engagement. The Comox Valley regional district is offering local government 101, a school for people considering running for elected office.

I would like to congratulate Kelowna, the Comox Valley regional district and other participating communities for helping to make government at every level more transparent and accessible.

As you know, this government has made it a priority to support open governance systems that enhance the democratic process. We're also committed to helping local governments create livable, family-friendly and economically resilient communities. For these and many other reasons, we want to reinforce the importance of learning about and getting involved in government processes.

Seeing as I have a bit of time left, I am reminded of a story. It was about 25 years ago, I think, that I was sitting at a regional board meeting along with Mayor Mike Dunn, who was then the mayor of the district of Kent, and we were discussing local government awareness. He said: "If you want awareness, double their taxes. They'll be aware."

[ Page 7015 ]

EMERGENCY SERVICES AWARENESS

S. Fraser: This week is also dedicated to recognizing the women and men that provide emergency services to those of us that need it the most when we need it the most. It is Emergency Services Week, and it is appropriate that we in this House honour the value of emergency services providers here in British Columbia.

Many professions and many more individuals make up our critical emergency services. They include our firefighters, paramedics, emergency nurses, technicians and physicians, as well as educators and administrators. All play a role that ensures that British Columbians can receive life-saving care 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

[1345]

When they jump into action, one thing is for sure: our emergency service personnel dramatically improve the survival and recovery rate of those who have the misfortune of experiencing sudden illness and injury. That can be anyone at any time.

Emergency service personnel often sacrifice much to do what they do — the time and training that never really ends, long hours and gruelling shifts. And sometimes they sacrifice everything.

On October 19 last year two B.C. paramedics, Jo-Ann Fuller and Ivan Polivka, both of Tofino, died after their ambulance plunged into the icy waters of Kennedy Lake. They were friends; they were community members — two ordinary people to us in the community, but two ordinary people with a long record of life-saving service, and they were doing their job in the wee hours that Tuesday morning.

While reflecting here on Emergency Services Week, I would like to remind this House how valued our emergency services personnel are and that they put themselves at risk in the hopes that we will all have a better chance of surviving our own tragedies.

DALIAN DELEGATION VISIT TO BURNABY

R. Lee: On Sunday I had the pleasure of meeting with a delegation from Dalian, China, which is visiting my city of Burnaby to discuss trade and cultural exchanges. This eight-member delegation is led by the assistant mayor, Mr. Lui Yan. Dalian is an important city for Burnaby and for all of British Columbia to have a strong relationship with.

Just as we are the Asia-Pacific gateway, so Dalian is the gateway to northeastern China. In recent years trade deals between Dalian and B.C. companies have covered areas such as wooden-frame house construction, the manufacturing of wind power generation facilities and garbage recycling.

Now that China has become the world's top emitter of greenhouse gases, cities like Dalian are becoming increasingly interested in green technologies. As the home to BCIT's Burnaby campus and many leading companies in the green technology field, my city is poised to benefit from this.

Burnaby-based Xantrex is already capitalizing on these opportunities by supplying Shanghai Electric company with electronic interfaces to convert and control raw electrical power from solar and wind into the high-quality power required for electric grids.

Our efforts to increase trade with China are paying off. We are seeing more and more delegations like this one from Dalian which is visiting Burnaby right now at this moment and bringing Dalian companies to invest in sectors such as biotech and biomedical devices.

We have much to offer to each other in terms of two-way trade, investment and cultural exchanges. I hope all members will join me in giving a warm welcome to our visitors from Dalian.

FESTIVALS IN KOOTENAYS

M. Mungall: Well, it did take a while this year, but spring finally did come, and the Kootenays, of course, know just how to celebrate its long-awaited arrival. As the rain showered over Baker Street in Nelson on May 7, locals piled on to the famous downtown street to get their seeds, flowers, herbs, shrubs, trees and garden decor. It was the West Kootenay EcoSociety's tenth anniversary of their garden festival, and the rain stopped no one from supporting their neighbourhood businesses.

This upcoming weekend brings two more festivals and, of course, a prayer for a little sunshine. The 70th annual Creston Blossom Festival starts this upcoming Friday. To celebrate the past 70 years, the blossom festival is hosting a very fun event in honour of a past long-serving festival board member and woman who left a tremendous legacy in the Creston Valley, the late Lela Irvine.

The event is a pageant tea for women over 70 years of age. Mr. Speaker, you might notice that I'm not eligible for this pageant, so I will be taking in the baking and the handicrafts and the fashion show that entrants will be proudly showing off. I welcome all to join me after they catch enough candy at the parade earlier in the day. The pageant is at the Creston and district rec centre from 2 to 4 p.m.

But not to be outdone by its Kootenay neighbour Creston, Kaslo also boasts a lively May festival this weekend. So whether you're entering the 5K run, the skate jam or logger sports or all of the above, May Days are sure to entertain and bring community together.

[1350]

Like Creston's blossom fest, there is a parade. Watch for me and my fiancé on our motorbike as we reach into the saddlebags and toss candy to eager kids and kids at heart.

[ Page 7016 ]

As the House knows, Nelson-Creston is the most beautiful constituency in B.C., so I welcome all to attend our wonderful May festivals. You will no doubt have a ball.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT TAX POLICIES AFTER

HARMONIZED SALES TAX REFERENDUM

B. Ralston: There seems to be no end of conflicting information from the B.C. Liberal government, especially when it comes to the HST. Last week in the House the Minister of Finance was asked to commit that when the HST referendum is successful, we would return to the PST with all its previous exemptions. He declined to do that.

However, on the government's telephone town hall on Thursday night, about 6:45 p.m., Rosemary from West Vancouver asked what will happen when the HST is voted down. The Finance Minister's HST campaign co-chair and the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure said: "We will go back to the previous PST exactly as it was before."

So there does seem to be another opportunity for the Finance Minister to offer an explanation. Will he commit, finally, to restoring the PST with its previous exemptions when the HST is voted down?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I've now said three times in this House, I'm not going to speculate on what outcomes may be on the referendum. But what I can assure British Columbians is that, as I've said before, three different times, we would make sure we go out and have a conversation with British Columbians to deal with whatever those impacts are and ensure that we discuss with British Columbians what the options are with respect to going back to PST plus GST.

In fact, if the members go on the hstinbc.ca website, they will see there's already a survey that provides and asks the public for their input with respect to that very issue.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, clearly the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure was providing a little bit more than a survey. He offered an answer, and the Minister of Finance doesn't seem to want to comment on that.

When British Columbians signed the initiative petition, they expected a referendum that would result in a clear vote on the HST. They don't want the government to damage the integrity of this process. The Minister of Finance won't commit to respecting that referendum and, in particular, returning the PST with its exemptions.

Again, to the Finance Minister: Why is he leading his government's abuse of the referendum process?

Hon. K. Falcon: No, what the Finance Minister won't do is speculate — I imagine for the same reason that the NDP Finance critic is not talking about what they will do if they actually are successful in having their option move forward, which is returning back to a PST-plus-GST system, which….

The independent panel report points out that the initial hit to provincial revenues in the initial two years alone is almost $3 billion. I imagine that's probably why we're not hearing from the NDP Finance critic on how they intend to not only go forward with all the financial spending commitments they are making every single day in this House — I tally it to be about $100 million so far and counting — and how they're going to square that with the fact they're going to have $3 billion less revenue to the provincial government in the initial two years. No speculation on that side either.

I can tell you, as a responsible Finance Minister, that we will do whatever the direction the public gives us, and we will do so responsibly.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

B. Ralston: Clearly, we on this side of the House will respect the results of the referendum no matter what.

The Finance Minister doesn't want to answer this question about the Referendum Act, so perhaps I'll direct my question to the Attorney General. I speak to him in his capacity not as a political member of cabinet but in his independent function as the chief law enforcement officer of the province. That's a non-political role, a unique role in cabinet.

[1355]

The HST referendum is binding. The Referendum Act makes that very clear. The question is clear: a vote to extinguish the HST and return to the PST as it was.

To the Attorney General: in his opinion, does the Finance Minister's threat to change the PST violate the binding aspect of the referendum vote?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, it is fascinating to me that, once again, the member keeps asking a question that he has asked before. I want to be very clear about something. We will fully endorse and respect the decision of British Columbians with respect to that referendum. There's no question about that.

As I have said on numerous occasions, we will engage in a public discussion with British Columbians on the fallout of that decision, whichever way that may go, to ensure that any tax changes are going to be built on the foundation of consulting with British Columbians — just as we are in the midst of consulting with British Columbians. Some 275,000 British Columbians have responded on how we can improve the HST.

[ Page 7017 ]

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY PREMIER

AND GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

ON HARMONIZED SALES TAX

D. Donaldson: Well, the Finance Minister likes to talk about consultation. They decided against consultation when every member on that side of the Legislature voted in favour of the HST a year ago.

This weekend the Premier fired off a promise to change the B.C. Liberals' HST even before the voters get a chance to vote it down. Of course, she forgot to aim first, because that promise means that the $7 million of taxpayers' money spent on an ad campaign launched last week is a complete waste. The whole purpose of the campaign is to draw their attention to a website that claims to explain their HST, but now the Premier says it's all going to change.

To the Finance Minister: to use his own words describing Premier Clark's management style, will he admit that the Premier's ready-fire-aim HST announcement just pulled the rug out from under the multi-million-dollar ad campaign?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is wrong. The fact of the matter is that what we are doing is making sure that the public have information so that they can make an informed vote.

You know, the members opposite laugh at that prospect, but it might be interesting if the members would just look at the website. We will find that, based on the surveys that have been filled out on the websites, 61 percent of British Columbians think that basic groceries have gone up under the HST, which is not true; half think that gas prices have gone up due to the HST when there's been no change; and 48 percent of people think electronics have increased after the HST, which is not true. It's exactly the same as it was under the PST and GST.

I wonder why the NDP is so terrified about the public having basic facts and information so that they can make an informed vote. I do wonder about that. I suggest that they're worried that their misinformation campaign that they have been part of for many, many, many months now might just be a tad undermined if British Columbians are making a decision based on facts.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: All the consumers in the province are wrong; that's what the minister is saying. They're the only ones that are right on the HST. That is total arrogance, and they will pay for that arrogance.

This government's idea of putting families first is to waste their tax money. The $7 million ad campaign was designed to direct people to a carefully crafted website attempting to salvage their HST. But now, just days after the ad campaign was launched, the Premier is saying that their HST could change, making the info on the site out of date already.

Again to the Finance Minister: given that the info on the site may already be out of date and knowing that no one in the province believes this government is neutral when it comes to their HST, does he believe this ad campaign was a useful way to spend millions of taxpayers' dollars?

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, to correct the member — because, again, this is how they like to spread misinformation — it's a $5 million information campaign.

[1400]

I'll tell you something, Mr. Speaker. I am interested…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: …in the hysterics that the NDP are displaying over this information campaign. The NDP were in power — in fact, the Leader of the Opposition was chief of staff — at a time when they felt a public policy decision that was important enough, the Nisga'a treaty, deserved a multi-million-dollar information campaign.

Now, the difference is this. The NDP said it was going to be a $2.3 million information campaign. It actually ended up being $7.8 million, and they didn't notify the public until three days before Christmas. That was their approach.

This Minister of Finance said that he would make sure the public was aware of exactly what we were going to spend, that we would do it before the campaign launch. That's exactly what I did. I announced it last week before question period. In fact, I didn't hear a single question from the NDP opposition last week when I announced that.

GOVERNMENT TAX POLICIES AFTER

HARMONIZED SALES TAX REFERENDUM

K. Corrigan: On one hand, the Finance Minister is threatening that he won't return to the PST as it was, and on the other hand, the Premier is trying to buy back voters with their own money — $7 million of their own money. What next? Will the Premier try to change the name of the HST?

Voters won't buy this good cop, bad cop routine. To the Finance Minister: will he stop wasting taxpayers' money, stop trying to change the conditions of the vote, and let British Columbians have their day free of manipulation?

[ Page 7018 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: The vote that British Columbians will be having is probably the single most important vote British Columbians will ever have either in the history of this province or perhaps even on a go-forward basis on an issue of very important public policy. For the life of me, I can't understand why the NDP are so terrified about the public having an informed vote, about knowing some of the basic elements about that HST.

I mean, we have listened in this House….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: We have listened in this House as individuals, including their own Finance critic, have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about basic elements of the HST. We just heard two members now try to misinform the public by saying there's a $7 million information campaign when it's $5 million. They should know that the other $1.7 million is going to both sides to encourage debate and to ensure the public gets to hear from both sides with respect to this.

I make no apologies, as the Minister of Finance, in ensuring that the public is having an informed vote on the single most important public policy decision they may ever vote on.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: I think the people of this province would like to have had an informed vote on this question in 2009. Voters do want to have their say on the question: extinguish the HST, and return to the PST with its previous exemptions. Yet this B.C. Liberal government is wasting millions of taxpayer dollars and desperately trying to confuse the issue and manipulate an outcome. That's exactly what they did in the last election when they promised not to implement the HST in the first place.

Again to the Finance Minister: will he stop wasting taxpayer dollars on a futile ad campaign, and will he commit to restoring the PST with its previous exemptions when the HST is voted down?

Hon. K. Falcon: On one of the telephone town halls we hosted…. Of course, there were 275,000 British Columbians that participated on the almost one dozen telephone town halls. But on one of those telephone town halls we had a senior who does tax preparations for low-income seniors, and he said to me….

You might want to pay attention. Mr. Speaker, the members opposite should pay attention.

[1405]

This senior, who does volunteer tax preparation for low-income seniors, said to me: "Mr. Finance Minister, you have an obligation to make sure that these seniors know. I do their tax preparations. They do not realize they are getting a rebate from the provincial government. If they knew they were getting that rebate, they would have a very different view on the HST. You have an obligation, Mr. Finance Minister, to get that message out."

That's exactly what we're going to do. Those members opposite are afraid of people having basic facts. On this side of the House we have an obligation to make sure that the public have an informed vote. That's exactly what they will have.

J. Horgan: It's nice to see my B.C. Liberal friends in their places with bright, shiny faces after their convention in Penticton over the weekend. There you go. There are not as many empty seats today as there were in Penticton, but I digress.

The Finance Minister last week said that there will be no policy pronouncements before the referendum. Now, he was doing that to deflect attention away from the fact that he will not commit to restoring the PST with its previous exemptions. Yet in Penticton Liberals assembled, with a smattering of media to cover the event. The Premier said the following: "I want to make sure the government is committed to a position of improving the HST prior to the vote being made."

To follow on my colleague from Deer Lake, you can't have it both ways. You can't say no to a direct question on a fact, as in "Will the tax be restored?" and then say: "We're going to jig with it until we get it so we can sell it on our $7 million budget."

What's it going to be: yes to the PST and no to the HST? That's the question.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm not sure which convention he attended. The one I attended had over 1,000 delegates in attendance — unlike NDP conventions, where if you subtracted the public sector union delegates, you could hold it in a phone booth. That's the difference.

You know, the fact of the matter is the member for Juan de Fuca was actually present while we were doing a town hall at the convention on the HST. There was not only not a seat to be available, but there were people standing at the back of the hallway, and there were questions coming through Livestream and Twitter. It was a tremendous success. It reinforces the interest that is out there amongst the public in getting basic information, and that's what we'll provide.

In terms of what the Premier announced, which is wonderful news, it confirms what we said from the very beginning, which is that we are going to have a listening exercise with British Columbians — listen to their ideas on how we can improve the HST — and that we would make sure British Columbians know

[ Page 7019 ]

what we're going to do with respect to it prior to them making that vote.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I guess there weren't that many B.C. Liberals in the room because half of them were outside trying to scrub the B.C. Liberal label off of everything they were handing out.

As much as it's enjoyable to watch the Finance Minister say, on the one hand, "Let us do whatever we want," and on the other hand, "I'm not going to answer your question," I'd like to go back to the Attorney General, in his non-partisan role, and ask him if he could give an

interpretation to this House with respect to the Referendum Act.

The fact we're looking for is that the question says "extinguish the HST and reinstate the PST." It does not say: "Then consult with British Columbians." It says "reinstate." So will the Attorney General advise this House: what does that mean? Does it mean reinstate or have another dialogue?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I think we're starting to gain some insight on apparently how the NDP would conduct public policy should they ever, God forbid, find themselves on the government side.

[1410]

They are going to campaign for a return to a PST plus GST which, as the independent panel report points out, will hit the government revenues to the tune of almost $3 billion in the initial two years. They will do that without explaining in any way, shape or form how they intend to square that with their standing up every day in question period demanding more public spending in every single ministry of government. That apparently is the NDP approach.

On this side of the House we've been very clear. Should the public make that decision, which we will entirely respect, we will actually make sure to go and have a public discussion with the public to ensure that we make sure we get tax policy right to deal with the financial impacts, whatever they may be, as a result of that referendum vote — that historic referendum vote.

SCHOOL DISTRICT PAYMENT OF

PROPERTY INSURANCE PREMIUMS

R. Austin: School districts recently received a letter from the capital management branch informing them that school districts are going to have to pick up the tab for property insurance premiums previously covered by the ministry. This is going to take $3 million out of classrooms.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Wouldn't the $7 million that the government is spending on HST propaganda be better spent on ensuring districts don't have to make any more cuts to classrooms?

Hon. G. Abbott: I hope the member doesn't mind if I take this question on behalf of the Finance Minister. He wants to advise, first of all, that it's $5 million. That's the first clarification.

This issue involves insurance pooling by the school districts for claims under $100,000. It is a modest departure from the practice of the past. It is something which school board officials, their business and financial officials have been discussing with the ministry for well over a year.

It represents very good value for all taxpayers in British Columbia, and administratively it is a sound way to proceed. It does represent a pressure of 0.051 of 1 percent — or, expressed differently, 0.00051 percent — of the overall budget for the Ministry of Education.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: This is a minister who has to negotiate tens of millions of dollars coming back into education, which was stripped unconstitutionally by this government. That is a huge amount of money.

Not only are the B.C. Liberals sticking it to school districts by making them pay an extra $3 million in insurance premiums, but now they're upping their deductible on claims from $3,000 to $10,000.

Again to the Minister of Education: does it really make sense to slam school districts with last-minute cuts while you're spending millions of dollars on pro-HST ads?

Hon. G. Abbott: I certainly hope that the Education critic for the NDP makes a similar fuss later in the week when we announce a larger minor adjustment on the positive side to school districts in the province. I do hope that I'll get a question in question period that day on how we are relentlessly forcing more dollars on school districts every year. Back in the last year of the NDP's reign it was just over $6,000 per student in funding. Now we are forcing over $8,330, on average, per student every year in British Columbia.

M. Elmore: In Vancouver it's a quarter of a million dollars, and every dollar means less for classrooms, less for librarians and less for counsellors in Vancouver.

[1415]

This is what Patti Bacchus, chair of the Vancouver school district, has to say about the B.C. Liberals' last-minute decision to force school districts to pick up the tab for their HST ad campaign: "A week after we submitted a very difficult budget, now we've got to find another $291,000 in this stretched budget that's been scraped away at for too many years."

[ Page 7020 ]

My question is to the Minister of Education. If the B.C. Liberal government can afford to waste $7 million on HST stickman ads, why are you sticking it to school districts?

Hon. G. Abbott: I can't believe the remediation I'm expected to undertake on behalf of the Finance Minister in this House. This is deplorable that I now have to correct it again to $5 million.

But so the member knows…. And I hope again that this member will join with the Education critic later in the week in deploring the over $800,000 that will be going to the Vancouver school board later in the week.

I know I heard today from Chair Bacchus of the Vancouver school board and three of the NDP coalition that are on the school board, and I appreciated hearing that. I'm sure I'll look forward to hearing from them thanking the government very much later in the week for the additional contribution.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Elmore: Well, cute doesn't cut it with kids, and the B.C. Liberals are sticking it to kids in Vancouver classrooms. Michael McEvoy, president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, noted that most school districts already submitted their budgets to the government. It's irresponsible for the B.C. Liberals to force districts to cut another $3 million from classrooms at the last minute.

Again to the Minister of Education: do you think it's appropriate to ask school districts to make yet more cuts to classrooms after they've already prepared their budgets?

Hon. G. Abbott: I saw the press release from Chair Bacchus and, as usual, the alarming conclusions that she would make to any change in a budget. But I do hope I can say this with confidence. If a change of $3 million is alarming, think of the ecstasy that will be produced by $7 million or $8 million later in the week.

I do hope that the Education critic and other members of the NDP House here will be able to get through the balance of this week reflecting on a 0.051 of 1 percent change in a budget today and an even larger change on the positive side later this week.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS

FOR PROPOSED

VANCOUVER ISLAND COAL MINE

S. Fraser: I have another prime example of a B.C. Liberal minister saying one thing and then doing another. Despite the Minister of Agriculture's claim last week in question period that "the highest environmental standards" will be applied — that's the quote — to a potential coal mine that threatens the very best shellfish farms in the whole province, the minister was wrong. The truth is that the environmental review policy, the plan, is second-string at best. That's not good enough.

Will the Minister of Agriculture speak up for his portfolio, speak up for his constituents in the Comox Valley and central Island and protect the shellfish industry in his riding?

Hon. T. Lake: I presume the member opposite is speaking about the Raven coal project that is in the very early stages of the environmental assessment, in the preconsultation phase.

[1420]

In fact, the environmental assessment office has gone out and met with all the stakeholders. They are making sure that they design the public consultation piece to make sure they accommodate all of those that have an active concern in this project.

It's a well-recognized system. I think we should let the system work through the process, and we'll stand behind that process because it is taking into account all of the concerns of the people in that area.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: I didn't direct to the Minister of Environment, because the minister responsible for shellfish marketing is sitting over there, and he's ducking this issue again.

The Minister of Environment finds himself on the wrong side of the facts too. Every local government, every local organization has demanded the most rigorous environmental review process, independent with a public hearing, and that's being denied, for the minister's information.

This industry represents the livelihoods — that is, the shellfish industry — of hundreds of families in the Comox Valley. The leaching of heavy metals into Baynes Sound would destroy the shellfish industry. It would ruin….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Fraser: Any heavy metals leached into Baynes Sound would shut down the export market of that product. It would ruin the industry.

Mr. Speaker: Question, Member.

S. Fraser: Will the minister stand up, the Minister of Agriculture responsible, for Island families and protect the shellfish aquaculture sector?

[ Page 7021 ]

Hon. T. Lake: The member should get his facts straight. He should be well aware that on March 12 and 13 the environmental assessment office, along with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, facilitated two day-long focus workshops with public interest groups.

These public interest groups included CoalWatch Comox Valley, Comox Valley

chapter of the Council of Canadians, Comox Valley conservation strategy, Comox Valley Naturalists Society, Comox Valley Project Watershed Society, Eaglecrest Residents Association, Ocean Canal Clubhouse, Parksville-Qualicum KAIROS, Ships Point improvement district and the board of the trustees, the Sierra Club Comox Valley, Wilderness Committee Mid-Island chapter, Fanny Bay Salmonid Enhancement Society. All groups that have an interest are being consulted.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House this afternoon we will do committee stage, to begin with, of Bill 6, intituled the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2011. Should we have time, it will be followed by second reading of Bill 7, intituled the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2011, followed by the second reading of Bill 10, intituled Wills, Estates and Succession Amendment Act, 2011.

In Committee A we will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

[1425]

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 6 — CIVIL FORFEITURE AMENDMENT

ACT, 2011

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 6; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:30 p.m.

section 1.

K. Corrigan: I have some questions. I wanted to clarify what the workings of this first

section of the act are. It essentially seemed not only to incorporate the provisions of

section 7 of the Civil Forfeiture Act, having them apply to the new administrative process, but also to remove cash from…. It changes the way that cash is dealt with in a civil forfeiture.

I'm wondering if I could get an explanation of what the impact is, particularly on cash and the timing.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, this does clarify this process for regular civil forfeiture and also the new administrative forfeiture process. It is very unusual to register cash under the personal property registry. It is something that is not common practice, so we're correcting that. Property means just that. It would be the registration of property and not cash.

N. Simons: Thank you to the hon. minister for her presence, as well as the presence of her people who help her with the answers.

I'm wondering if the minister would be able to outline, on

section 1, what the general purpose of the

section is in relation to the previous act, just on a general basis.

Hon. S. Bond: The general purpose here is to clarify the certainty around the effective date of forfeiture. It is essential. When you apply for forfeiture, the court requires there to be certainty as to the effective date, so we're clarifying that.

The second piece I've already clarified: we are correcting, in essence, what is an unusual practice of registering cash. The personal property registry is about things and not, typically, cash.

N. Simons: Can the minister explain what the problems were that are experienced by the director under the regime as it exists currently?

Hon. S. Bond: I should take this opportunity to introduce the staff that are with me. They are part of an exceptional team that has created a very successful forfeiture program in British Columbia. We have Rob Kroeker with us, who is the executive director of the civil forfeiture office, and Jerad Larson, who is the program manager. It's been an exceptionally successful process.

I think the member opposite is asking us why we are bringing in administrative forfeiture. Generally speaking, the reason is that we have seen circumstances where items that have a smaller value have often been far too expensive, through the court process, for us to pursue.

[1435]

This would allow us to use an administrative process, and if there is something that has a value below $75,000, we would be able — obviously, after referral by the police in British Columbia — to contemplate an administrative forfeiture, thus not utilizing an expensive court process. What it says is that we want to make sure that if you are benefiting from crime in British Columbia, no matter how small the amount, we're going to make sure that it's not worth your while.

N. Simons: Does the minister contemplate how low the amount is that the ministry expects to go to in recovery of property?

[ Page 7022 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Well, the upper threshold of this administrative forfeiture would be $75,000, but really, the amounts are much smaller than that. It costs around $5,000 or so to initiate a court proceeding. We're typically talking about amounts that may be less than $5,000, sometimes several thousand dollars, often related to the drug trade, in particular — small-time criminals who are selling drugs — and often related to cash, in particular.

K. Corrigan: I was starting to ask a question about the operation of

section 1(a), and I had to leave the chamber for a minute. I'm wondering if I could go back to that.

The dealing of cash. I'm wondering what the change that has happened in this

section means in terms of when the order is effective with regard to cash. What does that mean in a practical sense?

Hon. S. Bond: What it means is exactly as I've articulated it. Typically, one doesn't register cash as part of the personal property registry. This actually creates certainty for both the administrative and the court process related to forfeiture.

We will no longer register cash on the registry, but there will still be a requirement through administrative forfeiture to advertise for 60 days for belongings and property, for example. This is not common practice and probably was an oversight. We are correcting that.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering, though: does it then change…? My reading of it was that it would change when the order was effective with regard to cash and that it would make that order effective at an earlier date.

Hon. S. Bond: There's a very minute difference between when it's registered and when the proceeding actually is initiated. It can often take place on the same day. Really, the issue is that registering cash on a personal property registry is costly. It is burdensome. It is not a typical practice. It is correct that the date would now be effective at the beginning of the proceeding, but rarely is there a lengthy difference between registering and the beginning of the proceeding.

K. Corrigan: Has the ministry…? Actually, first, how much cash has been affected to date?

[1440]

Hon. S. Bond: As of a couple of months ago — we can look up the exact date — the civil forfeiture office has seen forfeiture of about $17 million, and about $3 million of that was cash.

K. Corrigan: Well, it seems like it is a fairly significant amount of money. The thing that I'm wondering about is whether or not, if the date does change and it could be earlier, there has been any evaluation of how much difference that makes in terms of interest or that office having the money. Is there any impact there, and was this the motivation at all for changing the section?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, a very minute difference. In fact, the only difference would be if there was a day's delay between registering it or the proceeding starting. At the end of the day, the process that is undertaken doesn't change. People have the opportunity, and in the case of administrative forfeiture, which we're contemplating here, people still have the same period of time from whichever way the clock starts ticking. So it won't make a significant difference from that perspective.

The member is absolutely right — $3 million is a lot of money that could be put to use by criminals in British Columbia. We've said, "You're not going to do that; you're not going to benefit," and in fact, that's been one of the significant successes of the civil forfeiture process.

K. Corrigan: I'm asking the questions because I want to see if there is a significant amount of money that is interest that the government would accrue because of the change of date. It would be just as possible to have the effective date be the date that there was notice given, could it not be? I'm just wondering why it was decided to do that this way.

Hon. S. Bond: I think the general principle here is that the change of date does not change the practice in terms of the process of civil forfeiture. In essence, what it does is potentially eliminate what is typically even the same-day registration of that cash.

At the end of the day, there is no significant additional benefit to government, and, in fact, government doesn't benefit from forfeiture anyway. Who benefits is…. The civil forfeiture office pays for itself, and any other money that is accrued is used for victims of crime and is basically put back into community in a positive way instead of a negative one.

[1445]

K. Corrigan: What is the average or norm in terms of how long the time period is from when a proceeding is commenced to when notice is given?

Hon. S. Bond: There isn't an average. In fact, every case is different. But the principle is that the moment the process and the procedure begin, we begin to look for that person. If we have a known address, we start there, and that may take a couple of days to track them down. If we don't know where they are, we have to find addresses. But there is not an average. Every case is different. As soon as we begin the forfeiture process, we begin to look for the people.

[ Page 7023 ]

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if we know how much interest has been raised to date on money that has been held in forfeiture.

Hon. S. Bond: We're debating whether or not interest meant people actually come and try to get their money back or whether there's an interest rate and it's accruing. In both cases, it's rare. Interest doesn't accrue because, technically, the money is in a lockup somewhere while we're attempting to find the owners of it to see if they're interested in pursuing that. I'm told that any accrual of any interest is rare and minimal.

K. Corrigan: This is a process that I am not, I was going to say, entirely familiar with. In fact, I think I would go a little farther and say that I'm learning a lot. So then, what the minister is saying is that the money does not get deposited in a financial institution?

Hon. S. Bond: In most cases, that is correct. It is being held securely. There are occasions — and it is rare — where it may be paid into the court, and it may accrue some interest there. But generally speaking, someone is holding on to that asset securely as we try to track down anyone who may be attached to it.

K. Corrigan: I think, actually, I don't have any more questions on that section.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

K. Corrigan: This is the substantive part of this bill. I do have a large number of questions with regard to

part 3.1, which is called the "Administrative Forfeiture of Subject Property."

Starting with the

definitions, I am trying to understand the impact and the relationship between the two terms "known interest holder," which is somebody, I presume, that notice needs to be given to…. The difference between that and a "protected interest holder" and how the two of them relate — I wonder if I could get some explanation on that.

[1450]

Hon. S. Bond: Well, there is some crossover between the two, but a known interest holder is an individual who we believe actually has an interest. They are individuals to whom notice must be sent. A protected interest holder is generally an institutional lender that has a valid security agreement. They would also, obviously, be a known interest holder.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if I could get, perhaps, a bit of a list of the types of protected interest holder. I would assume that that would also include, for example, somebody who has registered ownership of a vehicle. What other types of things would be included in who is considered to be a protected interest holder?

Hon. S. Bond: As I mentioned, it is generally institutional lenders, so it would be banks, credit unions, potentially lease companies. It could also be a registered vehicle owner.

K. Corrigan: I'm also wondering if things…. I know that when we met with the director, one of the common types of property that end up being forfeited when there is criminal activity is things like jewels and jewelry and so on. Now, is there any way the jewelry could be a registered piece of property? Would that in any way, or ever, be included in that?

Hon. S. Bond: Definitely. If there is a serial number, for example, or if it can be adequately described, then certainly it would be constituted as such.

K. Corrigan: I'm trying to fit together the pieces of this bill, which is difficult to do, because you're superimposing an amendment act on top of the original bill. I've got to say that it is difficult going back and trying to see how the different pieces fit together.

In one

section often you have to refer to sometimes five or six sections in two different acts in order to understand what the workings of this bill are. It certainly has been a bit of a struggle trying to understand exactly how it all works together.

When somebody is a protected interest holder, that property, then, is protected from the operations of administrative forfeiture. Is that correct?

[1455]

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, they are protected, unless, of course, they were involved in any unlawful activity related to that property.

N. Simons: We have in front of us

an act that has maybe a six-line explanatory note for

section

Section 2 covers a new

section called

section 14, which covers a significant number of aspects of this bill. I'm thinking that that might be why there might be confusion. Usually there are explanatory notes when there are substantive changes, and there seem to be substantive changes, considering there are about eight or nine pages of this bill.

My question is…. Essentially what the director is seeking through this legislation is the ability to circumvent normal court processes, including service requirements and the commencement of a court hearing. Is that what known interest holders need to be aware of?

[ Page 7024 ]

Hon. S. Bond: I think that there is one substantive change. While there are many parts of the act that need to be amended, there is one substantive change. That change would be this: we will take the opportunity with small amounts — items that have lower value, below $75,000 — to engage in a process where we would make every effort for a 60-day period for people to claim their interest. The moment they stand up and say, "We dispute your claim to forfeiture," this process immediately reverts to a court-led process.

The fact of the matter is that there are many criminals in British Columbia benefiting from the proceeds of crime. This is one way to ensure that while they have their rights protected to step up and say, "We dispute your claim," in the event that they don't, there will be administrative forfeiture.

So there still is every opportunity for this case. Should there be a determination that it is worth the public interest to proceed, it would go through the court process, as forfeiture does today.

N. Simons: Does the minister recognize that by lowering the threshold, this will likely result in people with less money being pulled into the court process? Does the minister have any concerns that, in fact, legal aid will not cover someone's court costs should they be subject to this act?

Hon. S. Bond: The process won't change. Today there is a process in which if something is deemed in the public interest, there may well be pursuit of a forfeiture. In fact a judge very recently, I believe it was here in Victoria, decided that two individuals who continued to deal with issues like impaired driving and simply did not correct their behaviour…. Their vehicles were actually part of a process, and they were worth very, very little. That process was determined to be in the public interest.

There is no guarantee that once a person stands up and says, "I dispute your claim," that it will take a court process for them to get back what may be a very low-value item. That simply may just take place. It would be very much a decision about whether it is worth pursuing it through the courts, but that option is certainly available.

N. Simons: Who would be determining what is in the public interest? Is that an answerable body to the public? Is it a body with public oversight? Is there any ability to determine whether the public interest is actually the interest of a separate agency? How is that determined?

[1500]

Hon. S. Bond: The director is given the discretion as to whether or not to proceed with an action. I can say today that the process has been so successful…. We have been successful with every case that has proceeded with the forfeiture process today.

N. Simons: As the minister knows, the success of a process does not speak to whether or not it is a fair process. That, I think, is what is at issue here, and the responsibility of Her Majesty's Official Opposition is to ensure that legislation passed by this House actually meets the test of: is it in the public interest? That's why I asked the question about who is responsible for making decisions.

In most cases when you have a judge making that decision, it's a judge who is appointed under certain statutory authority and a judge that is chosen for that particular purpose. I have absolutely no reason to question any motivation of any party.

However, as I've said in previous discussions about this type of legislation, a less benevolent government could, in certain circumstances, use legislation as a tool as opposed to as a form of the protection of the public. And I'm concerned about known interest holders and protected interest holders. I'm concerned about the rights of criminals, because we protect the rights of criminals because we are concerned about the rule of law and equality under the law.

Can I just maybe suggest a potential circumstance where perhaps this law needs another look? That is, if somebody has…. Let's say, for example, someone's brother has an alcohol and drug problem, and they come to your house and you give them a couple of nights' sleep before they take off on the next part of their adventure. They leave for a couple of months, and you don't see them for a while. I know many families have been touched by people's addiction problems. So they disappear for a couple of months to northern B.C.

Little known to you, they've taken the jewelry from your great-grandmother out of your desk, and you haven't realized that. They go away. They spend two months on their — what do you call it? — tear, during the course of which they're arrested and their property is seized.

If that property is not theirs and you happen to be a sibling of theirs, what rights do you have as a sibling to recover, whether it's jewelry or family heirlooms, what that particular person might have absconded with? Where are your rights protected in this process?

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, we do care about people's rights, and that's been clear with the process that currently has court oversight. We've had over 600 cases referred. They are referred by the police in our province. We've had 250 of those cases which were concluded, and in fact they were all successful when that decision was made.

In the case that the member describes there would not have been proceeds of crime involved there, so this process would not apply.

[ Page 7025 ]

N. Simons: The integrity of legislation is measured not by how it's intended but by how it could be used. And I think that's really what we're trying to get at here, that the potential misapplication of law is where the rights of individuals are threatened. I believe there are some examples in here that leave, at least, questions at this point as to whether or not the rights that we and — the minister will acknowledge — our forefathers and mothers have fought so hard to protect…. One is the right to personal privacy and the protection of property.

In this particular case I don't think that you could make an argument that the rings or the jewelry that your brother absconded with to the north for three months would not be subject to seizure, because how will the law enforcement authorities know where that material comes from if, in fact, the person who's been accused is not forthcoming with those details? And will that money ever be able to be returned, or will it be liquidated and left solely as financial property, should someone decide to pursue a civil course of action later?

[1505]

Hon. S. Bond: Again, the circumstances the member is describing would be considered theft. The RCMP would deal with that case, and it would not engage the civil forfeiture office.

N. Simons: I'm sorry if I've confused parties here. However, I'm talking about someone absconding with property that happens to have been in your dresser drawer, perhaps, and you have no awareness of it being missing. Months go by, and your sibling is, as I mentioned, perhaps…. My siblings — I have five of them, and they shouldn't assume I'm talking about them.

They're up in the north, and they're stealing property and stealing jewelry and electronics, and the police come upon them and find all this jewelry and electronic material. How is the police officer, the referring agency, going to know that, in fact, this is the perpetrator's great-grandmother's stuff that he stole from his sister's house? Or brother's, in the case if it being me. That's the question I have.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, provided there was a police report filed that it was stolen, it would be entered in the PRIME database. One of the first things the RCMP would do before it ever got anywhere near the civil forfeiture office…. My staff have just described an event for me very similar to that. A person appeared with a bag full of jewelry. The RCMP meticulously went through that, matched it up to descriptions on PRIME of places where jewelry had been stolen and returned the property to those individuals.

You know, our first attempt is to return the property. As long as there's a police report, the police would do the work that they're expected to do. At the end of those processes, if there would be reason to refer it, the police would make that determination.

N. Simons: The particular situation I'm trying to describe does not involve a police report of the original theft of that jewelry. Nobody knows it's been stolen except the person who stole it. That person gets arrested 500 kilometres from the home where they stole it from. His little brother doesn't realize it's missing from the drawer. Immediately civil forfeiture, without having any ability to get that back….

I'm saying that no, there's no report about it. It's seized by the police, the Civil Forfeiture Act takes it away and liquidates it, and it becomes money. Immediately you have family property that is no longer recoverable. Is that the case?

Hon. S. Bond: The bottom line is that there will be every effort made to, first of all, publicly make people aware that the property has been basically received by the RCMP. There will be and are newspaper ads that talk about property that may potentially be considered for forfeiture. It is posted on the B.C. Bid website; I want to be clear that I get the right name.

Then if the sibling is suddenly involved with a forfeiture case, I'm assuming the family may want to make some connection. But at the end of the day, generally, describing the system that the member opposite has brought to the floor, it would not engage the civil forfeiture office. It would engage the police in British Columbia who will do their very best to try to find the people who belong to that property.

[1510]

N. Simons: The police arrest someone in downtown Dawson Creek in possession of three camcorders — if they still exist — five iPhones, three iPads, a BlackBerry tablet of some form and six rings. The police will arrest the person. They may have ample evidence to tie that perpetrator to most of the goods in his or her possession.

The process could, from that point, involve the director of civil forfeiture, the liquidation of those assets and the loss of those goods from family or friends, who I imagine do not on a regular basis go to B.C. Bid to see if their stolen property is there for sale because one would expect that the government would retain goods that have been taken or forfeited from criminals in order to ensure that the rights of the proper owner are protected.

Where is the protection for the proper owner of goods who doesn't know that his goods have been stolen?

Hon. S. Bond: The bottom line is that if you don't know if something is missing or stolen, it's very difficult for the police to help you. It certainly isn't going to end

[ Page 7026 ]

up on the desk of the civil forfeiture office. The bottom line is that if there are stolen goods, the police in British Columbia first would check for police reports. That's why we have the PRIME database.

So if you call in and say, "My grandma's jewellery is missing," and then your grandma's jewellery shows up, the beauty of that is the police can match it up and you can get it back. In many cases property that is not returned, if it is not tied to criminal behaviour such as drug dealers or gangs in organized crime in British Columbia, it doesn't end up on our desk. It could actually end up in a police auction. They auction bicycles all the time and a number of other things.

The key to civil forfeiture and administrative forfeiture is that it is related to an unlawful act. The biggest group of offenders that we have are typically drug dealers. We catch them with drugs, and we catch them with cash. What we're saying is: "You're not going to get that cash back to behave badly in British Columbia." It's been an extraordinary success. In fact, models across the country are now designed similarly to British Columbia's.

All we're asking for in

section 2 is the ability to create administrative forfeiture, which allows us to look at smaller amounts of money after due process. In other words, we still go look for the person who is known to have an interest in that property. The moment they step up, they get the opportunity to go through the court process.

N. Simons: I understood the minister to say earlier that this would avoid the court process. This is an administrative tool designed either to avoid court or to avoid the service requirements of court. Is it one or the other? Would the minister be able to clarify?

Hon. S. Bond: The discussion has been about the protection of rights. So my point is this. If a person has an interest in something that we are contemplating for administrative forfeiture, if they step up and say, "We dispute your claim," we then have the opportunity to consider whether it goes through the court process. It may not at that point because the value is so low that if they claim ownership and dispute administrative forfeiture, there may or may not be a court process depending on…. But the point is that that option is still available to them. They still get to step up and say: "That's my property." That's the protection of individual rights.

In fact, we have a 60-day period, and there's an additional ten days after that. So they have 70 days to actually step up and say: "That's mine." I think that is what is considered a reasonable test.

N. Simons: Thank you for that clarification from the minister. I would just suggest that if they know their property has been stolen, they have recourse, and that's fair.

[1515]

The question that wasn't answered earlier was the person who's arrested and not even charged. This is the situation, for those that understand. A person can have property removed from them without being convicted of a criminal offence. The balance of probabilities is the test on whether or not to approve this forfeiture. In criminal cases you need a significantly higher threshold of proof, and it's the erosion of this threshold that I think the public needs to be concerned about.

As we all know, civil liberties don't disappear overnight. They are gradually eroded. I do consider that the elimination of due process in the removal of personal property is a problem.

It's not that I want to take the side of the criminals. I think that we need to reflect on the fact that there have been people who have been improperly accused. There are people who have been unfairly accused. It is those people who, at the same time as this minister talks about criminals, are going to be subject to having their property taken away from them. I think that is something that….

As much as the rule of law may be applied in good ways, we have to remember, that the blade of the sword is sharp on both sides. If we don't apply it properly, there is collateral damage that is obviously going to ensue. I think that the lack of recognition of this fact in the answers to my questions seems to belie what may be a simple notion of what a bad guy is. I think we need to recognize that by lowering the threshold, we're also talking about petty criminals.

The issue that I think we need to perhaps explore more is: is this a tool designed for gangs, or is it a tool designed for petty criminals? Is it going to be a tool now, because of the threshold reduction, that's going to be applied to people who are living in poverty?

As we know, there's a high incidence of criminal offences among people of certain socioeconomic groups. I'm talking about petty crime. I'm talking about people who are living hand to mouth. That, unfortunately, would be people considered by the minister as drug dealers.

I think we need to make sure that we understand that the target of this legislation may, in fact, be those rich criminals who drive Hummers, but we have a situation where it may now apply to people who cannot even afford legal aid to protect their rights. Is that the case?

Hon. S. Bond: There is a goal in forfeiture that is looking at criminal behaviour in British Columbia. We're talking about telemarketers that scam people in our province. We are talking about organized crime.

[ Page 7027 ]

We are talking about gangs in this province. We are looking at a reasonable approach to protecting people's rights.

I should correct the record: it is 67 days, not 70. I was enthusiastic in my ten days' additional. It is actually 60 plus seven. There are 67 days for a person who is involved with this piece of property to actually step up and say: "That's mine." We believe that's a reasonable test.

In addition to that, we must prove that the person using the property is benefiting from the proceeds of crime. Secondly, the test for facilitation in the use of a crime also means they have to benefit from that use.

There is a very significant test before any sort of forfeiture is considered. In this case this is about administrative forfeiture for lesser amounts of money — typically related to drug dealers who are selling drugs in our communities, often having small amounts of cash. We're going to give them the opportunity to prove….

They get to step up and actually have a known interest. But if they don't, we're going to make sure they don't benefit from the proceeds of crime in British Columbia. We're going to protect rights, but we're also going to protect British Columbians.

[1520]

C. Trevena: I wondered if the minister could just let this side of the House know which other jurisdictions go to this level for civil forfeiture, down to $75,000 and below. What other jurisdictions have a similar level of civil forfeiture?

Hon. S. Bond: We are the first to look at administrative forfeiture. However, just last week we announced that seven provinces, seven jurisdictions, are actually working together on the concept of civil forfeitures so that we can work cross-border, and we're pleased to see that kind collaboration taking place.

But the threshold is the same in every jurisdiction. The threshold actually starts at a dollar. The difference here is that we are looking at administrative forfeiture, which allows us to deal more cost-effectively and efficiently with smaller amounts of money, which today are not being processed because it is a costly court process.

C. Trevena: If we are the first jurisdiction to look at using this administrative process, what sorts of guidelines and protections are being established under this? What sort of oversight is there going to be to make sure it is fair?

Hon. S. Bond: The process we're putting in place includes the individual. If they are a known interest, they would be served notice personally that administrative forfeiture is being considered. It will be advertised publicly. There is a 60-day period, plus an additional seven days, and at any point during that process if they step up and say, "That belongs to me," the process that is in place today — which involves the courts, potentially — kicks in.

C. Trevena: I understand that from the minister's response to previous questions, but what I wanted was the oversight of the system itself, not just the onus on the individual to come forward, which I think is what the minister is saying — that it's up to the individual to come forward and say either "Yes, this is mine" or "This isn't mine."

Hon. S. Bond: Any decision made by the director is subject to judicial oversight, and those decisions could be challenged.

N. Simons: Just to clarify, once someone steps forward and says, "This property should not be seized," is the onus then on that person to prove that they have not committed a criminal offence?

Hon. S. Bond: The case would go back through the regular process, and it's up to the director to prove that it was a proceed or a part of the committal of a crime.

K. Corrigan: I'm going to go back to the

definitions in

section 14.01. Public body is described as meaning any of the following: "(

a) an entity with which the director has an information-sharing agreement under

section 22 (4)." That's subsection (a).

[1525]

I'm wondering if the minister could please describe what kinds of bodies are included in both subsection (

a) and subsection (b).

Hon. S. Bond: Police agencies, the B.C. Securities Commission, gaming enforcement, the Ministry of Environment — I think those are pretty indicative of what the definition describes.

The Chair: Members, given that

section 2 extends for some seven pages, I would propose we vote on them by subsection.

Section 2,

section 14.01 approved.

section 2,

section 14.02.

K. Corrigan: With regard to

section 14.02(1). It says: "This Part applies if (

a) the director has reason to believe that (

i) the whole or a portion of an interest in property, other than real property, is proceeds of unlawful activity…." What are the tests, and under what circumstances would the director come to believe that they are proceeds? I'm just wondering what the test is and what the process is there, in making that determination.

[ Page 7028 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Police agencies would refer a case to the civil forfeiture office. Obviously there would need to be direct evidence provided by the police agency as they refer that case to the civil forfeiture office.

K. Corrigan: So would the director rely, then, on the information that was provided by the police — rely on that? Or would the director be required to add some more thought or ask some questions? I'm trying to get a sense of what the process is and the safeguards, considering the questions my colleague has been asking in the previous….

Hon. S. Bond: The police provide the referral with all of the information attached to it. Very often there are lots of documents, including things like banking documents. The director's job is to review that before a final decision to proceed is made. So yes, the director has a responsibility to use due diligence and does review the information that's provided by a policing agency.

K. Corrigan: But just to be clear, when we say that they are proceeds of unlawful activity, this doesn't require that somebody has been convicted of or even charged with a criminal offence.

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct because this is a civil forfeiture process which has been in place in our province. But this is a civil forfeiture process. We still have to look at the balance of probabilities and be able to prove that there has been a connection with the proceeds of crime.

[1530]

K. Corrigan: It could also be property that was seized where the unlawful activity would not, if proven, be a criminal offence. Could it be other types of offences? Does it have to be a criminal offence?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, it can be a criminal offence, but it also could be a provincial offence. A really good example of that is securities regulations. It cannot be a bylaw, but it can be a provincial and certainly a criminal matter.

K. Corrigan: Could it be an offence under the Motor Vehicle Act?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, it can. It could be reckless driving, for example, or street racing.

K. Corrigan: Not speeding tickets, I take it?

Hon. S. Bond: No.

K. Corrigan: So it's either a property which is proceeds of unlawful activity or is the instrument of unlawful activity.

I'm wondering if the minister could let us know what types of property have typically been forfeited in the past and what the breakdown is of types of property.

Hon. S. Bond: We don't have a breakdown, obviously, of all of the items. You can imagine they would be fairly varied, but the typical and most frequent are vehicles, interest in houses and cash.

N. Simons: Earlier the question was asked as to whether or not the Motor Vehicle Act would be one of the pieces of legislation which could be the umbrella for what would be considered unlawful activity. Is there a

schedule of acts or pieces of legislation under which civil forfeiture could apply?

Hon. S. Bond: No.

N. Simons: Why not?

Hon. S. Bond: The definition is that it's either used in a criminal activity or the proceeds of crime.

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to clarify. My understanding was that the minister just said that it was the proceeds of criminal activity. My understanding is that it is the proceeds of unlawful activity.

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

[1535]

K. Corrigan: Thank you, because I think that's why this line of questioning is being pursued. The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast is trying to get an understanding of what types of legislation and what types of offences would be covered by this particular provision of civil forfeiture. Could the minister give us an idea of the various offences against which would qualify?

Hon. S. Bond: We've done that. In fact, it could be federal — which is criminal law, criminal activities. It could be provincial — for example, the Motor Vehicle Act or securities regulations.

N. Simons: Would they be considered under the Wildlife Act or federal acts such as that?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, it could well be the Wildlife Act. Again, if it's an unlawful activity that leads to profit…. We've never had one under the Wildlife Act.

N. Simons: So to clarify, it must lead to profit, be the result of profit or result in profit.

Hon. S. Bond: There are two criteria. One is the profit from crime or property used for the offence.

[ Page 7029 ]

N. Simons: To get to

section 14.02(1)(d), the application of this act: "This Part applies if…(

d) the director has no reason to believe that there are any protected interest holders in relation to that property."

Referring back to my questions on definition, that is exactly the situation that I would contemplate as potentially problematic, in that the director has no reason to believe that there are any protected interest holders in relation to that property. What does the director do to ensure that that is in fact the case, besides publication, notification about the act?

Hon. S. Bond: We've walked through this with the member. The RCMP would begin by trying to match the property. The director would make every reasonable effort to publish, to seek out and to make the information public.

We have a number of processes. At the end of the day, the director actually, with the organization, works very hard to determine whether there is an interest holder. But at the end of the day, there may well be circumstances that if a person doesn't report something missing, and we have made every best effort to try to seek out someone of known interest…. There is a due process in order to try to do that very thing that the member asks.

N. Simons: How many staff are available to do that due diligence?

[1540]

Hon. S. Bond: There would be a case lead in the civil forfeiture office, backed up by a number of support staff and a legal team that would assist them.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask…. I recall that the minister said that this is a civil proceeding. Therefore, it would apply in a case where there weren't criminal proceedings — that the charges had been dropped or they couldn't make the charges or felt that they wouldn't be able to get a conviction or perhaps felt this was a more convenient way to go.

Is it possible that the Civil Forfeiture Act and the amendment act creating administrative forfeiture could apply and be used even when there is a criminal conviction?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes.

K. Corrigan: Has that happened in the past?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, a very public one. It related to drug trafficking and a Hummer.

K. Corrigan: I think one of the concerns that I have had about this act and, certainly, this provision is the possibility that police departments working with the director would come to an understanding, perhaps, that it might be difficult to prosecute somebody criminally and that they would be tempted to start using this act as a different way to, in a way, get around the requirements of the Criminal Code, which requires that you have to prove an offence beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to the burden of proof under the Civil Forfeiture Act and the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, where it is on the balance of probabilities.

I'm just concerned about what protections there are in place in order to avoid that kind of discussion happening.

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the question, and I know that the member opposite is attempting not to imply anything. This is about making sure that there is an appropriate process in British Columbia for looking at the proceeds of crime. Of course, the police and the civil forfeiture office are doing their jobs appropriately. There are policies in place which require them to meet all standards related to charge approval.

For example, a case may end up at the civil forfeiture office if the police cannot meet those charge approval standards or if the Crown says no. But there are policies in place which preclude the kind of behaviour that the member opposite is suggesting. I know it's even hard for the director to hear that kind of suggestion.

[1545]

This isn't about circumventing rights or the court process. It's about making sure that if someone in British Columbia is benefiting from the proceeds of crime, there is a process in place which says: "You're not going to take advantage of that in B.C."

K. Corrigan: I think my colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast earlier alluded to the fact that when we are considering a piece of legislation like this, we should not only consider what the potential is when we have entirely ethical and professional people in place, which we do. I am certainly not suggesting that the director of forfeiture or the police officers in this province would do anything inappropriate. That is certainly not my suggestion.

I'm merely looking at what the potential pitfalls are if there were pressures somewhere or it occurred to somebody that this might be another way to go. So I think it's always appropriate, and that is certainly not to in any way suggest lack of professionalism by anybody in government.

You know, there always are possibilities where individuals who work in any walk of life might be either pressured or where there's potential for inappropriateness. However, I'm not even suggesting that it necessarily is inappropriate. I was just trying to get an understanding of the workings of the act itself, because I can't imagine that it wouldn't occur to a police officer or to a

[ Page 7030 ]

police department that if they can't be successful in the criminal law, there is another avenue.

I understand that the minister even said in second reading — I don't have a quote of it — that this is essentially another way to attack crime. So it's in everybody's mind that this is another way to attack crime, and I would imagine that would be true of the police officers as well.

Maybe I'll ask the question in a different way. The minister talked about the protections that are in place. I wonder if the minister could explain what the process is in terms of how the property would flow from the police to the office. Is all the work that has to do with the criminal process completed and finalized and out of the way before there is, then, a referral to the director?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, my second reading comments were very clear. This is about cracking down on crime in British Columbia. It's about ensuring that we have a fair and reasonable process in place. I can assure you that the civil forfeiture office, the director and the police agencies in British Columbia do not use this process to circumvent other ones.

While the member opposite suggests she was not making that comment, in fact, that was exactly the question that was asked. That is not the case with civil forfeiture. In fact, a demonstration of that success would be 250 successful cases through the court process and not one that was not successful. There is due diligence. It is an appropriate process. Of course we're attacking crime in British Columbia within a proper process.

In relation to the question just asked: yes, the proceedings would be complete as it's related to property. That doesn't mean that…. The process related to the criminal charges may still be ongoing, but certainly, it would have to be complete as it relates to the property specifically.

N. Simons: I really hope that we don't see resentment on the part of the minister in having to answer these questions. These are the tests that the people of the province deserve answers to. The minister, if she implies, when we suggest that there are problems with legislation, that she then defends the people sitting next to her…. I think that's just not on.

I think the minister knows very well that when we consider, when we have criticisms about the structure of other agencies, the Liberals are the fastest to jump to: "Why do you have trouble with social workers?" or "Why do you criticize police officers?" That's not the point.

[1550]

We've got legislation in here. We're legislators. We're supposed to do due diligence on legislation. To pretend or to insinuate that we're somehow insulting staff, I think, is pretty unfair, and I think it should be immediately stopped.

I think these questions are fair. If the minister doesn't think the questions are fair, she should say so. If she thinks we're implying that we're denigrating the positions of people in her ministry, she should say so.

The Chair: Member….

N. Simons: We're asking questions because our job is to protect the interest of the public. If it's not our responsibility to be careful about this legislation, then we're not doing our jobs. I just take offence to that insinuation. I think these questions are fair.

Has civil forfeiture ever used the Safety Standards Amendment Act as a way of forfeiting property?

Hon. S. Bond: No.

N. Simons: I think it's incumbent on the minister to tell the people of this province what laws could be subject to civil forfeiture and not just leave it up to people to guess. I think that should probably be in the legislation as well, as similar situations exist in other areas.

We were talking about the ability for public servants to enter property, to investigate possible theft of electricity without conviction, without even an allegation being filed officially. The right of the court or the right of the civil forfeiture office — with the police assistance, obviously — would exist to forfeit property. Does the minister believe that this is the law that can be fairly applied, equally applied to all citizens?

Hon. S. Bond: The law in British Columbia, whether it's the Civil Forfeiture Act or any other act, applies to every British Columbian. Of course that's the case. So yes, I would expect that it is applied equally to all British Columbians.

N. Simons: Clearly, it has been expressed to this House that police forces, when they do not have enough evidence — and do not believe that the Crown will accept their evidence, the information they lay before the Crown, to convict — and all likelihood of conviction, have a backup plan. Can they go to their backup plan of civil forfeiture before presenting information to Crown?

Hon. S. Bond: This is not a backup plan for police agencies in British Columbia. It is a civil forfeiture. The case can proceed before it goes to Crown, after it goes to Crown. There are a number of ways for police agencies to make that determination. But let's be perfectly clear: there is a burden of proof. The member just spent five minutes articulating the fact that I should clarify when the member opposite makes points.

The point is, the member opposite is suggesting that the RCMP uses civil forfeiture as a backup plan with-

[ Page 7031 ]

out any sense of evidence or process. That is inaccurate. There is a proper process in place, which is adhered to by both the police agencies of British Columbia and the director of civil forfeiture.

[1555]

There is a burden of proof. You have to have evidence that it was linked to the proceeds of crime or was actually being used in a crime and of benefiting from the proceeds of crime. There is a very significant process. There is policy that prohibits police agencies and the civil forfeiture director from simply using this as plan B.

N. Simons: Can the police contemplate using it in a situation where a particular crime is a scourge of a particular neighbourhood, for example?

Hon. S. Bond: If Crown does not charge, there is an opportunity for the police, with the belief and the…. The burden of proof is whether it is an instrument to criminal behaviour and there is benefit to that criminal activity. Yes, the police can do that.

N. Simons: The balance is not whether or not it's an instrument. It's whether or not it's reasonable to assume it's an instrument. I think there's a significant difference.

I think the enumeration of criminal offences or of offences that could be targeted under this act…. I mean, you look at, for example, Bountiful. Polygamy is illegal. Maybe the Solicitor General is looking at other ways of dealing with larger societal issues.

Is it true that only once the information is returned from the Crown to the police that they proceed with civil forfeiture, as the minister just implied?

Hon. S. Bond: No, I answered that question. It can be before or after. It is a civil process.

N. Simons: My direct question was whether or not the police could perhaps use this as a tool to address particular crime problems in particular neighbourhoods.

Hon. S. Bond: Yes. If the house is being used as an instrument for committing crime, yes, they can.

N. Simons: So in fact there's a lot of discretion on the part of the police forces in how they apply this particular act.

Hon. S. Bond: There is a lot of process in place, and there's a lot of professionalism. As I pointed out to the member opposite, there are 250 cases that have been pursued by this director of civil forfeiture through the court system. Every single one of them has been successful.

N. Simons: Sometimes the success of legislation speaks to its autocratic nature and not to its precision. I think there's a significant separation of those two possibilities. I'm not suggesting one or the other, but that doesn't tell us anything. You've had 250 successful prosecutions. It means that…. How many were attempted and failed? Maybe none. That's fine too. It doesn't say anything about whether the legislation is relevant.

My question is: is it possible that municipalities are going to at some point request that funding from this particular source of revenue to the government…? Contrary to what the minister said earlier, that the government doesn't benefit, is it possible that in fact municipalities are going to be hoping for some revenue from this particular source of revenue for the government?

[1600]

Hon. S. Bond: The money does not accrue to the government. What happens is that the first call on any of the $17 million is to operate the civil forfeiture office. The director has the independent decision-making ability to deal with grants. Of course communities ask for grants. In fact, we have a number of programs that are being supported.

One of the reasons we believe we'd like to contemplate administrative forfeiture for those smaller amounts of money is, first of all, to make sure that petty drug dealers don't keep the cash they have on them when they're busy driving drugs to houses in communities. That would be one good reason.

Secondly, the other reason we would like to see administrative forfeiture is that any additional moneys actually would give us the opportunity to provide additional supports for crime prevention in communities. Those grants have begun and will continue under this process.

K. Corrigan: I'm a little confused, because the minister took a fair amount of exception when I suggested that this was another way to fight crime — that there's a possibility that the police or the Crown prosecutor, particularly if they didn't think that they would be able to make a conviction in court, would then see this as another opportunity to fight crime. The minister took some exception to the suggestion that there would be any kind of, I think, back and forth between the director and the police departments or the Crown counsel.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Yet the minister has now said that this would be perfectly appropriate to try to address a scourge in a neighbourhood or some other criminal activity that they wanted to curb. How is it possible that using this as an instrument to curb criminal activity, particular activity in a neighbourhood…? How would the direc-

[ Page 7032 ]

tor even know about that if there wasn't discussion back and forth with police officers and some understanding of what those problems were?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, it would work something like this. If the police agency got 500 calls about a house they were concerned about, but Crown was not able to proceed with charges, of course the RCMP or the police agency — I'm sorry, not necessarily the RCMP — would look at that case with 500 calls. They would contact the civil forfeiture office and then our office.

The civil forfeiture office would investigate whether or not there was enough evidence to prove that in fact this was related to the proceeds of crime or that the house was an instrument in terms of committing an offence. So yes, that is the process that would be used.

K. Corrigan: So what the minister is saying is that this is essentially like a backup plan.

Hon. S. Bond: What I'm saying is what I've said for the last few minutes. There is a process in place where there are policies that preclude there being a conversation about this being a backup plan in any other way — that when there are 500 calls about a house that the police agency wants to deal with and there is a case to be made for the proceeds of crime or an instrument in the use of committing a crime, there is a process in place.

I'm happy to describe it however the member opposite would like, other than implying that it's a process that simply says: "Hey, guys, we can't get him this way; let's get him another way." There are processes; there are policies; there is a burden of proof.

At the end of the day, the example that we could provide is that 600 cases or more have been referred. Only 250 have actually been pursued by the civil forfeiture office.

[1605]

K. Corrigan: The minister seems, on one hand, to say that's exactly what's happening and, on the other hand, to resent that there's a suggestion that that's what is happening.

You say there are 500 break-ins. The police obviously feel that they can't get a conviction or don't have the ability to get a conviction, and then they refer it to the civil forfeiture office. The minister doesn't seem to be consistent in her comments.

I also wanted to ask about the threshold. Why was the threshold of $75,000 chosen as the limit for civil forfeiture by way of administration?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the threshold was determined…. As we look at what cases will actually be captured, most of them will be far less significant than that. Typically we're talking about cases that could be in the $1,000 range, $3,000 or $4,000, where it is not worth pursuing from a court procedure process because of the costliness and the time it takes up, frankly, in courts.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate that the minister has said that many of the cases would be far less than that, but I'm wondering what the thinking was about why that particular threshold was chosen.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the major concern is much smaller amounts, but rather than try to attempt to, in several years, worry about the cap that is being considered, there is actually room for a relevant cap. In essence there would be room for growth, if necessary. But the bottom line is that we're mostly concerned about those very small amounts that are, as I've said, in the $2,000 and $3,000 range.

K. Corrigan: If the minister doesn't have concerns about any civil liberties issues and so on, why put a cap on it at all?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I think the member opposite can imagine that if the value of the property is over $75,000, we see a far higher rate of people contesting the forfeiture. We need to point out that one-third of the cases that come are uncontested, and the vast majority of all of those would be in this smaller value category.

K. Corrigan: But if there was a possibility that a $200,000 item would not be contested and the director would not have had to go through the court process, wouldn't that represent a considerable savings in costs?

[1610]

Hon. S. Bond: We've not had a case uncontested when the amount of money is that significant.

C. Trevena: I'd just like to go on to something that my colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake was canvassing a few minutes before she started talking about the limits, and that is this sort of close boundary between the use of civil law for criminal activity and how the two are clearly being used very closely.

I wondered if the minister could tell the House what consultations took place with civil liberties associations — the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and other organizations. I can see that this could cause some concern, particularly when you're talking about lower limits and, as one of my colleagues — I think, from Powell River–Sunshine Coast — described, some people who may be just caught in this because they are the petty criminals who are really stuck in the system.

Hon. S. Bond: I think maybe to just provide some context, while many of the questions here are about the

[ Page 7033 ]

general principle of civil forfeiture, the Civil Forfeiture Act was actually passed in the Legislature by both sides of the House. So what we're talking about today is an amendment that actually looks at administrative forfeiture.

I know that several of the members opposite had similar questions on the general bill, so I understand and appreciate them having the opportunity to answer those questions.

The Civil Liberties Association was consulted on the original act in terms of civil forfeiture in general and has not been specifically consulted on the administrative forfeiture piece.

C. Trevena: I understand the fact that we are in some ways going over old ground, but because it is now into an administrative process rather than a court process, I think it's worth re-examining some of these questions. As the minister has said, it makes it easier, makes it more cost-efficient, and therefore, I'm sure it's going to be used very thoroughly.

I wonder if the minister could explain why there hasn't been any further consultation for this amendment.

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, the explanation from the staff is that this doesn't change civil forfeiture. What it does is, in essence, deal with those cases which are currently uncontested. So there isn't a significant shift from the act that was passed in the Legislature.

It does deal with issues that were uncontested and looks for a way to try to provide a very clear message and signal to criminals in British Columbia that even if it's $2,000 or $3,000, that's not going to be tolerated in terms of the benefits of the proceeds of crime.

I appreciate the member opposite's questions. I think the general principle behind civil forfeiture hasn't changed, and it is really dealing with the vast majority of cases that are currently uncontested.

K. Corrigan: I think probably the reason that my colleague raised that issue, though, is that under the Civil Forfeiture Act, when one does have a case go before court, built into it are specific provisions that the judge will consider, including judicial fairness and other matters. There have been decisions, I think, on the basis of fairness and natural justice that the courts have rejected in some cases.

While I absolutely am sure that the director will also take into account those processes, they are not spelled out, and it's not in public. I think that's why the questions are being asked.

[1615]

Does the director then, in considering the application of this amended process, this administrative process, use the same tests and principles as a judge would use?

Hon. S. Bond: If you don't contest it today and if you didn't contest it yesterday and if you don't contest it after this has passed, nothing changes. All that changes is the ability of the Civil Forfeiture Act and the director to actually contemplate utilizing those funds for much better purposes in British Columbia. Nothing changes in that way.

To the member opposite's comment that this happens and it's not in public, that's not accurate. The information will be published in newspapers. We will make every effort to…. If there is a known interest, that process will continue as well. So it is public. In fact, it will be in newspapers, and the same process for attempting to contact a person with known interests will continue.

K. Corrigan: If somebody doesn't contest it, but there are circumstances that the director is aware of that may point to inequities or some injustice being done, how would the director deal with that?

Hon. S. Bond: This process is so interesting. The best person to answer that question is actually the director, who is impeccable at what he does. He wouldn't proceed with a case if he believed there were inequities.

A really good example that Jerad provided me with is if someone's car is at risk of being forfeited, and someone comes and says: "Hey, just a minute. My son borrowed the car. That's my car." The director has the discretion to say: "We understand that." So there is enough room for that type of discretion, and certainly, the director would not ever proceed without contemplating whether there are inequities and attempt to address those.

K. Corrigan: Yes, and I appreciate that type of situation. In a briefing with the director — which was very, very helpful, and I did appreciate — one of the ones that I had mentioned…. Maybe I mentioned it when we were dealing with the bill earlier, in second reading.

I think of the relationship between a husband and wife. Say the husband was the person who had committed a criminal activity, or there was a belief under the act that the husband had committed a criminal activity, and there was information that came to the director about the relationship. You know, maybe it was a domestic violence situation, those kinds of situations where the woman would probably not come forward and contest. Would the director get that kind of information from the police in a civil forfeiture case?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, they normally would. The determination would be made that it would not be in the public interest to proceed.

[ Page 7034 ]

K. Corrigan: I appreciate that, and I appreciate the high standards that we have in our public service. But that is why I think we're asking these questions.

[1620]

It does put the director in a role of making decisions — which are important, critical decisions — based on the interests of justice and fairness. It's an important position. While the information may be published after the fact in a Gazette , or notice would certainly go out, I think we need to ask questions about that when it's not in a court of law, which is a public process. Not to impugn in any way the director, but these are important processes that have a real impact on people's lives.

I do have more questions on this section. What is the test when the director…? Under

section 14.02(1)(d), the director has to believe, in order for this part to apply, that there is no reason to…. "The director has no reason to believe that there are any protected interest holders in relation to that property." I wonder if it could be explained what the test is there.

Hon. S. Bond: A similar list to other questions. The police will have investigated. They will have, obviously, checked PRIME to see if there have been any police records or complaints filed. There would be a check against the property registry, and the director would also have published, indicating that information about the property. So there is a process of due process. Once the director had gone throughout that, then they would have reason to believe that they could proceed.

K. Corrigan: I have seen several references in the original act and in the amendment act to the property registry. I'm wondering if the minister can explain what the property registry is and how it operates.

Hon. S. Bond: It's a process where you register your interest in any personal property other than land. So if it's a car or if it's a boat or if it's jewelry, you then have the ability to register that property.

K. Corrigan: A car, for example, would already…. You don't need to register your car in the property registry in order to be caught up in the legislation.

[1625]

Hon. S. Bond: It's a secured interest in the property. So for example, if it's a bank loan, it would be registered, obviously, because it gives the bank priority if you default on the loan. So yes, a car would certainly be on there if you have a bank loan, for example.

K. Corrigan: If you didn't have a bank loan, but you had a car and were the registered owner of the car, does that not qualify as a protected interest holder?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, that is the case.

K. Corrigan: So the property registry, then, is primarily related to financial institutions. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: Primarily banking institutions, but anyone who provides a loan could register it.

K. Corrigan: Subsection (2) says that this part does not apply to property described in subsection (1), which we just talked about, if the director "has reason to believe that the limitation period for commencing proceedings under

section 3 [application for forfeiture order] in relation to the property has expired…."

So is that a two-year date — I think it's two years — from the time that the notice was given? I'll just get a clarification on that.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, it's ten years, and it's from the date of the unlawful activity.

K. Corrigan: I had forgotten that. I did see the ten years. I think there's a reference to two years in another section, in another part of the act.

I'm wondering if the minister could explain why it was decided to have such a lengthy period. People's lives could have changed. You know, if the point is to change criminal behaviour or address crime, a lot of things can happen in ten years, and I'm wondering why ten years was chosen.

Hon. S. Bond: We are redebating the original act. That was a decision made in the original act. We're not changing anything in this amendment.

K. Corrigan: To get back to my earlier point, this is now extending the Civil Forfeiture Act to include an administrative process which does not go before the courts. I think in every respect we want to be clear that the provisions are fair. That is why I am asking questions as they apply to the amendment act, which deals with administrative forfeiture.

Hon. S. Bond: Again, as extensively discussed when the original act was passed, there is a consideration for the fact that police investigations often don't conclude within a two-year period. So at the time and certainly after much consideration, ten years was considered to be a reasonable amount of time.

K. Corrigan: Well, you know, I wasn't here in 2005 when the act was passed. So the minister will have to forgive me for asking questions, because unfortunately, I haven't read all the Hansard debates for that time period. So thank you very much for that answer.

Subsection (4)….

[1630]

[ Page 7035 ]

The Chair: Member, shall we pass 14.02?

K. Corrigan: No, I'm still asking a question. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm asking about subsection 14.02(4). Actually, I want to ask about subsection (3). This is a tough

section to understand what the workings were. I'm wondering if the minister could explain what subsection (3) intends to do.

Hon. S. Bond: It simply allows the police agency to hold the property for a 60-day period while the administrative process of notice takes place.

K. Corrigan: I knew that that

section made sense somehow. It was one of those sections where there is the section. It refers to subsection (2), and then it refers to subsection 14.08, and then it refers to

section 3, and then it refers to

section 14.05, and then it refers to

section 14.05(a). I was a little confused by exactly what it meant, although I did read it several times. Thank you. I appreciate that explanation.

Subsection (4) is the final subsection in this section. It says that it "does not apply in relation to property if the property is the subject of an order of a court establishing a right of possession in that property with a person other than the public body or authorizing a person other than the public body to have or take possession of that property." I'm wondering if the minister could describe a situation where this might apply and/or give me examples.

Hon. S. Bond: There are provisions in the Criminal Code for the court to order something to be given back, and obviously if that takes place, you can't do an administrative forfeiture.

K. Corrigan: Would that be the only type of situation, or is that an example?

Hon. S. Bond: It's an example. It could happen with a Supreme Court or civil court action as well.

Section 2,

section 14.02 approved.

section 2,

section 14.03.

K. Corrigan: This is the

section whereby property that is the proceeds of crime or an instrument of crime is actually forfeited to government under administrative forfeiture — i.e., that it's done administratively as opposed to in the courts. It says: "Subject to sections 14.04 to 14.10, subject property is forfeited to the government for disposal by the director without having to commence proceedings under

section 3."

[1635]

I could ask this question now or under a later section, but I think I will ask it now. When we were in second reading, I asked about the case of the Hummer that ended up being given to Abbotsford police department for two years. I think I pointed out at the time that it was interesting that there were three or four Liberal MLAs that represent Abbotsford.

I asked the question, and I guess I'll ask it again, about what the process is whereby a police department could be given a Hummer that was forfeited to government, because I assume that it could, given if it was less than $75,000, be forfeited under the administrative provisions.

Hon. S. Bond: I do want to very quickly review the fact that the $17 million that has resulted through the work of the civil forfeiture office does not accrue to government. There is a delegated responsibility to the director. For those funds, the management and decision-making is done by the director.

The first call on those funds is to pay for the office itself, so there are no costs accrued to government. There is no benefit accrued to government. In fact, the decision related to the Hummer was actually made by the director.

For the benefit of the member opposite, the Abbotsford police department have an exceptional program, an anti-gang program. In fact, long before the Hummer was actually engaged, the Abbotsford police department came and said: "If ever there is an opportunity to begin a unique program like this, we would like to be on your list."

Government doesn't make those decisions. The director made them, and we can see the benefits of the work that's been done by the Abbotsford police department.

K. Corrigan: I'm sure the Hummer has been a wonderful instrument in the fight against crime in Abbotsford. I've seen the pictures, and it's all wrapped with signs that say "Don't join gangs," and things like that. But I also recall that in the stories that came out when the Hummer was handed over to Abbotsford, there were pictures of one of the ministers.

Is what the minister is saying is that government ministers did not know ahead of time that this was happening, that it was decided individually without the knowledge of any ministers and no discussion with any ministers?

Hon. S. Bond: These are the unfortunate parts of debate. I clearly just said to the member opposite that the decisions made about disposition of those assets are made by the director of civil forfeiture. He has simply reminded me that he made the decision to do that. Of course, I'm assuming that the Solicitor General was there because it's crime prevention. In terms of a great

[ Page 7036 ]

initiative, the decision to deal with the Abbotsford police department was made directly by the director after a request that preceded, actually, the acquisition of the Hummer.

You know, I think it's fantastic that we have police forces in British Columbia who are tackling the gang problem in innovative ways. It's essential that children's career plans don't include a stop in a gang. It was innovative. The decision was made independently by the director of the civil forfeiture office.

[1640]

K. Corrigan: Well, I absolutely agree that it's critical that young people's lives should not include a stop in a gang. As so many of us on this side of the House have said, the best way to do that is to make sure that children don't grow up in poverty and that they and their families have access to the services they need in order to ensure that they don't do that. I would fully agree.

With regard to that decision, is the minister saying, then, that there is equal opportunity for every municipality and that there's a process in place whereby another municipality could make an application for a Hummer or whatever proceeds of crimes might come forward?

Hon. S. Bond: Of course. The proceeds of civil forfeiture are to provide opportunities around the province after the initial costs of the forfeiture office are covered. It is about trying to find ways to reduce crime in British Columbia.

Yes, every community can participate. They cannot, however, put in a wish list. The Abbotsford police department didn't come and ask for a Hummer. They came and said: "Here's a concept that we'd like to try, and if in the future there is something available that we could partner with, we'd be interested in pursuing that." Of course, every community has that opportunity.

One of the reasons…. We actually believe that in one-third of the cases that are brought to the office that are uncontested, we can actually help provide additional funds to communities if we move to a form of administrative forfeiture that we're recommending today, which still protects the rights of individuals.

K. Corrigan: How long was it from the time that the Abbotsford police came to the director until the Hummer became available? I wonder if the minister would know.

Hon. S. Bond: It may have been a matter of months. The staff isn't specifically aware of that. Perhaps eight months or so, they suggest.

K. Corrigan: This may actually refer to another section, but it is relevant to this

section as well, so I'll ask the question. I think the understanding was that earlier, when we decided to go through

section by section, there was acknowledgment that many of the sections interrelate.

My understanding from the operation of the act is that property is supposed to be disposed of, and I'm wondering what the guidelines are on when property should be disposed of.

Hon. S. Bond: I think the director would look at where the maximum benefit can be derived. I assume — if the question is related to the Hummer — that there was a direct belief, in an area that was concerned about reducing gang activity, that this would be an innovative and creative way to do it. That discretion is left to the director, and disposal doesn't necessarily mean a cash value. It means what is the best and highest use of that asset.

K. Corrigan: I don't have the

section in front of me right now, but I thought disposal meant selling.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the Hummer will be sold after a period of time. The point here is that there is an asset that will help us, we hope, with the reduction of young people choosing gangs in British Columbia.

I believe it's a two-year period. I'll check that when I sit down, but I think it's a two-year period. The Hummer will be used for this innovative gang reduction st