Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, May 1, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 244

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Fred Page Cup tournament and hockey teams

E. Foster

Introductions by Members

Statements

National Physicians Day

N. Letnick

Tributes

Evelyn Corlett

N. Simons

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M211 — RCMP Appreciation Day Act

E. Foster

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

International Workers Day

J. Routledge

Brad MacKenzie and ALS awareness

S. Bond

Child care

R. Singh

Asian Heritage Month and B.C. trade with Asia

T. Wat

Creative Industries Week

B. D’Eith

Film and digital media industries

J. Thornthwaite

Oral Questions

Action on gas prices

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

Trans Mountain pipeline and fuel supply and prices

J. Johal

Hon. J. Horgan

Maintenance and cleanup of oil and gas wells

A. Weaver

Hon. M. Mungall

Trans Mountain pipeline and transport of oil by rail

M. de Jong

Hon. G. Heyman

Action on gas prices

M. de Jong

Hon. B. Ralston

Wages for community social services workers

S. Bond

Hon. S. Simpson

J. Thornthwaite

Point of Privilege

(continued)

M. Polak

Petitions

M. Lee

Tabling Documents

Kootenay Lake ferry service improvements project, major capital project plan, March 7, 2019

Petitions

T. Redies

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Community Safety Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Morris

J. Brar

R. Coleman

Hon. M. Farnworth

Bill 23 — Land Owner Transparency Act (continued)

R. Sultan

Hon. G. Heyman

S. Bond

M. Dean

J. Brar

Hon. C. James

Bill 24 — Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. C. James

S. Bond

N. Letnick

T. Redies

Hon. C. James

Bill 26 — Financial Services Authority Act, 2019

Hon. C. James

T. Redies

S. Bond

Hon. C. James

Bill 22 — Forest Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. D. Donaldson

D. Barnett

C. Oakes

S. Thomson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture

Hon. L. Beare

D. Clovechok

M. Stilwell

J. Sturdy

M. Lee

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions

Hon. J. Darcy

J. Thornthwaite

M. Hunt

L. Throness

B. Stewart

WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 2019

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

R. Coleman: Joining us in the gallery today are Ralph and Betty Scholtens from

Ontario. I had lunch with Ralph and Betty. They’re related to some very

close friends of mine. Ralph is, without a doubt, one of the real political

junkies I’ve met over the years, and we had a great discussion about

politics at lunch. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the members’ gallery this afternoon is His Excellency

Saoud Abdullah Al-Mahmud, Ambassador of the State of Qatar to Canada. His

Excellency is here on his first official visit to British Columbia. He’s

already met with Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia and

the Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. He will also

be meeting with you, Mr. Speaker, and I will have the pleasure of meeting

with him later this afternoon.

Would the House please make the Ambassador of the State of Qatar feel

very welcome here in the House.

Hon. L. Beare: It’s a really exciting week here at the B.C. Legislature. It’s

Creative Industries Week here in B.C. I want to introduce a couple of

members from B.C.’s film industry.

From the Motion Picture Production Industry Association, we have the

chair, Peter Leitch. From the Canadian Media Producers Association of B.C.,

we have Liz Shorten and Trevor Hodgson.

From the Directors Guild of Canada, we have Allan Harmon, Regan

Kosior, Colleen Mitchell, Anthony Atkins, Zach Lipovsky, Jennifer Vaughan,

Hans Dayal and the executive director, Kendrie Upton.

From the Union of B.C. Performers, we have Sue Brouse, Ellie Harvie,

Keith Martin Gordey, Jackson Davies.

And from DigiBC, we have Brenda Bailey. As well, we have Raymond

Knight and Sarah Smith.

We just had a fabulous Creative Industries Week hour in the Hall of

Honour earlier this afternoon, full of great B.C. performers and great B.C.

talent. I want the entire House to please help me make them feel very

welcome.

Hon. J. Horgan: I just want to add to the minister’s introduction. What she failed to

mention is that Prevail, formerly of the Swollen Members, performed for the

MLAs and those assembled. Of course, everyone here will know that Prevail is

a grad of Belmont high school in Langford from 1993 — a great performer, a

great guy. It was a wonderful day. Would the House please make Prevail very,

very welcome.

Tributes

FRED PAGE CUP TOURNAMENT

AND HOCKEY

TEAMS

E. Foster: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the permission to have a

sweater here today.

The Fred Page Cup denotes supremacy in junior hockey in British

Columbia. As many of you may have known, I had a wager with the member

for Prince George–

Valemount. The Vernon Vipers played in the last round

of the Fred Page Cup. Obviously, the wager was that the losing team

would wear the winning team’s jersey in the Legislature, and here I am

today.

Just a couple of comments about the Prince George Spruce Kings.

They did something that’s never been done. They went through the Fred

Page Cup — four rounds — with 16 wins and one loss. They had one loss to

Coquitlam. They beat Chilliwack 4-nothing, Victoria 4-nothing and,

sadly, the Vernon Vipers 4 to nothing.

[1:40 p.m.]

Congratulations to the Spruce Kings, and we wish them the very

best luck. They’re playing the Brooks Bandits right now in a seven-game

series to go to the Royal Bank Cup for the national championships. They

played the first three games in Brooks. Prince George is down 2 to 1,

but they’re coming home. I feel sorry for Brooks having to go in that

barn in Prince George, because there won’t be an empty seat. They will

be loud.

Go, Spruce Kings, go.

Introductions by Members

B. D’Eith: I did want to pick up on what the Premier was saying in regard to

Prevail. He actually did the first freestyle rap that we’ve had, I think, in

the Legislature’s history. That was really cool.

I also want to mention that there was a young gentleman whose name is

Tyson. We’re all going to watch out for this young man. He’s quite the

talent and just blew us all away today with his amazing singing.

I did want to also introduce to the House, from Music B.C., the

president, Scott Johnson, and the new executive director, Lindsay

MacPherson, who’s replacing Alex Grigg. I wanted to thank Alex Grigg for his

service to the music industry and welcome Lindsay MacPherson to my old

job.

Please, would the House them very welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I’m not going to repeat all of the names that the minister mentioned

with regard to welcoming the creative industries to the Legislature today.

But there is one individual that was missed, and that was Cynde Harmon.

Cynde Harmon is not only the wife of Allan Harmon from the Directors Guild

of Canada, but she’s also a very prominent film producer. I would like to

welcome that powerhouse couple to the Legislature.

S. Bond: Before I do my introductions, I do want to thank the Speaker for

allowing the member for Vernon-Monashee to pay off the bet. It is much

appreciated. I want you to know after sweeping both the Premier’s team and

then the Whip of our caucus’s team, I’m not likely to get leave any time

soon. But I do appreciate and I’m very, very proud of the Prince George

Spruce Kings. I can’t wait. Obviously, I didn’t get leave to go home for the

hockey game tonight.

I do, however, want to welcome to the chamber today the ALS Society of

B.C. Everyone in this chamber knows the incredibly good work that they do.

They’re here today to talk to members of the House about their

accomplishments to date and some exciting new plans that they hope to move

forward with.

I know that the House will want to welcome Dr. Neil Cashman, who is a

professor at the department of neurology at UBC, and also, he is an ALSBC

director and advocacy committee chair; Paul LeBlanc, who is the immediate

past president; Donna Bartel, who is the current president of ALS; Susan

Brice, who is no stranger to this Legislature, obviously — a former MLA and

a very important member of the advocacy committee; and Rick Poliquin. Brad

MacKenzie, who is an ALSBC director, is also on the advocacy committee. He’s

joined today, I know, by his mom and his aunt in the gallery as well. We

have Jim Williams, an ALSBC director; and of course, the executive director

of the organization, Wendy Toyer.

I know the House will want to join me in making the delegation most

welcome this afternoon.

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s my pleasure to introduce two of my constituents and longtime

friends today. Joining us in the gallery today are Stuart Alcock. He had a

long career as a social worker, as well as a constituency assistant in

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, where he worked for former MLA Jenny Kwan and

helped the current Minister of Advanced Education on her first election.

He’s on the board of directors and is a past president of the 411 Seniors

Centre Society and serves on the advisory council for the seniors advocate,

as well as being a volunteer for Ballet B.C.

Tim Agg had a 33-year career with PLEA Community Services, including

as executive director, and served as part of the 1990s legal services

review. He played a leadership role in the community social services sector,

keeping people together. He’s a volunteer with the McCreary Centre Society

and the B.C. community justice federation, PARCA.

[1:45 p.m.]

Will the House please join me in making my constituents and

contributors to their community and B.C. very, very welcome.

Statements

NATIONAL PHYSICIANS DAY

N. Letnick: May 1 is National Physicians Day in our country. We have many

people involved in health care — nurses, nurse practitioners, physicians

and a range of other professionals that take care of us all through our

lives.

Today is the day we get to honour physicians all through­out

Canada and British Columbia. Would the House please join me in showing

our appreciation for physicians right here in this province.

Tributes

EVELYN CORLETT

N. Simons: I’d like to congratulate Evelyn Corlett of Elphinstone, who will

be at Government House this afternoon with her husband, Rob, where

she’ll be awarded a community achievement award. With them will be

Gibsons town councillor Aleria Ladwig and her family Gabe, Annabelle and

Emaline.

Aleria had nominated Eve, who was caregiver for her children as

well as to hundreds of other children over the years at her family-run

daycare — over 40 years.

Congratulations to Eve. Will the House join me in congratulating

all the recipients of the Community Achievement Awards.

Introductions by Members

A. Kang: I would like to introduce two of my friends who are here today,

Randene Rizzuto and Alistair Maduray. They’re here for the CUPE B.C.

convention.

Alistair has been a really great friend of mine. He’s the new

vice-president of CUPE 23. He works as a sanitation driver for the city of

Burnaby, and he takes great care of our parks. Not only does he drive the

truck, looking after health and safety, but he’s also a photographer. People

come over, and he’s so chatty. He’ll say: “You let me take a picture for

you.” He is a man of many trades.

As well, we have Randene Rizzuto. She’s a sales rep for L’Oréal and

the most amazing, hardest-working sales rep I’ve ever met. One wonderful

thing I just realized today that they’d told me is that they’re getting

married, on June 29. I would want to wish Alistair and Randene all the

best.

Would the House please join me in welcoming two of my

friends.

I. Paton: It’s not often that you get a famous actor living right in my riding,

but a resident of Tsawwassen, one of the most famous RCMP officers in the

history of British Columbia, Jackson Davies, played the role of Constable.

Half this room probably goes: “What was The Beachcombers ?” Anyways,

it was a famous TV series filmed on the Sunshine Coast.

Hon. S. Simpson: I was really pleased yesterday to be able to introduce my wife, Cate

Jones, who was here. I’m rotating family members through today. My daughter,

Shayla Jones, is here to visit. Please make her welcome.

M. Lee: Well, I would like to invite all members of the House to welcome

guests that we have in the gallery today. I see them just sitting down. The

first is Bet Lowe, who for many years had a history of strong involvement in

education with the Vancouver school board. She was very much involved in the

’60s and ’70s in adult education for the Vancouver school board. She later

served as the business education department head at Vancouver Community

College. I know that she recently had a birthday, so happy birthday,

Bet.

Secondly, we have Carrie Bercic, who for many years was the PAC chair

at Eric Hamber Secondary School, which is very much a part of my riding of

Vancouver-Langara. She was the PAC chair from 2005 to 2013 and a strong

advocate for public education in our city of Vancouver, having served as a

trustee of the Vancouver school board as well.

Lastly, Andrea Nicholson is joining us in the gallery, Bet’s daughter,

who has had a very strong run as an alumnus of Eric Hamber. My wife,

Christina, is here as well, and many of the Eric Hamber family.

Andrea has been doing great work to work with the parents, the

students, the teachers and the entire community to talk about the importance

of additional funding for Eric Hamber Secondary as it goes through its

replacement project, and to find the funding necessary for an auditorium and

further gym and athletic space, which is being reduced in the new plan, as

well as the kinds of facilities that will encourage and support the

extracurricular activities which Eric Hamber is so well known

for.

She was very instrumental, alongside of Stephanie Yada and Michelle

Robinson, the current PAC chairs, to organize a rally of over 250 students,

teachers and parents yesterday in my riding, which I did attend and which

I’ll speak to later.

[1:50 p.m.]

They are here to witness the delivery of a petition, which I’ll be

delivering today, of 5,800 signatures now, by last count, of members of the

community to urge the government to support that school.

Will all members join me in welcoming these guests.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M211 — RCMP

APPRECIATION DAY

ACT

E. Foster presented a bill intituled RCMP Appreciation Day

Act.

E. Foster: I move that a bill intituled RCMP Appreciation Day Act, of which

notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and

read a first time now.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are an iconic police force

recognized around the world. These brave men and women put their

uniforms on every day and face unimaginable dangers to ensure our

safety. Officers sacrifice time with their loved ones so that we can

enjoy time with ours. This bill provides an opportunity for us to honour

members of the RCMP here in B.C.

In 1920, Manitoba passed legislation making February 1 RCMP

Appreciation Day. As they approach the 100th anniversary of their

legislation, it is time that we recognize officers in B.C. with our own

day. I have received letters from 32 mayors and councils for this bill,

as well as support from many members from both sides of this House and

several MPs.

I hope that all of us can support this bill and celebrate RCMP

Appreciation Day on February 1 next year.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

E. Foster: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M211, RCMP Appreciation Day Act, introduced, read a first time

and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

INTERNATIONAL WORKERS DAY

J. Routledge: Today is May 1, and we celebrate it around the world as

International Workers Day. Why May 1? On this day in 1886, working

people in Chicago struck for the eight-hour day — eight hours for work,

eight hours for rest and eight hours for what you will.

On my way to work today, I stopped in the rotunda to admire the

murals — murals that represent the foundational industries of British

Columbia. Now, history tells us that it was Sir John A. Macdonald and

William Van Horne who built our railway — all by themselves, apparently.

So what is so remarkable about these murals is that they depict the

people who actually did the work in these industries, people who are too

invisible to history.

Today on International Workers Day, let’s remind ourselves that it

was workers who built this province, for without our brain and muscle,

not a single wheel would turn.

Please join me in recognizing the contributions of the 2.6 million

working people in our province, workers who build the roads, bridges and

transit we use to get around; who ship products and receive them on our

shores; who grow and harvest the food we eat; who care for and educate

our children; who look after us when we’re sick; who provide power, heat

and water to our homes; who inspire, entertain and challenge us with

their artistic endeavours; workers like those in this very building, who

ensure that our public services are delivered effectively and

democratically.

To these and all other workers in B.C., thank you. Your work

matters to all of us. We see you. We respect you. Happy International

Workers Day.

BRAD M ac KENZIE AND ALS

AWARENESS

S. Bond: It started with a muscle cramp or some minor muscular twitching,

but because he was 29 years old, he ignored the symptoms and chalked it

up to being tired at the end of a tough day. He was used to pushing

himself hard to get ahead, taking every overtime shift he could, so it

seemed natural that he would be tired and worn down.

[1:55 p.m.]

He worked tirelessly so he could become a professional electrical

engineer, and in 2009, he did just that, graduating from UBC with a

degree in electrical engineering. Brad MacKenzie describes it as one of

the proudest moments of his life. All that effort, hard work and

dedication had paid off, and he had achieved his goal. Brad was excited

and could hardly wait to see what he could achieve next.

Then came more muscular twitching, cramping, weakness in his left

hand and a diagnosis of probable ALS. Brad says: “ALS has affected every

area of my body. Its progression has been slow but relentless, and I

have watched it overtake my body one limb at a time, day by day,

progressively weakening me to the point where I will eventually become

completely dependent upon others for even the simplest daily

tasks.”

Brad is here today with other members of ALSBC. All of us know

that ALS is an incurable and fatal disease that can strike anybody at

any time. There is no known cause or cure, but there is hope. All of us

can make a difference by participating in the Walk for ALS in our

communities and supporting the great work of ALSBC.

The ALS Society of B.C. is dedicated to providing support to Brad,

his family and hundreds of others.

Thank you, Brad, for being an inspiration and for challenging each

one of us to do our

part in helping to find a cure for ALS.

CHILD CARE

R. Singh: May is Child Care Month in B.C., and I want to take this

opportunity to commend those individuals that have been champions for

child care for many years in our province. Thank you to the many

advocates, parents, grandparents, child care providers and early

childhood educators. As a mother of two, I can speak to the joy that my

children bring into my life and what it means to have a child care

provider and early childhood educators I can rely on. I know this is one

thing that connects many families.

When I first moved to Canada, my husband and I were young parents,

and child care was not readily accessible and affordable. Our little

family badly felt the need for child care support when both of us were

trying to establish ourselves here.

That’s why I’m so glad to see the changes that the province has

brought in to support families by making child care accessible for them

and also supporting the sector through wage enhancements, professional

development and bursaries. Adequate supports like these ensure that

children can get high-quality child care and create an opportunity for

parents to rejoin the workforce, which helps both the families and the

economy.

Caring for a child is one of the most vital elements, if not the

most vital, of human existence, and supporting families and child care

workers is the best thing we as a society can do.

I salute all those engaged in child care, and I implore all

present to join me in recognizing the beginning of Child Care Month in

B.C.

ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

AND B.C. TRADE WITH

ASIA

T. Wat: Today is an important day that kicks off a month of culture and

experience. Every year during the month of May, we celebrate Asian

Heritage Month. It is a time to reflect on and learn more about the

history and culture of Asian Canadians, celebrate the diversity and

vibrancy, and to applaud the achievements and contribution to every

aspect of life in Canada from the arts and sciences to sports, business

and government.

Given my background, this heritage month is very important to me

and to my riding, and I have had the privilege of attending the annual

events marking the start of this cultural celebration for a number of

years. But today I want to focus on one of the most important parts of

this connection B.C. shares with Asia, and that is a relationship built

on strong trade ties. B.C. is the Asia-Pacific gateway due to our

geographic location, as well as our huge number of Asian immigrants and

their personal, family and business relationships with the

region.

When I was the International Trade Minister, we strengthened these

ties by focusing on international trade and growth while fostering deep

relationships with numerous economic allies. For the Association of

Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, I introduced the first-ever B.C. trade

offices in Southeast Asia, the first in Manila and then the headquarters

of ASEAN in Jakarta — this on top of previously opening offices in

China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan and India.

[2:00 p.m.]

I want to applaud the foresight and actions of countless

individuals who made this happen. These economic connections are

dutifully bringing culture and business to our province and have

promoted B.C. to the world stage. This is a huge success for the people

of B.C. and something to truly celebrate in this Asian Heritage

Month.

CREATIVE INDUSTRIES WEEK

B. D’Eith: This week is Creative Industries Week in British Columbia. It’s a

celebration of the incredibly talented people who work in film,

television, music and sound recording, magazine and book publishing, and

the interactive and digital media sectors. Their originality, innovation

and imagination inspire us here, but not only here — across the globe as

well. In fact, the creative industries contribute an estimated $6.4

billion to the provincial economy and support more than 90,000

jobs.

Now, as part of Creative Industries Week, we celebrated B.C. Book

Day yesterday to highlight the significant contribution of people who

contribute to the book publishing industry in our province. And over the

last two years, our government has increased operating and project

funding by 47 percent in this sector, benefiting the people behind the

book publishing industry in our province.

Meanwhile, our province’s interactive and digital media sector has

been growing rapidly. They are at the forefront of advances in gaming,

app, augmented reality and virtual reality development, making B.C. a

global hub for the digital media production sector. In interactive

gaming and app development alone, almost 6,000 people work for 1,300

companies.

Of course, B.C. is home to North America’s third-largest motion

picture hub, with the capacity to support over 50 simultaneous

productions across the province. This sector employs 60,000 people, and

it’s expected that close to 13,000 job openings will be forthcoming over

the next decade.

Of course, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the amazing music

industry here in British Columbia. As a musician and entertainment

lawyer in the music industry, I’ve seen firsthand the development of

British Columbia as a production hub and an incubator for global talent.

We have more than 200 music festivals where locals and visitors have the

opportunity to enjoy live music and incredible venues throughout the

province and throughout the year.

Our government’s recent renewal of the $7.5 million Amplify B.C.

program means concert lovers, festival goers and music enthusiasts will

be able to enjoy our homegrown talent, while the artists will be able to

develop their careers and the music developers will be able to create

new projects.

I want to thank all of the people who work in B.C.’s creative

industries and, of course, the associations that support them. This week

is for you.

FILM AND DIGITAL MEDIA INDUSTRIES

J. Thornthwaite: On March 29, I attended a reception to welcome and celebrate the

Academy Award wins of John Ottman for film editing and Paul Massey for

sound mixing for best picture nominee Bohemian Rhapsody . Those

of you who have seen this film will understand what a huge

accomplishment this was.

There were three singers who contributed to this film: of course,

Freddie Mercury from Queen; Rami Malek, who ultimately won best actor;

and Marc Martel, a Canadian musician from Montreal who was handpicked by

Queen’s Roger Taylor to front the Queen Extravaganza, a live production

that toured around the world.

The picture editor and sound mixer had to mix the three voices —

sound and lips and acting — to the songs performed, without the audience

noticing that in fact, there were three voices combined, with singing

and speaking and acting. At the end of the exercise, they landed on….

The majority of the actual singing was, in fact, Freddie Mercury, but

you would not have noticed that if you watched the film. Essentially,

Rami Malek was lip-syncing but actually singing.

John and Paul were here in Vancouver to attend a seminar for our

B.C. film professionals, called Creating A Scene.

Metro Vancouver is a world-recognized hub for the VFX, film, TV,

animation and gaming industries. We boast studios and established

legacies that go back 40 years.

On April 14, the Vancouver Economic Commission hosted Canada’s

largest professional career fair for digital entertainment, spotlighting

companies in visual effects, video games, virtual reality and animation

for the film and TV industries. The event featured 35 local businesses

looking for 500 talented people to work with them. The Vancouver

Economic Commission says the local industry will spend more than $4

billion this year.

[2:05 p.m.]

Participants met with the experts behind Star Wars ,

Game of Thrones , FIFA , NHL , Rick and

Morty and the LEGO movies. As you know, the

Avengers: Endgame is the most anticipated film of 2019.

Global box office returns for the 21 Marvel Studios releases since 2007

were in excess of $18 billion.

I would like to thank our creative industries for their

magnificent contribution to not only the jobs but also the economy of

British Columbia, and I wish them well, certainly, in 2019.

Oral Questions

ACTION ON GAS PRICES

A. Wilkinson: Twelve months ago the Premier told us that he had a range of

options to provide relief on the price of gasoline at the pumps. Now in

the past week, we’ve heard a range of excuses. First of all, it was

going to be up to the federal government to solve this a week ago. Then

it was that we needed a new refinery in British Columbia last week. Then

I think it was on Monday we needed a new refinery in Alberta. And then

yesterday it was price-gouging.

Today it’s to provide some kind of magic answer of more refined

supply from Alberta. Now, interestingly, the Premier of Alberta has made

it very clear instantaneously that he has no interest in that

conversation.

The Premier controls 35 cents a litre of the price at the pumps.

Why won’t the Premier provide some relief for British Columbians at the

gas pumps by dealing with the one thing he truly controls, which is

taxes?

Hon. J. Horgan: I welcome the questions from the Leader of the Opposition. They’re

always interesting and oftentimes even informed. But in this case, he

will know that I spoke with Premier Kenney last night, and it was a

cordial and diplomatic conversation. I realize that his former campaign

manager now works for the Alberta government, and that may be where he’s

getting his information, but I can tell him that I had a very positive

conversation with Premier Kenney, and we look forward to working

together in the days and weeks and months ahead.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, it’s apparent that the Premier doesn’t check his Twitter

feed very often because the Premier of Alberta has made it crystal-clear

he’s having no part of this. So it lands straight back in the lap of the

Premier.

Two things the Premier can control in terms of the price of

gasoline at the pumps: No. 1 is taxes, which he controls with the flick

of a pen, and No. 2 is building the relationships to lead to an

affordable supply of gasoline.

We’re now left in the position…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear from the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

A. Wilkinson: …of having the first minister of British Columbia out in the Rose

Garden of this Legislature begging Alberta for mercy with more supply of

gasoline.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Wilkinson: To the Premier: since the Premier of Alberta is apparently not

interested in the conversation, when will you act to reduce the cost of

gasoline at the pumps by the one thing you control, which are provincial

taxes?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I guess I should spend more time on Twitter, if that’s

where the Leader of the Opposition gets all his information from. I know

that may well be the best source of research they can find at this point

in time, but I’m going to just go with what I heard directly from the

Premier of Alberta last night, when we spoke.

We’re going to meet in the weeks ahead, face to face. We’re going

to talk about a range of issues. We’ll be at the Western Premiers

Conference together in June and the Premiers Conference in Saskatoon in

July.

Again, I appreciate that the member wants to talk about taxes.

Well, let me just say that in the 16 years the B.C. Liberals were in

power, they raised gas taxes 15 cents. In the time we’ve been in power,

we’ve raised them two cents. Prices went up 40 cents over a three-month

period.

When the member for Richmond-Queensborough was in the business of

informing the public as a journalist, he said the following, just a few

years ago on a local television network. He said: “There are many

reasons your wallet is taking such a hit. It’s summer, so we’re driving

more, which drives up demand.” Again, the free market party I thought

would understand supply and demand. “Political troubles in Egypt at that

time” — that’s what the informer, at that time, said — “also is

affecting prices.”

[2:10 p.m.]

So there are international issues with an international commodity

that sometimes affects price. But at the end of the day, the travelling

public in British Columbia is seeing outrageous prices, and we should be

working together across the aisle to fix that, rather than pointing

fingers and hurling invective back and forth.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Now, the Premier just made it pretty clear. It’s going to take

weeks and months for him to meet with the Premier of Alberta. In the

meantime, we’re just going to have to suck it up at the gas

pumps.

Premier, you control one thing, which is the price of gasoline

taxes. This arrangement of more refineries, pie in the sky, downstream

events ten years from now doesn’t make any difference to the consumer at

the pumps.

When are you going to take action to reduce the price of gasoline

at the pumps when the only thing you control is 35 cents a litre of

taxation?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, the owner of the Trans Mountain pipeline, the federal

government, can do something about that. We reached out to the Prime

Minister’s Office just today. If the member had done more than just

refer to Twitter….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: If the member had done more than just refer to Twitter, he would

know that over the past two years, the amount of diluted bitumen coming

into the Lower Mainland has gone up 11½ percent, and the amount of

refined product has gone down 10 percent.

I know the member might not pick this up on Twitter, but diluted

bitumen doesn’t make cars go. What does is refined product. The notion

that we should not…. To try and find more refined product to solve the

problem seems fairly apparent to me, but I’ll continue to take my advice

from experts rather than from Twitter.

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE

AND FUEL SUPPLY AND

PRICES

J. Johal: The Premier has turned himself into a pretzel trying to justify

his government’s actions. One day it’s price-fixing; the other day it’s

gouging; the other day it’s big oil companies. On and on it

goes.

But here are the facts. The majority of British Columbians want to

see the project built. Over 100 First Nations support the project, and

by the Premier’s own admission today, we need more pipeline capacity to

reduce gas prices.

Will the Premier get out of the way and stop blocking the

pipeline?

Hon. J. Horgan: I see. So the informer, the journalist of the past, has now become

the inflamer of the future, rather than work with a common set of facts

that will help inform British Columbians, as he used to once do as a

journalist. Perhaps all of us in this place should come to terms with

the fact that there’s not enough supply of refined product to meet the

demand in the marketplace.

I know it’s an invisible hand and you can’t see it, but markets

are markets, and I’m doing my level best to encourage those that have a

product that we need to get more of it here. That involves the federal

government, the owner of the existing pipeline, stopping the flow of

diluted bitumen that’s going straight offshore and bringing more supply

in so that we can have supply to bring down prices for British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.

J. Johal: The facts are that this pain-at-the-pump Premier and his

intransigent minority government have caused this problem. They’re

wearing this.

It’s on you, Premier. It’s on you. British Columbians are hurting,

and all you can do is blame Alberta. That’s just plain wrong.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question. Thank you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, order, please.

J. Johal: It’s on you. The TMX expansion would mean 20 percent more capacity

in the existing pipeline which could be used to ship us the gas that we

need. The Premier promised relief to British Columbians, but what we’re

getting so far is record-high gas prices.

Why doesn’t he start by ending his campaign of

obstruction?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: There are 1,182 permits required for the expansion of the Trans

Mountain pipeline, and 309 of those have been issued by the province of

British Columbia. At no time have we obstructed a permit when it’s been

asked for. At no time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: That may be a day at Yuk Yuk’s for the member for Prince

George–Valemount, but for British Columbians, this notion of “It’s all

on you, or it’s all on someone else” helps no one. It certainly doesn’t

help the travelling public.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: What we need is more gasoline, and we’re not getting it from the

traditional sources. The federal government owns the pipeline. They are

pushing more diluted bitumen than they are refined product.

Look….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the response. Thank

you.

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I never thought I’d pine for the day that the member for

Richmond-Queensborough would be in a place where he would give accurate

information to the public. We need a set of common facts, and when the

opposition make it up as they go, pick it up from Twitter or try and

make it a political issue when it is a paying issue at the pumps, I

think British Columbians are losing. I think what the opposition is

doing is completely off the mark.

Why don’t we work together? I got a letter yesterday from the

Leader of the Opposition saying: “Why can’t we just have a big hug and

figure it out?” What happened overnight? Well, I talked to the leader of

the government of Alberta, and he said: “Let’s get together and work

this out.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

MAINTENANCE AND CLEANUP OF

OIL AND GAS

WELLS

A. Weaver: Yesterday my colleague from the Cowichan Valley asked the Minister

of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources how many gas wells in British

Columbia are leaking, and she didn’t know. Well, here’s some information

for her. Out of the 134 wells in the province with confirmed gas

migration — that’s leaking problems — as documented by the Oil and Gas

Commission, almost half are owned by one company, the Shanghai Energy

Corp.

This company, which has strong links to the Communist Party of

China, is buying up wells in our province at an alarming rate. They now

own 1,128 wells, with 863 active, 184 inactive and 13 that are being

decommissioned.

My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. Does she think that the Communist Party of China buying up

stranded assets in B.C. is concerning, and does she think that the

Shanghai Energy Corp. will be a good corporate citizen and clean up

their activity and all their leaky wells when the time comes?

Hon. M. Mungall: We have an open marketplace for tenures and for gas wells. That

means that companies from around the world are able to purchase these

tenures as well as the wells, and so on. They then have the duty to be

good corporate citizens, no matter who they are, no matter where they

come from. We have the Oil and Gas Commission, as well as this

government, who is taking its role as a regulator very seriously to

ensure that — again, no matter who they are, no matter where they’re

from — any corporation that’s doing business in British Columbia and

business in our oil and gas sector is following the rules.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: I’m not sure I understood what the answer to the question was

there, but nevertheless, let me try again.

Ranch Energy was one of three companies that became insolvent last

year, leaving a forecasted $12.3 million deficit in the B.C. Oil and Gas

Commission’s orphan reclamation fund. Currently, and I know these facts

are troubling to the minister, there are 310 sites designated as orphan

sites, requiring further restoration. But there are 300 to 500 Ranch

Energy wells that could be added to this, creating a further potential

liability of $40 million to $90 million.

Yesterday the minister told the chamber that things have gotten a

lot better since her government was sworn in. Yet over the last two

years, B.C.’s orphan well sites have increased by — get this — 48

percent. Bankrupt companies have left the province with massive cleanup

bills.

Last month we heard from the Auditor General. There are more than

10,000 active wells, with a $3 billion price tag for decommissioning

them. All the while, her ministry is giving massive handouts, corporate

handouts. It’s not an open market. It’s a subsidized market by this

government. The market would not exist in a free and open market because

it does not compete on the international scene.

[2:20 p.m.]

What is the minister’s plan? Please, please, I beg you — no more

non-answers, no more rhetoric, no more 16 years nonsense. Answer the

question, for a change. What is the minister’s plan to ensure British

Columbians are not on the hook for the cleanup costs to this industry?

There is no excuse for not hearing an answer here.

Hon. M. Mungall: The member might recall that just over a year ago, we passed

legislation — it was Bill 15 at the time — to address the issue of

orphaned wells. We have done a considerable amount of work. Part of that

bill was to address how we are funding the orphaned well reclamation

fund.

The previous government had it funded through a taxation on

production. We have moved from that because that was not an effective

way to fund this fund. We’ve moved away from that, and we have a

liability levy so that we’re actually able to get the financial

resources so that we can start reclaiming the orphaned well

sites.

We have a multi-year plan to reclaim all of these sites. It

involves Treaty 8 First Nations, who are doing a wide array of work to

do this reclamation, including having nurseries with the appropriate

vegetation of native plants so that we can truly reclaim these sites and

the land to the state they need to be in for future

generations.

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND

TRANSPORT OF OIL BY

RAIL

M. de Jong: B.C. imports the energy we need to power our vehicles. We import

it in a refined and unrefined format. The existing pipeline that brings

that energy to British Columbia is at capacity. More and more of it is

coming to British Columbia by rail. If the Premier doesn’t believe me,

I’ll have him over for dinner. He can sit on my deck, and he can watch

those trains coming by. It’s more expensive.

The Premier may not want to recognize this. The Premier may not

want to acknowledge what the impact of that is on families, for whom it

is costing more to take their kids to work, costing more to take their

kids to soccer practice. It’s costing families more.

A year ago, the Premier said that he was exploring the options to

provide some relief. Stand in the assembly today and tell those families

in British Columbia what those options are.

Hon. G. Heyman: Now, the member opposite has been around this particular mulberry

bush a few times, but apparently he was not paying attention to the

debate yesterday.

The fact is that Trans Mountain made a presentation to the

National Energy Board hearings about what the purpose of the pipeline

expansion was. The purpose of the pipeline expansion was to move more

diluted bitumen, and not an extra litre of refined product, so that

diluted bitumen could be shipped offshore to Asian markets.

What the member opposite is asking us to do is to risk tens of

thousands of British Columbian jobs, our environment and our economy for

the export potential of Alberta diluted bitumen. What the member

opposite will not do is join us in standing up for British Columbia

interests with real solutions rather than imaginary ones, which even

members on the other side have said, repeatedly, won’t solve the

problem.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.

ACTION ON GAS PRICES

M. de Jong: Well, only the Minister of Environment would suggest that long

trains, two kilometres long, snaking through the Fraser Canyon filled

with petroleum products are environmentally safer than a modern,

state-of-the-art pipeline.

Let’s get back to the option king. It was a year ago that the

pay-at-the-pump Premier said this: “I am developing a range of options

to provide relief to British Columbian families.”

[2:25 p.m.]

You know, some of those families are agriculture families. It’s

planting season. They’re heading into their fields. You know what? The

Premier may not know this, but it takes fuel to grow the food that we

consume in British Columbia. It’s going to cost a lot more money to

plant those crops this year. It’s going to cost families a lot more

money to take their kids to school. It’s going to cost families a lot

more money to get their kids to sporting activities.

The Premier said, a year ago: “We’re developing options to provide

relief. I’ll tell you when, but we’re looking at options.” All British

Columbians want to know, all the people in this House want to know is

was the Premier spinning British Columbians. Was he just trying to

divert their attention until it went on to some other scandal of the

government, or did he actually have some options, and will he stand in

the House today and tell British Columbians what those options are that

his government is developing to give them the relief they need from the

high fuel prices that he has created?

scandals. We endured them for 16 years here in British

Columbia.

It is clear that the Leader of the Opposition has come forward

again today with the proposal — the same one that he had yesterday. The

leading economist at the University of British Columbia Sauder business

school said very clearly that his proposal defies economic

logic.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Ralston: Clearly, what we have done on this side of the House is dedicate

our last budget to the affordability and the cost of living here in

British Columbia. We took the tolls off the Port Mann and the Golden

Ears Bridge. We’ve eliminated medical services premiums — a cost of $900

for an individual and $1,800 for a family. We have doubled child care

benefits for working families. The cost of living for the average

British Columbian here has gone down. When we look at someone earning

$30,000 a year, they’ve seen a 48 percent reduction in taxes. And it

goes on.

The only people who haven’t benefited are the top 1 percent that

that government, when they were in office, represented for 16

years.

WAGES FOR COMMUNITY

SOCIAL SERVICES

WORKERS

S. Bond: This Premier is denying 17,000 workers in the social services

sector equal pay for equal work. They work right alongside each other,

yet because they choose not to join a union, they are being

penalized.

The Premier and all of the ministers that have stood up and tried

to answer this question have failed to give a simple, credible answer

and an explanation for this blatant discrimination. But apparently, we

do have an answer, and it comes from the BCGEU president, Stephanie

Smith.

Here’s what she had to say: “The unionized workers in this sector

do all the heavy lifting. Our answer to those non-union workers is,

‘Come learn about the union advantage.’”

Does the Premier agree with Stephanie Smith?

Hon. S. Simpson: I’m looking forward to working with the 2,000 organizations across

this province who deliver contracted services to British Columbia — the

10,000 contracts, $1.5 billion of investment in those services for

British Columbians.

[2:30 p.m.]

Our commitment is to work with those organizations to ensure that

we are delivering the most effective services and to ensure that those

organizations have the capacity to deliver those services. We’ll be

working with those organizations to improve and enhance those services

over the coming months, and I’m looking forward to that

opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: You know, this minister has had weeks to go back and think about

his answer to those workers that are being discriminated against with

this unfair wage policy. He’s had weeks, and his answer is no better and

no more credible today than it was then.

What these workers and families want is for this discrimination to

end. But again, let’s look at what the BCGEU had to say: “Any worker can

enjoy union benefits by joining a union. That’s, ultimately, the way it

is and the way it should be.”

Why is this Premier and this government discriminating against

non-union workers? It’s a simple question. Why won’t this minister do

the right thing and make sure that workers who stand right beside each

other and provide care in this province get the same wage increase? End

the discrimination now.

Hon. S. Simpson: Discrimination against workers was that side when they tore up

contracts. There is not a government in the history of this province

that was more abusive to workers than that side — to women workers, to

low-wage workers. If there’s an embarrassment of treatment, it’s the

conduct of that side. We’re working with this sector. That member has no

credibility on this issue. She has no credibility, as no member over

there has credibility.

I’m proud of the way we’re working. I’m proud of the way we’re

building this sector. We’re building child care. We’re supporting people

who are living in poverty. We’re enhancing services to people with

disabilities. And that side turned their back on those workers and the

people they serve. You’re shameful.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Order, please.

J. Thornthwaite: What is embarrassing is that answer from the minister. It’s an

embarrassment that there is blatant discrimination going on against 50

percent of the workers in the social service industry. Fifty percent are

getting discriminated against.

Social service agent worker Lisa said: “I have been employed in

this sector since 1990, and I remember the events of 1999 very well.

Here we go again. The work I do is just as valuable as the work a union

employee does. This disparity is just wrong and insulting.”

When will the Premier stop discriminating against workers like

Lisa and provide equal pay for equal work?

Hon. S. Simpson: As that member will know, everybody in the public sector got

2-2-and-2. That was the agreement, and everybody in the public sector

received 2-2-and-2. We also know that, yeah, unions bargain collective

agreements.

Now, I know that side doesn’t like that. I know that that side

spent a lot of time in previous years trying to deunionize this sector.

The challenge in front of us is to work with those organizations to

deliver effective services to the people who need them. We are

delivering those services.

[2:35 p.m.]

We are working with the sector. We will continue to work with

those sectors. And we will work with them because they want solutions to

problems as we want solutions — not something that side of the House is

particularly interested in.

J. Thornthwaite: That’s simply wrong. This government blindsided the industry. They

gave them two weeks’ notice.

Victoria is a social agency worker who works with individuals with

developmental disabilities. She writes: “It is completely unfair and

discriminatory to provide the low-wage redress to just unionized

employees. Fix this so that dedicated and qualified people like me can

continue to do the work we do.”

Will the Premier stand up and explain to Victoria and the

thousands of workers like her why she is being discriminated against and

treated like a second-class citizen?

Mr. Speaker: Minister, if I might remind you to keep your answer short, because

question period is over.

Hon. S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, I’ll take your advice. I’m happy to take your

advice.

I would say to the member that we are working with that sector,

2,000 organizations that deliver essential services — large

organizations, small organizations in communities across British

Columbia. They’re delivering important services. They want support from

the government. The government is providing that support in terms of

enhanced contracts and in terms of additional training and

supports.

We’re working with that sector. We’ll continue to work with them.

We’re going to continue to build a relationship there that makes sense,

one that everybody is proud of and mostly one that meets the needs of

British Columbians who are going to those organizations for

support.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege

(continued)

M. Polak: Yesterday the Attorney General rose on a point of privilege. However,

within his submission, I did not hear any allegations related to Standing

Order 26.

So on behalf of the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, we will not be

making any submissions with respect to the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I will take that under advisement.

M. Lee: I rise to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

M. Lee: I have a petition with over 5,800 signatures of parents, students,

alumni, teachers, retired teachers and other community members around the

Eric Hamber Secondary School community to petition the government, calling

on it to include an auditorium, increased gymnasium and outdoor space,

increased library space and adequate fashion design program and art spaces

in the design and construction of the new Eric Hamber Secondary

School.

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. Trevena: I have the honour to table the major capital project plan done for the

Kootenay Lake ferry service.

Petitions

T. Redies: I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 76 residents at the

Evergreen Heights assisted-living residence in my constituency. My

constituents are asking for the government to increase funding for

assisted-living residences like Evergreen Heights to improve food budgets

and lower the percentage of income required to pay to live in assisted

living. They’re also requesting increased government funding to improve

recreational opportunities, personal care and other amenities to make life

better for people living in these residences.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 13, the Community Safety

Amendment Act, 2019. In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call debate on the

estimates of the Ministry of Tourism. In

Section C, the Birch Room, I call the

estimates debate for the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.

[2:40 p.m.]

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — COMMUNITY SAFETY

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move second reading of Bill 13, intituled the Community Safety

Amendment Act. It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill

In 2009, our colleague the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology

introduced a private member’s bill, aimed at improving the safety of

British Columbians, called the Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act.

The bill was modelled on similar legislation in six other jurisdictions

across Canada. While the bill was not passed, the concept was

reintroduced and passed with unanimous support in 2013 as the Community

Safety Act.

Since 2013, new public safety concerns have emerged in British

Columbia. The amendments in this legislation will help to take action on

gang and gun violence, provide support to police officers to disrupt the

supply of deadly drugs and increase support for initiatives proven to

prevent and reduce crime. In doing so, this legislation will help make

this province a better, safer place to live and raise a

family.

The Community Safety Act will allow members of the public to

submit confidential complaints to a provincial authority, the director

of community safety, about problem properties that represent a threat to

the safety of the community. The director will investigate complaints

and, where appropriate, take administrative action or apply for a court

order to address activities on properties that are negatively impacting

the safety of a community.

Nuisance or problem properties are a real issue to communities in

this province. Issues caused by absentee or irresponsible landlords who

habitually rent to problematic tenants, the use of short-term rentals as

party houses, gang and organized crime clubhouses and associated

properties, and drug use in parks and other public places all fall

within the scope of this legislation.

[2:45 p.m.]

One recent example of this type of problem property is from

September of last year. In Duncan, the RCMP executed a search warrant on

a property and found a large amount of drugs, specifically, large

quantities of fentanyl, crystal methamphetamine and cocaine. The police

also discovered stolen property, including war medals, computer parts

and high-end bicycles. This was the second time in a year that the

property had been subject to a search warrant. The RCMP identified the

property as a nuisance property and one that was well known in the

community.

The proposed amendments will modernize the act to address the

current community safety needs of British Columbians, enhance the

administrative fairness of procedures and minimize the administrative

burden of the act.

Specific activities are the grounds for submitting a complaint

under this legislation. These amendments are adding two new specified

activities to the act: (1) illegal gaming and gambling is being added,

because this is a growing problem that is related to organized crimes

and gangs, particularly in the Lower Mainland, and (2) the possession,

sale and storage of property obtained by crime is being added, as this

activity is associated with gang activity and drug

trafficking.

I have another recent example of where the Community Safety Act

would have been effective. In November, the RCMP raided a home in

Nanaimo where people were trading stolen items for drugs. Inside, the

RCMP discovered several thousands of dollars’ worth of stolen property.

The same house had been previously raided by police and had been

described as an ongoing problem and cause for concern in the

neighbourhood.

Another amendment creates a requirement for the director of

community safety to issue annual public reports providing information on

the unit’s activities. This is one way that we will ensure transparency

and accountability to the public.

The act is also being amended to establish that the legislation

will not apply on First Nations lands unless prescribed by regulation.

We’re committed to the principles established in the United Nations

declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, and in keeping with

this, it is our intention not to apply the act on First Nations land

without support from those nations. Engagement with impacted First

Nations is currently underway.

The amendments also set out a process for introducing previous

criminal convictions as evidence in an application for a community

safety order. This will reduce the administrative burden on the court

and the director.

An additional amendment allows the director to enter into

information-sharing agreements with other governments and law

enforcement agencies in Canada. This will enable information-sharing

with law enforcement agencies such as the RCMP. Other amendments clarify

and enhance procedures to improve the administrative fairness of the

act.

The proposed amendments should be seen as one of the many tools we

are putting in place to make communities safer and to address gang

activities. I’m pleased to open the debate on this important piece of

legislation.

M. Morris: I’ve looked through the legislation. It’s one of these feel-good

things when you look at it, particularly for a previous law enforcement

officer and citizens in the community that are, rightfully, so concerned

about these kinds of properties. It looks like it might be a bit of a

utopian kind of solution here.

I applaud the minister and everybody for bringing these amendments

forward. Of course, this bill was one that we introduced. The minister

did recognize that it had been previously entered as a private member’s

bill back in 2009 by the then government who was in opposition at the

time.

This is a bill that’s supposed to address exactly what the

minister was saying. It’s these properties that are used for drug

houses, illegal activities, unlawful activities, loitering. There are

probably addictions issues going on within some of these properties as

well.

It’s a much greater problem than looking at it in isolation. Many

of our communities out there that are suffering from…. Probably just

about every community that we have in the province has a property that

can be identified in this category here.

[2:50 p.m.]

A lot of the problems that we have with our communities are

because they are under-resourced today. They’ve been under-resourced for

the last ten, 20 or, in some cases, 40 years or more when it comes to

law enforcement and enforcement officers in the communities to enforce

any of the community statutes and whatnot that they have there as well.

I do know this for a fact because when I was in the force, part of my

area of responsibility was municipalities and detachments and the

numbers of resources that they had in there. Some of them hadn’t changed

since the early 1980s and late 1970s.

We had the Charter of Rights and Freedoms come in, in the early

1980s, which changed the dynamics and the complexities of policing to a

significant degree. If we had a detachment that had 21 resources in

1980, and in 2019 it still has 21 resources, those resources are maxed

out far and above what they’re capable of looking after in the

communities. With the complexities associated to criminal

investigations, their workload is focused on those high-priority cases

that they can get to.

There’ll be a lot of criminal matters that they won’t be able to

address. These kinds of nuisances that we see in the communities

probably get overlooked until it gets to the magnitude where drug

trafficking is taking place, where illegal gambling might be taking

place, where prostitution might be taking place — and a plethora of

other kinds of nefarious activities in the communities here.

Then the police have to turn their minds to trying to resolve

those issues and go through the layers upon layers of investigative

procedures in order to get a search warrant — gathering the evidence,

getting the search warrant, going in and searching the place, arresting

individuals involved, bringing them back into custody and going through

the process to have them appear in court, either to get a conviction in

court or to get it thrown out of court because they’ve made a mistake in

the investigation. Or Crown counsel may not approve the charge. You

know, a mistake might be recognized in court, and it’s tossed out at the

end of the day. So there are a number of things that should be addressed

in the communities.

This will make an excellent tool, but the resources have to be

there, and we recognized that back in 2013 when we introduced the

legislation ourselves. The requirements to investigate these kind of

things could be labour-intensive and could be an added burden to already

overworked resources in some of these smaller communities that we have.

I think that’s something that really needs to be taken into

consideration. Just the legislation alone might not be the magic bullet

that we’re looking for. We need to pour those resources into this to

make sure that that doesn’t happen.

Now, the minister did talk about, and the act does talk about,

criminal organizations like the Hell’s Angels and like some of these

other groups that have properties in some of these communities — the

Hell’s Angels clubhouses and other entities like that. I think this is

an excellent tool to address that. The enforcement side might be

problematic, and I look forward to seeing how that exercise rolls out at

the end of the day.

In looking through the legislation and how it’s structured, I do

have a few concerns. Again, in my role as the critic — and I’ll be

assisted by my colleague from Langley East — we’ll pop the hood open on

this and have a real close look at it.

I’m concerned that we have a provincial entity, community safety,

the director of community safety in an office tucked away in the great

city of Victoria that we all enjoy so much — or some other central

location in the province — where all the applications from around the

province — the many, many communities that we have — will be directed to

this one lonely little office in a beautiful part of the province. Then

he and his staff will look through this, and they will come up with an

administrative solution, sitting in their beautiful little office in

Victoria with the cherry blossoms and the tourists.

Interjection.

M. Morris: Oh, Prince George? Well, I’m sure Prince George would love to have

an office in Prince George.

What we have here is a central office administering this bill and

looking after the administrative solutions that we might have here. It’s

alluded to in here — and the minister alluded to it — that there’ll be

that negotiation back and forth between the director and whoever the

applicant might be for this.

[2:55 p.m.]

It’s to try and arrive at a solution where everybody is happy and,

at the end of the day, the problem is solved. But I’m not sure how that

works. Is it over the telephone? Do we use Skype to get hold of the

person that might have this problem property? Or are we going to be

relying on those already overextended resources in the communities that

we have out there?

One of the things that the municipalities may be pushing back on

is they might see this as a download in their communities. Great stuff

in this statute, but it’s also got costs implicated in this.

So we then go where the director will make an application for a

court order, and the order needs to be enforced in the community. Will

the director have staff that can jump in the car and drive from Prince

George to wherever the community is that requires that particular help

and provide that solution for them and then drive back to their office

in Prince George, a beautiful, central location for an office like this?

Or how exactly will that work? So there will be some pretty significant

resource implications to this particular statute at the end of the

day.

Now, if this statute also includes…. And the director has the

authority, when he’s administering a solution for this, to look to other

agencies for help. We already have the health authorities. We have

social services agencies. We have educational facilities. We have NGOs.

We have a number of folks out there that are already trying to help the

vulnerable people that these kinds of properties take advantage of — the

people that are suffering from addictions, whether it’s drugs or

alcohol. They get these drugs and alcohol from an establishment that

this is targeted to, to address. People with mental illness that might

be very vulnerable to the things that these properties

provide.

The people that are involved in low-level crime — you know,

breaking into homes, which is a terrible crime, or stealing whatever

they can get their hands on in order to fund a habit that supports the

addictions that they have, or maybe supports a combination of the

addictions that are fuelled by mental illness in another way.

Now, perhaps a solution might be — and it might be one of the

tools that they could use in there — to try and integrate those

resources in all those communities to provide a wraparound service that

would go in and clean that up, and then they can direct…. Of course,

then the property owner won’t have any more reason to carry on in the

manner he has, and he might have to move on.

There will be solutions here, and I just question, at the end of

the day, the effectiveness of this particular statute and unit if the

resources aren’t put into it right at the beginning to make it

worthwhile and to make sure that, you know, the meat that’s in the

statute is delivered to the people that are asking for the services out

there.

The minister talked a little bit about illegal gaming and

gambling. And that’s why, when we were in government, we put in the

joint investigation team looking for illegal gaming and gambling, not

only in the casinos that we have but throughout the province here. I’m

hoping that any police agency that does get any information that these

kinds of nefarious activities are happening within their community will

contact JIGIT in the first place and get them involved, or CFSEU, and

make sure that there’s a proper criminal investigation. Because this

doesn’t replace a criminal investigation. If it intended to, it might

taint whatever criminal investigation that might come afterwards, so I

think we have to be very careful on how we proceed with this.

I see this as a legitimate tool to clean up a property that is

catering to very vulnerable people and find some community solutions in

order to make it work, but we certainly need to make sure that the

resources are in there to make that happen.

Like I said, I look forward to taking this through the committee

stage. We’ll pop the hood open and have a look at it

section by

section

to make sure that it will meet the demands. And perhaps the minister’s

got a big chequebook that goes with this particular statute so that we

can make sure that the resources are in there.

[3:00 p.m.]

J. Brar: I’m really pleased to stand up in this House today to support this

bill, the Community Safety Amendment Act, 2019, introduced in this House

by our government.

Well, the key is that people deserve to feel safe in their

communities. That’s the key part of this bill. Our children need to feel

safe when they go out and play in parks. I see a number of children

sitting there in the gallery, from a school, so they’re listening to

this debate. It’s very important that our young people, particularly in

school, feel safe whenever they go to any game or go to a playground to

play.

I want to say that this is an issue which is being faced by the

people of British Columbia but more so in the city where I come from.

The city of Surrey has become a kind of ground zero for quite some time

for gang and organized crime activities. We see drugs being supplied

freely on streets, and I have heard that there’s home delivery available

as well. That’s shocking to people when people hear that that’s

available in this community.

We also see young people being killed on a regular basis in this

city and around this city. We see gang members shooting at each other

openly in public places without any fear. Street shooting has become a

kind of norm in the city of Surrey.

The people of Surrey feel helpless. A lot of people talk to me,

and they think that they can’t do anything. People certainly want safe

streets for them and for their children. That has been going on for too

long, for many, many, many years, to be very frank, and people want

action.

So I think this bill particularly, introduced by the Minister of

Public Safety, is a good bill, particularly to address the two key

areas.

One of the complaints which I have heard since I was elected as a

member of the Legislative Assembly in 2004…. People come to my office,

and they tell me: “In our neighbourhood, we see some gang activity in a

particular house.” That’s the complaint I hear quite regularly, on a

regular basis, from people.

I listen to their complaint, and I say to them: “One of the things

that you should do is you should send emails or you should talk to the

confidential phone line of police and make a complaint.” They will hear

and listen to what I say, but then the response will be: “You know, they

are our neighbours. So we don’t want to cause any trouble. We don’t want

to create any risk for us.”

That fear is there, and that’s a huge problem, because I think

that any police, whether you talk about the city police or the RCMP or

any police in the universe, can only be effective based on the

information that people provide to them. But this fear has significantly

blocked the information coming from people, and that has to

change.

So we must do everything we can to address violence in our

communities brought by gang and organized crime.

The Community Safety Act will allow people to feel safe about

reporting in strict confidence — and that’s the key in this bill — about

properties that have links to gangs and organized crime, which is

infecting the neighbourhood where they live or work.

This is the key — that people can go out now and report about

those activities without any fear, without any risk. I think that’s

going to change…. Big-time, that’s going to make life safer in the

streets in Surrey and also in the province.

Secondly, a provincial government unit will be established to

enforce the act once it is brought into force. And that’s the other

thing people usually make complaints about: “Yes, we can send an email,

we can make a phone call to police, but nothing happens. We see no

activity as a result of our complaint. Even if we send a petition, we

don’t see any response from the police.”

[3:05 p.m.]

But this act allows enforcement, subsequent to a complaint made by

people. So this act actually covers both key steps. It’s encouraging

people to provide information, and subsequently, the enforcement unit is

going to take action based on the information provided to them. So it

will have the powers to intervene with those problem properties which

have links to gangs and organized crime.

We are giving neighbours of places like drug labs and those

communities linked to gun and gang activities a safe, effective, timely

solution and giving authorities more powers to shut down those sites.

That’s a big thing — a big thing for me and a big thing for the people

of Surrey.

Five other provinces and one territory have had this legislation

in place for years. Our information states that it works and it makes

the community safer.

As the member, the critic from the other side, just said, it’s

true that the Community Safety Act was passed back in 2013. I believe

that there were, of course, good intentions behind that, but the reality

is that it was never brought into force. That’s the reality. And many

people and neighbourhoods have suffered because of that. I truly believe

that if that bill would have been enforced at that time, probably that

bill would have saved many lives and made the community safer. But that

was not the case.

This is a good bill, and I think all members of this House should

support this bill. It needs to be fair to the landlords who have become

victims of dangerous and criminal tenants, and it needs to be efficient

from an administrative point of view as well.

So we have made amendments, and we are working to get this law

enforced this year. We want people living near dangerous criminals to

provide information with regard to their criminal activities without any

fear and without any risk. That’s the key in this bill, and I think that

will help a lot for the police force and the enforcement unit to get

control of those gang activities in the neighbourhood.

I would like to close by saying that this is a good step. I

appreciate the minister for the hard work on this thing that will

certainly help the people of Surrey, making the streets of Surrey safer

once this bill becomes law.

Thank you for the chance.

R. Coleman: Thank you to the member who just made his comments. I will say one

thing. This is not a panacea, and this act in place would have no effect

whatsoever unless you have proper enforcement and information-sharing

and people’s confidence. To articulate that some people would be alive

if this act was in place would be, I think, unfair to anybody in law

enforcement or any community in the province of British

Columbia.

I rise to speak to Bill 13, the Community Safety Amendment Act. To

start off, I want to recognize the member who is now the Minister of

Jobs, Trade and Technology. I believe tools in law enforcement should be

adapted, no matter where the idea comes from, and stolen if we can

possibly plagiarize it, whatever, to make sure it’s effective for the

people of British Columbia and their safety. He brought a private

member’s bill that then led to this.

I remember the Community Safety Act at the time and some of the

issues around it. It wasn’t as simple as just saying: “Why didn’t you do

the Community Safety Act?” There were budgetary issues relative to it

for communities, and UBCM had some issues with it, and others. Of

course, time marched on, and we went through one of those famous

election cycles.

I support the legislation, and I support it because we know that

everyone in this House needs to work constantly together to ensure

public safety. One of the challenges we face is that we forget, as we

get into a political argument or try and take shots at each other, that

the people we’re trying to serve are the people we’re trying to protect.

So over the years, we’ve actually developed more and more tools and more

and more effectiveness for policing in British Columbia.

[3:10 p.m.]

In 2001, we worked on starting to figure out how we could move to

intelligence-based policing in the province of British Columbia and how

we could actually, for the first time anywhere in the world, have an

effective information-sharing platform in real time of what was going on

in communities so we could follow and solve crime quicker. That led to

PRIME, which is the police records information management environment.

The only jurisdiction in North America today still, sadly, is British

Columbia where every police officer in their car or in their office is

on the same piece of in-real-time technology to be able to share

information.

Now, that was driven out of a case that was coming out of the

previous few years. We became government in 2001, and not to point

fingers at anybody, but we had a number of people going missing in one

area of British Columbia, in the Downtown Eastside — mainly women. We

were trying to figure out what was going on. We felt that one of the

weaknesses was how quickly information could be shared, and the advice

was to take this bold step to sit down all law enforcement and put it on

real-time information management.

If there is one thing I could say, I honestly believe that if that

had been in place five or six years earlier, when we finally were able

to put the system in place — and maybe the technology didn’t even exist

— I think we would have found the Pickton investigation a lot quicker,

simply because we would have had information that would’ve crossed

borders electronically, rather than by fax and borders and by police

departments.

We then moved to saying: “What other tools could we have?” Civil

forfeiture for crime — we just improved on that act again recently with

regards to another tool to improve it for police. We had JUSTIN, which

had started to integrate with PRIME. That comes from our criminal

justice side to actually help out with the intelligence-based

policing.

All of these pieces come together, not just because we wanted to

be fair for the people in our system and to protect them but because we

have to have public confidence and sustainability in innovation and

accountability. The reason for that sustainability and accountability is

that we cannot keep saying that there’s an issue here and we can’t solve

it. We should not also keep saying that it’s somebody else’s fault. We

can also never say that one piece of legislation passed in a place like

this is going to solve all the issues in and around crime and houses or

whatever activity takes place our communities. We have to make sure

those tools will work and that those tools will actually be effective as

we go through it.

Now, one of the things I will ask about in this bill as we go into

committee stage is the issue in and around the First Nations lands. It’s

not that I have an issue with the fact that that wouldn’t be included in

this legislation, but things have changed on First Nations lands, even

since we first looked at this bill in 2013, in that there is large

subdivisions and developments now in British Columbia on 99-year leases

on First Nations lands, and they actually try and manage those,

sometimes in cooperation with the same police force that’s policing the

rest of the community. How we will look at this act and how we could

actually make it effective on those particular properties will be

important because the activity doesn’t know borders when it comes to

those types of situations.

The other thing we learned as we came through in tools was that we

needed to integrate things — you know, organized crime, CFSEU, issues in

and around how we had JIGIT put together, how we learn as we go. People

like to judge, particularly the political people, what’s going on out

there, when the political people’s job is actually to create the tools

and get out of the way and never influence an investigation, never talk

about the details of an investigation, even though they may be briefed

on them.

The last thing we ever want to have happen is to have a politician

open their mouth and talk about what’s going on in illegal activity and

saying the wrong thing that leads to somebody in organized crime or some

other criminal organization to pick up enough that they can actually put

two and two together and wreck an investigation.

It’s an interesting dance, and I know the Solicitor General has

danced it already, because whenever there’s a major case, the first

thing the minister is asked is: “What do you know?” The minister’s pat

answer is, and will continue to be whether he’s the minister today or if

he’s not the minister five years ago and is asked about an

investigation: “I do not comment on ongoing police investigations.” He

knows the reason for that is important.

[3:15 p.m.]

In spite of all of the tools we have and all of the things we keep

putting in place — including the hundreds of millions of dollars that’s

been spent on the gang task force to try and get communities educated to

come forward with information, to have tools for police and now this

tool here for communities, for people, to be able to talk about

something that they thought might be investigated relative to a house

that has a lot of criminal activity in it or whatever — it’s important

to know that the people that actually report it need to be protected.

The minute…. The first time it happens that somebody gets some

retribution because they reported a home with a lot of criminal activity

in a community, the effectiveness of the law will disappear because

people will become afraid to report it.

I lived with that. I had a crack house down the street from me for

a few years when I lived out in Aldergrove, and nothing that wasn’t

nailed down would remain more than 24 to 48 hours. Of course, we tried

bylaw enforcement back then, with regards to trying to help with that

issue, and, obviously, a number of calls to the house. We didn’t have

civil forfeiture to go after the activity back in those days. Those

tools all sort of came to mind as we came through that and I actually

got into government.

The challenge was, and is, that the complainants in the

neighbourhood actually had retribution on them — cars scratched, damaged

windows, those sort of things — from the people who figured out which

house in the neighbourhood had actually complained about the activity

of, in this case, a meth house, cooking meth, and the activity of people

coming in and the noise and damage to the neighbourhood. So it’s always

very important, as we take a piece of legislation, to make sure that we

have…. We talked earlier, yesterday, with the Witness Security Act,

about how important it is for confidentiality and the protection of the

people — to have confidence that they can talk about these

things.

We get spikes. It’s an unfortunate thing. Oftentimes peo­ple, when

there are spikes in crime, like to blame somebody. Usually it’s law

enforcement at the front end, the government right beside them and the

community sometimes that is affected, less so. But you can actually go

back over crime stats and find out that a few years ago, we had a spike

in homicides. In 2017, there were 118 homicides in B.C. It was up by 30

from the year before. Of those 118 homicides, 53 percent included

firearms, a trend that we’ve actually seen over the last number of years

with regards to that. And 68 percent were known to be

gang-related.

If you went back and you looked at the money invested back in

’04-05 and you saw the downturn in the gang situation because you had

some effectiveness and arrests and activity…. Then the next gang comes

along and starts to take the territory. Then you have another spike. I

believe this is another spike, and it’s a spike relative to the fact

that we have people that are effective in law enforcement, but sometimes

effectiveness also brings a new generation. We have to always be

diligent about that, and this is why you need tools like

this.

It does show the overwhelming problem, the perception sometimes,

of what gangs mean to communities. If you look at some of the other

crime stats that are existing in our society, they’re down in a lot of

places. There’s been a spike in violent crime in a couple of

communities, but it’s down in most of the rest of the province of

British Columbia. And people will actually jump to the conclusion that

it’s something to do with policing, just by itself. It isn’t.

It’s about whether the community is going to work together on

community safety, whether they’re going to have the programs in place

for people to buy into, and whether we can work together to push back on

the education, understanding why we don’t get people, for instance, in

gangs in the first place — issues that have been going on for a long

time and have been effective but then sometimes, because of a spike in

activity and pressure, changes a neighbourhood or changes a group of

people in a specific group, who are then sort of dragged into this

lifestyle.

The amendment that’s put forward in front of us today will provide

an extra tool for police and public officials on this. One of the things

I would probably discuss in committee with the minister will be how we

make it effective provincewide. My colleague talked about an office in

Victoria and: how are you going to get that complaint process to work

when people are used to actually communicating through their

non-emergency line at a police department to bring concerns with regards

to an activity or a house or whatever in their neighbourhood, and get

them educated that they need to go to Victoria on a line. So we will

discuss how that should be handled, how maybe we could have better

integration there, like we have in the rest of policing.

[3:20 p.m.]

Maybe we can add some function into PRIME that would allow us to

track activities and complaints so that we could actually target the hot

spots, which I call intelligent place policing. Can we use some of the

resources that are out there in addition to the police, like bylaw

enforcement officers, who can build files, and have them come through

here to get, effectively, so that we would be able to move on a

particular establishment or house? That’s important, because this bill

builds on the initial bill in many ways and a couple of those, two

nuances, will actually affect this.

There have been other community safety acts introduced, even in

the Parliament of Canada. Sometimes they feel good, but I think the

devil is often in the details relative to how effective we can make them

and actually make this tool work. I’m a big fan of tools for police and

communities. I think it’s important that we have a conversation about

effectiveness, how we deliver it, and how we improve the service. I want

to make sure that we’re aware of that as we go through this. I did talk

to some people in a couple of the provinces that have had this piece of

legislation, and its usage has not been as high as they originally had

hoped.

Now, I know about legislation that doesn’t get used. My first bill

that I actually brought to this House — it was in the 90-day plan of my

government in 2001 — was the Parental Responsibility Act, which did

exist in some other jurisdictions in Canada. It was really

an act about

parents being responsible for their juvenile and younger children who

did damage and committed crimes in neighbourhoods. It was to actually

bring responsibility for the costs to the parent. To my knowledge, it

has never been used in British Columbia, and I know that it has never

been used in a couple of the other jurisdictions that it had. It was a

good idea at the time; it sounded good. This has a bit more teeth than

that did, so that’s encouraging.

I also think it comes out of our successes that I think we’ve had

in this province with regard to, particularly, the Civil Forfeiture Act,

which we have now improved three times, after the improvements the

minister brought forward in this Legislature. That is important, because

you need to have the tools as the evolution of crime takes

place.

When we first looked at this act, probably back in about 2012,

when the member from Surrey brought it as a private member’s bill, we

were talking about things called grow ops, for most part. We’d have

these people swoop in when the crop is ready, and they’d hit the grow op

— there was danger of guns and what have you — stealing the actual

product. Well, today we have legal marijuana in this country.

Ironically, I don’t think grow ops have gone down yet. They will,

hopefully, over time. But then you’ll have a discussion about the crop

that can now be grown legally in a house, and that’s a whole different

issue for us down the road.

As we go through this, we want to make sure that we give the tools

so that we can make sure that we protect communities. As we put the file

together, we use people like bylaw enforcement and complaints and

intelligence-based policing so that we can actually investigate and

collaborate with the homeowners. In some cases, that will be necessary.

In some cases, the homeowner will not be the person involved in the

criminal activity.

However, I have told people for years, particularly those who

complain about illegal activity in their property that they’re renting

out, that they have the right, under the Residential Tenancy Act, to

inspect their property on 24 hours’ notice. So if you haven’t looked at

it for a year, whose fault is it really that you’re now paying the price

for criminal activity on the property that you own? I think they have to

look in the mirror, because you can’t ignore this and then say that

something else is going on here.

I think the biggest step…. The member for Surrey-Fleetwood was

talking earlier about neighbours feeling like they can now have a place

to go. They’re probably the least likely, living next door to an

activity like this, to want to go, unless they know they’re actually

safe. Their retribution or the comeback on them could be tougher than on

anybody else if they’re identified as the person who actually made the

complaint.

It’s about building files. You’ll build a file not just on one

complaint. You’ll build it, and can get to where, as we get into

discussions, we can explore those issues in committee stage and move

forward with how we can make this effective and continue to work on it —

just like we did with civil forfeiture and other activities we put into

things like property condition disclosure statements over the years,

stuff with regard to residential tenancy, illegal activity and all of

those things.

[3:25 p.m.]

I want people to realize that every day, still, there are a number

of thousands of people who go out and try to protect their community

every night. They make snap decisions on a second’s notice to protect

the people in our communities. That’s our law enforcement

community.

We get the luxury, if it doesn’t go well, to second-guess them for

the next year or two while we put them through hearings and judgments or

whatever. They had to make the decision in a split second to protect our

communities. The only thing I have to say about that is: understand how

important these people are to your community and how much they care

about your community. If you can give them another tool to protect you

better, it’s the best thing you can do.

At the same time, sometimes it would be nice if you just walked up

to them and said: “Thank you.” That’s because while you’re sleeping,

they’re on shift. They’re dealing with a bar fight. They’re dealing with

a fatal motor vehicle accident. They’re dealing with, sometimes,

incidents involving firearms. They’re dealing with people who need

Narcan in order to live. And they do it every day.

Let’s remember how important law enforcement is. That’s important

to recognize as we go through how important the tools we give them are.

To the minister, to the government, congratulations on another tool. If

we can always keep the tools we need for law enforcement and the

protection of our community as being non-partisan, it would be the best

thing we could do for the future of our province with regard to

protecting our communities.

J. Brar: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: I’m very pleased to welcome the students up there. They are from

Archbishop Carney Secondary School in Richmond. There are 40 people, 36

students in grade 10. They’re all here to witness today the activity in the

House.

Right now there’s a debate on a bill. Students, the minister is

sitting on this side. He introduced the bill. The opposition on the other

side have been debating the bill. The minister is going to close debate on

the bill now. Thanks for coming today.

I ask the House members to make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to close debate. I want to thank those who have

participated. I want to thank them for their comments. The previous

speaker — I want to share many of his sentiments, the member for Langley

East. He is absolutely correct when he says that this is about creating

tools to help us maintain safe communities and give the police and

communities the tools they need to deal with the challenges and the

problems that they face.

We know that crime and criminal activity evolves over time and

that legislation needs to keep up with that. The legislation that we’ve

been bringing forward has been a response to what we have seen evolving

in this province. It’s part of, I think, a comprehensive, multifaceted

approach to put in place legislation that we believe will help to deal

with the serious challenges and criminality that we’ve been facing,

particularly around gang violence and gun violence but also the criminal

nuisance properties, for example, that occur in many parts of British

Columbia.

What’s critical for people to realize, of course, is that no one

piece of legislation is a silver bullet. No one piece of legislation is

going to solve all the problems or the criminal problems that we face.

What a piece of legislation does, as has been stated by, I think,

everybody who has spoken, is that it is a tool. It is a tool that allows

us to attack a particular kind of crime, a particular new type of crime

or activity that may have started to emerge.

It allows the police to do their job. It allows the minister, at a

level, to perhaps do enforcement in a different way that will free up

resources from the police that they can apply to other areas. Ideally,

in many cases — and with this legislation — it may well, in fact, take

some out of the court system and allow an administrative penalty process

to be able to deal with some of the issues that are being

faced.

[3:30 p.m.]

The point is that it’s important legislation. I look forward to

the questions that the members have raised, on both sides, in the

committee stage of the legislation. We can have a good discussion on

that, and when that is done, I look forward to the passage of the

bill.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 13, Community Safety Amendment Act, 2019, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 23, the Land Owner

Transparency Act.

BILL 23 — LAND OWNER

TRANSPARENCY

ACT

(continued)

R. Sultan: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Bill 23, the Land

Owner Transparency Act, which I support and which probably has

particular significance for the riding of West Vancouver–Capilano, which

I represent.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Who can argue against transparency? It’s the motto of the hour,

whether we are talking about the disclosure of your still unpaid student

loans all the way to the size of the tip you left on that last cup of

coffee you had at Starbucks — while on legislative duty of course. Our

Legislature will even let you examine a scan of the original receipt.

Disclosure and transparency are viewed today as next to godliness, and

all of us are becoming used to the inevitability of less and less

privacy in our lives.

Transparency can serve noble public policy ends. We should

certainty applaud Vivian Krause when she renders transparent all that

American money pouring into Canada to influence our affairs, whether

pipelines or salmon farming — or the election of Canadian governments,

even. So three cheers for transparency.

That brings us to the world of real estate. It has proven very

difficult for monetary authorities to deal with the consequences of all

that liquidity created by governments running deficits around the world

and by central banks expanding their money supply and the considerable

concentrations of capital accumulated in regimes more hostile to private

capital than our own, whether through suspicious activities or not, and

anxious to relocate.

In face of such pressures, British Columbia became the destination

of considerable flows of money, both legitimate and some not so

legitimate. We would be naive to ignore its considerable magnitude. It

became a public policy issue when the deployment of all that money

helped inflate British Columbia property values inordinately, with side

effects on everyone’s cost of living, and also when our taxman could not

easily capture government’s legal share of the gains.

That’s the backdrop and one of the motivations for Bill 23 today,

but not the only one. Governments, particularly this NDP government,

never saw a source of possible tax revenue they didn’t love. And

governments, particularly this NDP government, can be quite creative in

figuring out ways to grab a chunk of it.

[3:35 p.m.]

One marketing ploy is to use mislabelling. They announce a tax on

speculation which has nothing to do, really, with speculation. They

announce a tax favouring education where none of the proceeds actually

go to education. They announce a vacancy tax which is really a tax on

vacation homes or a tax on anybody who purchased a second home, even if

it’s merely a cabin in the woods.

Truth in labelling is not this government’s strong suit. Such

mislabelling allows them to claim virtue and goodness, all the while

growing government itself at a rate which will see a doubling every 15

years at the present pace. It’s unsustainable growth, I believe, unless

some spectacular new sources of revenue can be found. That, those of a

suspicious nature may be tempted to believe — and perhaps, occasionally,

I could be included in that category — brings us to Bill 23.

Bill 23 doesn’t create any new taxes so far, but it should improve

the collection of both avoided and evaded taxes, and that’s a good

thing. It will also, however, be a goldmine of future taxation

opportunities. Increased taxes can be used for additional staff, higher

wages, better pensions beyond imagining, and the friends of the

government would tend to be the beneficiaries, on a differential basis

at least.

Therefore, a responsible and cautious reaction to Bill 23, I

believe, could be reasonably something like this statement. “We welcome

real measures aimed at halting tax evasion and tackling money laundering

in British Columbia. But we do get exceedingly nervous about complex,

perhaps unintended or as yet unimagined, tax consequences.” And let’s

just skip over the huge privacy issues, which will probably give our

Privacy Commissioner pause and merit serious attention. That’s not

really the focus of my remarks.

If Bill 23 passes, the identity of the real owners of real

property will no longer be able to be shielded by numbered companies,

offshore and domestic trusts and corporations. A new, large and

undoubtedly complex database will be created and maintained, requiring

extra information when title is registered in the name of a corporation,

a trust or a partnership. I would be curious, during committee stage, if

any credible estimates have been made of the magnitude that the database

creation and maintenance may turn out to be, because my hunch is that

it’s a major, major effort.

If such a registration does take place under Bill 23, a

declaration will be required to name the beneficial owner behind the

entity. But a note of caution: how that provision can be enforced will

be a challenge. As a group of real estate agents visiting with MLAs

yesterday in these precincts pointed out, expecting real estate agents

to de facto serve as private investigators simply doesn’t work very

well.

Each individual interest holder will have to provide detailed

information, including date of birth, social insurance number,

individual tax number and whether or not the individual is resident in

Canada. All of this is to be accomplished outside the proven and trusted

domain of B.C.’s land title office. I was privately curious as to: why

not employ the existing demonstrated competence of the land title office

structure, to graft onto it these new responsibilities? But apparently,

a new parallel agency will be created. I think it would be helpful if

the minister explained, eventually, the reasons and arguments in favour

of going that route.

[3:40 p.m.]

To cap all of this, the list of beneficial owners will become

available and searchable on line in the same way the public can

currently access the land title registry. Again, how Fortune

500 lists of shareholders would be dealt with is unclear to me, because,

again, this could turn out to be quite an undertaking.

Bill 23 will also create sweeping new powers for inspections by

enforcement officers, ministry officials, tax authorities, law

enforcement and regulators. All of them will have the ability to share —

subject to limitations, of course — information across Canada and with

agencies abroad, creating a broad field of fire for privacy lawyers, I

would anticipate. So while acknowledging such challenges, we should

vigorously support transparency in property ownership and the

determination of taxability, and I’m glad to do so.

However, this activity will have to be implemented with extreme

care, and I say that giving regard to the NDP style, values and track

record. For let us be under no illusions. This NDP government regards

anything with the title “corporation” attached to it with a degree of

suspicion, I’ve noticed. It also seems to me they have a tendency to

dislike the notion of private property, all other things being equal.

Furthermore, I also sense that the accumulation of capital is something

they view with suspicion, since it almost always involves a history of

earning profits, and profits are inherently suspicious, too.

By nature, by creed, by ideology, our friends across the aisle are

much more comfortable with entities which earn no profits at all. They

are perhaps owned by governments — not by individuals, not by

corporations — which are regulated by commissioners and appointees and

not by the rudeness and rough-and-tumble of the marketplace, which can

be a rather difficult and unpredictable place, but by people this

government would be assured by, drawn from agencies and institutions of

higher learning and the non-profit sector, as well as the civil service

— the public service itself. These are more reliable, predictable —

indeed, controllable — entities than that dastardly, unruly marketplace

out there.

In this world — the world they tend to favour, in my observation —

numbered companies, corporations, offshore entities, strangers from

abroad or, heaven forbid, persons singularly interested in earning

profits, are really not to be trusted too much. That’s the current

institutional framework and the cultural setting in which this bill will

be implemented.

To sum up, we acknowledge the public policy necessity — I

certainly do, at least — and can salute the government’s willingness to

grasp a prickly thistle. But we dread the longer-term innovations in

taxation, pain and obstacles which are probably inevitable in the field

of property and real estate under Bill 23.

I’m sure my colleagues will be raising a number of questions at

committee stage aimed at ensuring that a proper balance is promised

between private property rights, transparency, taxation and, most

importantly, privacy. While I have not really addressed it, except in

passing in these short remarks, the privacy issues are serious indeed,

can potentially be highly abused, and warrant fuller explanation at

committee stage. I look forward to that.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to my colleague for his willingness to wait a few more

minutes to speak.

It’s important to speak to all of the measures that this

government is taking to deal with what has become a housing crisis in

British Columbia and an acute housing crisis in Metro Vancouver,

particularly Vancouver and environs.

I grew up in Vancouver. I grew up in a comfortable neighbourhood,

a mix of middle-class and working-class families. It just seemed normal

that young parents would make a down payment, purchase a home, make

payments on that home and, with some luck and steady work in industry,

pay down their mortgage and pay off the house during their working lives

— perhaps leave the home to their children or be able to take some of

the income they were no longer putting toward their mortgage and give

some assistance to their children to also have the ability to find a

home and sometimes, often, in the same neighbourhood where those kids

grew up.

In my childhood and my youth, that was normal. That’s no longer

normal. It’s no longer normal in Vancouver. It’s no longer normal in

much of Metro Vancouver. Unfortunately, increasingly in many parts of

British Columbia, it’s ceased to be normal.

When I was first elected in 2013 and started knocking on doors in

my constituency and talking to neighbours and potential constituents, I

just heard repeatedly about housing, even from people who owned their

homes, who considered themselves fortunate enough to own their homes but

were disturbed by what they saw happening around them — the changing

nature of the neighbourhood, the inability of their children or their

friends’ children to even contemplate buying a home in the

neighbourhood.

I remember distinctly talking to a couple in their 30s who are

renting a home very close to the home that one of them had grown up in,

and he just said: “It’s inconceivable to me. When I was a child, I

always wanted to stay in this neighbourhood. I love the neighbourhood. I

love the shops. I love the streets. I love the trees. I love the parks.

But it’s inconceivable to me that I will ever be able to do anything but

rent in this neighbourhood, and I’m not even sure I will continue to be

able to rent.” I heard that story repeatedly.

I heard the story from young couples, who would say: “When we

decide to have kids, or as we’re deciding to expand our family and we’re

looking at space that could house our growing family, we cannot afford

it here, and we’re not sure where we can afford it.”

As housing becomes more pricey and is priced out of reach, renters

face the same problem, because owners are seeking greater return on

their rental property, especially if they’re new owners. So the housing

crisis escalates, and it includes both people wishing to own and renters

who are increasingly facing unaffordable rents. As people are scrabbling

to come up with the cash necessary to pay high rents, of course, that’s

less money that they have to put away for a down payment.

In many cases, people felt that something was wrong. They didn’t

understand what was driving up the price of housing. Obviously, in the

heart of Vancouver, everybody knows what a desirable place it is to live

from the perspective of people who live elsewhere — other parts of

Canada that are colder, other parts of the world where the political

climate is challenging, I may say, euphemistically, and sometimes

threatening. They’re looking for a better place to live.

[3:50 p.m.]

It’s not that simple, and it’s not just about that. People had a

feeling that something was going on, but they didn’t know what was going

on. The reason they didn’t know what was going on was because nobody

knew what was going on. We weren’t keeping a record — a record that

would allow us to know whether people were resident, whether they were

truly the owners, who the beneficial owner was, where the money was

coming from.

In the midst of what really became a crisis of awareness or

consciousness of British Columbians in the last four, five, six, seven

years, trying to track down what’s really at the high costs of housing —

and spiralling, out-of-control costs in the Lower Mainland in

particular, spreading to the rest of B.C. — it was almost impossible to

get accurate data. We didn’t have, as the member for West

Vancouver–Capilano so aptly put it, the transparency necessary to have

that knowledge.

When our government took office, the Housing Minister, the Finance

Minister and our government as a whole adopted a comprehensive plan to

try to deal with the housing crisis. Whether it’s ownership, rental or

just the supply of housing in British Columbia, it was so, so

challenging for people. That was such an important issue in the last

election. In the last two elections — which are the two I ran in — it by

far exceeded the list of concerns of anybody I talked to — whether on

the doorstep during the election campaign, coming to my constituency

office, meeting at events, running into in the street, or talking to at

the market.

It continues to be a concern. The 30-point plan, of which this

bill is a part, is attempting and succeeding in trying to bring prices

under control and also dealing with the rental crisis in British

Columbia. The truth is that things got so out of control because of

neglect. Because of a lack of desire by the previous government to

actually get a handle on what was happening or to get the data needed to

decide what measures would be appropriate or could be taken, it got

worse and worse and worse.

When I listen to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano say on the

one hand that he believes in transparency, that he can support the

general intent of the bill but is concerned about privacy concerns or

the threat that it somehow poses to the rights of people to invest in

British Columbia, to prosper or to make a profit in British Columbia,

what he is missing is the fact that for the average British Columbian

struggling to get housing security or hoping against hope that their

children will be able to have housing security, whether it is ownership

or rental, what people really want to know is that they have a

government that isn’t putting the rights of investors who wish to hide

their identity and their true intent ahead of the interests of people

who simply want a right to safe and secure housing.

It’s important to have perspective, it’s important to have

priorities, and of course it’s important to ensure that legitimate and

legal privacy issues are dealt with, but not at the expense of being

unable to control rampant speculation, money laundering or any other

either illegal or unethical activities in our housing market. People

often say that housing is a right. It’s not a privilege; it’s both a

right and a necessity. I’m proud of the fact that our government has

taken a suite of measures to try to bring the housing crisis under

control, to address the issues of transparency in land-ownership. It’s

critical that we do that.

[3:55 p.m.]

It’s critical that we do that, so that we can find out all the

measures we need to take to combat all of the causes of out-of-control

housing price increases and to make a determination about whether those

are legitimate market forces or manipulated market forces, whether there

are measures we should take or measures we need to take, or whether

there are questions of legality that should be addressed and should have

been addressed many years ago.

We allowed, for far too many years, shell companies, trusts and

partnerships to hide who really owns property in B.C. As a result of

that, we faced tax evasion, we faced fraud, and we faced money

laundering. We know, through reports and research, that now many of the

most high-valued homes in Vancouver were, or are, owned by shell

companies. This Land Owner Transparency Act will end hidden ownership by

creating a publicly accessible registry on beneficial ownership in real

estate.

This is one of a suite of measures to ensure that homes in B.C.

are used for people. For people. Not for speculation or, even worse, for

money laundering of illegal activity, with all of the knock-on effects

that have made housing affordability out of reach for so many British

Columbians or taken way, way, way too much out of people’s paycheques,

making them vulnerable to shifts in employment or other forms of impact,

like rising interest rates.

This transparency registry will be a first of its kind in Canada.

It will help tax authorities crack down on tax evasion. It will help law

enforcement identify tax fraud and money laundering. We are working hard

to bring transparency to British Columbia, to our real estate market. We

want to ensure that everyone is paying their fair share. We want to

ensure that people are not manipulating the laws of British Columbia and

Canada in a way that takes housing availability away from hard-working

British Columbians.

I’ve listened all week to members of the opposition talk about

affordability on an incredibly narrow band. An important band. Any place

people spend money in British Columbia is important, and anything we can

do to increase affordability is important. But when you look at the

perspective of the incredible bite that housing takes out of the

paycheques, the pocketbooks and the bank accounts of all British

Columbians, even on a good day, even in a good market, we need to take

action.

We heard that loud and clear as we ran in 2017, and we have

responded by taking action. I’m pleased to support this Land Owner

Transparency Act as an important measure to ensure that British

Columbians can have faith that the laws are being upheld, that

speculation is not distorting the market and that money laundering is

not grossly distorting our application of laws, fairness and the

market.

This is an important tool. This is an important tool in our suite

of housing affordability bills, and it’s an honour to stand here and

support it.

S. Bond: I am pleased to be able to rise and make some additional comments.

The minister has already heard remarks from my co-critic, and my

comments will not, obviously, vary significantly from those.

I did want to start with a thank-you to the minister. I very much

appreciate the fact that she is very helpful when it comes to arranging

briefings and making sure that staff provides information to the

opposition. And that is appreciated.

I should note that there was a new approach in this briefing,

which I very much appreciated. The staff actually brought a PowerPoint,

and we walked through the steps. I know that those things matter to

public servants, that they do a good job, and I know the minister will

go back and express to her staff our appreciation for the information

provided. Not just about this bill. As the speaker previous to me noted,

the minister is looking at a series of initiatives. And I have a very

strong sense that this is only the beginning of the work that she

intends to do.

We’re going to work our way through a number of bills this

afternoon. But I think it is important to recognize that this is a

complex policy area. The minister and I work our way, along with my

co-critic, through long, complicated bills. I think that’s an important

part of this process.

[4:00 p.m.]

I begin my remarks by reflecting on the fact that, as one of my

colleagues earlier said, it’s pretty hard to argue with transparency. I

think that we have signalled very clearly that we support initiatives

that look at how we crack down on money laundering and how we deal with

loopholes that exist in tax policy. I think most members of this House,

if not all of them, would agree that that is an absolutely important

thing. But to use a fairly common phrase, the devil is in the

details.

I was interested yesterday when the leader of the Green Party

waxed on eloquently about the bill, almost implying perfection. There

are always matters to discuss and look at in terms of how we move

forward with things that include, for example, the collection of

personal information. That is very sensitive, and it’s important to

British Columbians that we make sure that the proper framework is in

place for that information. I know the minister knows that we’ve

indicated we are notionally supportive of this bill, and we will work

our way through another two this afternoon.

Again, I wanted to reflect on a process that the government put in

place, because people may not know, as they speak to this bill in the

House, that the bill didn’t appear out of nowhere. In fact, the ministry

released a white paper, and it was a white paper with annotations. I

have to say that many of the people that participated in the

consultation process had complimentary things to say about the

government. I know the minister will appreciate hearing that.

The white paper was released in June of 2018, and it actually

encouraged people to participate in this process. I actually think that

is a process that has merit. It allows for people to provide input to

government. In fact, when you look at how the draft legislation was

shared, it was very thoughtfully done. There were key questions that

were highlighted throughout, text-boxed throughout the draft

legislation. I ap