Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, April 3, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 230

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

Statements

Tenth anniversary of Tsawwassen First Nation final

agreement

Hon. S. Fraser

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill 25 — Coastal Ferry Amendment Act,

Hon. C. Trevena

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Autism awareness and Canucks Autism

Network

A. Kang

Rebuilding of White Rock pier

T. Redies

Supportive housing

B. D’Eith

Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue volunteers

in Richmond

J. Yap

Tsunami preparedness

J. Rice

Barbara McLintock

L. Reid

Oral Questions

LNG Canada project and temporary foreign

workers

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

M. de Jong

Hon. B. Ralston

Proposed public inquiry and reports on money

laundering

S. Furstenau

Hon. D. Eby

Funding for community social services organizations

and worker wages

S. Bond

Hon. K. Conroy

T. Redies

Hon. S. Simpson

Tabling Documents

Office of the Merit Commissioner, annual report, 2018-19

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2019

(continued)

A. Weaver

P. Milobar

Hon. J. Sims

D. Clovechok

Hon. G. Heyman

M. Hunt

N. Simons

T. Shypitka

R. Coleman

Hon. A. Dix

Bill 20 — Medicare Protection Amendment Act,

Hon. A. Dix

N. Letnick

A. Weaver

Hon. H. Bains

L. Throness

Hon. J. Sims

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. G. Heyman

R. Sultan

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural

Resource Operations and Rural Development (continued)

Hon. D. Donaldson

J. Rustad

S. Furstenau

A. Olsen

T. Stone

P. Milobar

Estimates: Other appropriations

Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Trade and

Technology

Hon. B. Ralston

S. Thomson

Hon. G. Chow

B. Stewart

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 2019

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today is a very good friend of mine, someone

I didn’t meet until about 15 or 16 years ago, which coincided with my first

run to represent the constituency of Malahat–Juan de Fuca. I met Larry

Fofonoff, and I convinced him to come in and volunteer on a Friday

afternoon. He’s been coming back for the past 14 years except, however, when

he is back in his hometown of Grand Forks, taking care of his mom. I’m not

going to tell you how old Larry is, but his mom is older than he is, and he

still cares for her. He’s joining us in the gallery today with his friend

from Esquimalt, Thelma Vale. Would the House please make Larry Fofonoff and

Thelma Vale very, very welcome.

S. Sullivan: The newest member of the press gallery grew up on a farm in southern

Alberta. Tanya Fletcher has her birthday today, and she has some special

visitors. One is her mother, Sheri Fletcher, from Lethbridge. Another is her

grandmother, Marg Telke, from Medicine Hat. I guess they want to make sure

their daughter is doing something real and important. So will the House

please celebrate Tanya’s birthday and welcome her mother and

grandmother.

R. Sultan: It’s an honour to be asked to introduce very special guests in the

galleries. The engineers and geoscientists are in town. Although my fading

eyesight inhibits my identifying each and every one of them, four of them

are very special indeed.

Geoscientists of B.C., heading an organization regulating an organization of

some 35,000 professionals, and the president of EGBC, Kathy Tarnai-Lokhorst,

who’s a PEng, of course. She’s waving to us right now.

Indicative of their 30 by 30 goal, 30 percent of women in the

profession by the year 2030, my granddaughter is going to be one of the

first to try and help them achieve that goal.

Also joining us in an all-feminine lineup so far is Caroline Andrewes.

She happens to be a vice-president of EGBC but also CEO of ACEC-BC, which is

the acronym for the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies of B.C.,

an organization representing a mere 85 companies hiring 8,500 people and

contributing $3.6 billion annually to our economy.

[1:40 p.m.]

Finally, I see my old friend and colleague Harlan Kelly up there, a

PEng, who practised engineering just down the road from my office in West

Vancouver for many, many years.

Would the House make these and the other professionals upon whom we

rely so much welcome.

Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the members’ gallery this afternoon are members of the

Consular Corps of British Columbia. The Consular Corps, based mainly in

Vancouver, is the official body comprising all consular officers resident in

the province, representing 82 countries and four international

organizations.

They’re here today to participate in briefings by the government.

Today we have representatives from 39 different countries and international

organizations present. Let me recognize the vice-dean of the Consular Corps

and consul general of Peru, Mr. Manuel Cacho Sousa Velazquez.

Would the House please extend a warm welcome to members of the

Consular Corps of British Columbia who are with us today.

Statements

TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF

TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION

FINAL

AGREEMENT

Hon. S. Fraser: Today is an historic day. Together with the Tsawwassen First

Nation, we are celebrating the tenth anniversary of the nation’s final

agreement. This day is being recognized and honoured with a display of

the Tsawwassen flag, a national flag, here in the Legislature.

Displaying our flags together is an affirmation of the strong

relationship between us all and a symbol of the reconciliation work

still ahead.

Ten years ago the Tsawwassen First Nation moved away from the

Indian Act and became a self-governing nation again. Today is more than

a celebration and recognition. Today we remember that all treaties are

not final. Today we remember that it’s a foundation for a new

relationship and just one more important milestone on the road to

reconciliation.

Introductions by Members

M. Polak: Today, visiting us from my riding of Langley, we have Arne and Lucy

Olson. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. M. Mark: I’m introducing guests from the Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C.

who are in the gallery today. I want to acknowledge the 35,000 members

across this province. Of course, let’s not forget that the MLA for West

Vancouver–Capilano is an engineer, the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale

is an engineer, and for Port Moody–Coquitlam, as well as the minister of

state.

They are trailblazers. They’re leaders. We trust our infrastructure

because of their expertise. They’re here today to meet with members of all

sides of the chamber. Thank you for the robust conversation

today.

Will the House please join me in welcoming our guests: Kathy

vice-president; and members of their executive who are here

today.

L. Reid: I’d ask the House to join me in wishing my mother a speedy recovery.

She slipped and broke her hip and her wrist. Only hours out of surgery did

she ask if the television at the hospital carried the legislative channel,

so I know she’s watching us today. Thank you all.

Mr. Speaker: I’m hoping with her watching that channel, she’ll feel better after

today. Just a little heads-up about question period.

S. Bond: For two nights this week, my colleague from Vernon-Monashee and I had

the opportunity to visit the Q Centre in Colwood. Now, one might ask why

that matters. Well, we weren’t the only two that were in the Q Centre in

Colwood. In fact, the Premier of British Columbia was there too. What were

we there doing? We were there cheering on our respective hockey teams. The

Premier was cheering on the Victoria Grizzlies in their series against the

Prince George Spruce Kings.

Now, I want to say that last night was a very exciting game. The

Spruce Kings were victorious in overtime, and they completed a four-game

sweep of the Victoria Grizzlies. In fact, just yesterday the Premier and I

had discussed the strengths of our hockey teams, but I should note that he

has already wished them well as they go on to round 4.

I want to congratulate Coach Adam Maglio and the entire Spruce Kings

organization.

I can assure the Premier of this: the long bus ride home to Prince

George will be a lot happier today than it might have been.

Congratulations, Prince George Spruce Kings.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I have two quick introductions to make. First of all, I would like to

welcome a group of 50 grade 5 students from John Knox Christian School in

the riding of Burnaby-Lougheed. It is very close to my community office as

well. They’re visiting the Legislature today and learning about the work we

do in this House. They’re also joined by some parents, family members and

teachers. I would like to ask the members to make them feel very welcome and

enjoy their visit.

The second introduction. I’m really also happy to have the opportunity

to introduce two very special guests who are joining question period today,

and that’s Sharon Gregson and Lynell Anderson. As many members in this House

may know, they’re both from the Coalition of Child Care Advo­cates,

who have worked really hard — along with many, many other advocates and

parents — to put together the $10-a-day child care plan.

The Premier always says that people are our superpower. When you think

of how people like Lynell and Sharon are able to put together such a

significant plan, which has the support of tens of thousands of British

Columbians, it is because they have so many parents, child care

professionals, community members, local governments and also the business

community behind them, who have been asking for a better, affordable,

inclusive and quality child care system for many years.

Because of them and all the advocacy, we can now finally start to

build a foundation of a universal child care system. I would like to give

them a big welcome and thank them for their very hard work. Please make them

feel very welcome in this House.

T. Shypitka: Today in the House I’m very happy to introduce two fine folks from the

Kootenay East region — residing, actually, in the south country part of the

region: Dianne and Brant Cullum. They’re entrepreneurs. They’re co-owners of

Sunshine Houseboats, one of the two best houseboat companies in B.C., with

all respect to the member for Shuswap. If anybody is planning on going to

the Kootenays and experiencing the Kootenay experience, please look Dianne

and Brant up. They’d be happy to accommodate.

It’s also Dianne’s birthday today, so I want to recognize that. From

the look up here, it looks like she’s celebrating her 49th birthday, I

believe.

I’d actually be remiss if I didn’t mention my wife’s birthday was

yesterday. I’d be in trouble as well.

Would the House please welcome the Cullums.

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce my good friend Josh Berson. He

is not only our friend, but he’s also the best photographer in Canada. Josh

and I have been friends for the last 30 years. Today he’s here to follow me

and record my activities in the Legislature so he can go back and tell my

constituents that I’m working here. Please join me to welcome

Josh.

Hon. S. Simpson: Those of us in the Legislature may, over the lunch-hour, have heard

the music and the choir that was in the rotunda today. That choir is the

Kettle Society Choir, an organization that’s located on Commercial Drive and

shared by myself and the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and

Training. We share many of the people who receive services from the Kettle

Society.

Today the choir of members was here. For those of you who may not be

aware, the Kettle Society is a long-standing organization that supports

people with mental illness, living in poverty, struggling with homelessness

and with substance use. They serve about 5,000 people a year out of the

Kettle. They have about 400 units of housing that they provide support for.

Today they were here singing their hearts out as the choir in the rotunda.

Please make the Kettle Society Choir welcome.

A. Wilkinson: On the occasion of Ms. Fletcher’s birthday, I feel obliged to describe

the first time we met at the CBC studios in Vancouver, where she made it

known that she was aware I went to high school in Lethbridge, Alberta. I

then mentioned, of course, that Nobleford is 20 miles outside of

Lethbridge.

I thought it was a chance to ingratiate myself with a member of the

media. I said: “Oh, you know, Nobleford’s very famous.” She said: “What’s it

famous for?” I said: “The Nobleford plow, which was invented in 1925 and was

a big commercial success.” She then looked me in the eye and said: “It’s

famous because it slices and crushes everything that gets in its way.” I

took that as a no.

Please celebrate the appearance of the mother and grandmother of Tanya

Fletcher and Tanya’s birthday.

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: With the graciousness of the Leader of the Opposition, I, too, have a

personal story about the birthday girl that I would like to share. I

wouldn’t have done it otherwise. I did tell her mom and her grandmom about

it.

I met Tanya when she was doing her first interview of me. I’d never

seen her before. The CBC had had a vacancy for a period of time, and I had

not yet met her.

She came into the office, and she said: “You know my husband.” I said:

“Oh, who’s that?” She said, “Jesse Johnston,” who, everyone will know, is

one of the greatest journalists the CBC has ever seen. At least, that’s what

I said at the time, ingratiating the spouse. I tried, hon. Members. I tried.

Tanya didn’t look at me favourably after that.

Jesse is a great guy, and I hope he got you something really good for

your birthday.

Hon. C. Trevena: I hope the House would welcome two of my colleagues who are in the

gallery: one of my ministerial assistants, Melanie Sanderson, and another

ministerial assistant, William Beale, who make my life, I’m not sure, easier

or more impossible. They are here to watch proceedings, and they make the

team of the Ministry of Transportation fantastic.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 25 — COASTAL FERRY

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. C. Trevena presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Coastal Ferry Amendment Act,

Hon. C. Trevena: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m very happy to be here to introduce Bill 25, the Coastal Ferry

Amendment Act, 2019. The amendments respond to the coastal ferry review

conducted by Blair Redlin, which was released earlier this

year.

Tens of thousands of people rely on our coastal ferry system. We

are a coastal province and have communities, businesses and many

families who daily use B.C. ferries.

Our government has already frozen fares for two years and brought

down the cost on many smaller routes. We brought back the free travel

for B.C. seniors, which is so important for so many people on a fixed

income. Earlier this week individuals and communities saw much of the

former government’s cuts in services reversed.

The amendments in this bill give greater certainty to people who

live and work on the coast by ensuring that the public interest is

central to the B.C. ferries commissioner and to the Ferry Authority. For

too long, that has been absent from strategy when dealing with our

marine highway.

The role of the ferries commissioner is strengthened, and that

includes the commissioner taking into account provincial GHG emission

targets when dealing with the ferry corporation. Another change is in

the B.C. Ferry Authority, the body which, effectively, owns B.C.

Ferries.

These amendments increase the number of provincial representatives

on the board to four, keeping the complement at nine. The amendments

also address concerns about transparency and executive compensation at

B.C. Ferries by broadening the definition of the executive to include

all vice-presidents in the company. The amendments are intended to

improve accountability and allow for public interest to be considered in

the regulation and oversight of our ferries.

Our government is committed to a healthy ferry service that

supports our vibrant coastal communities and the people who live in

them.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Trevena: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting in the House after today.

Bill 25, Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2019, 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)

AUTISM AWARENESS AND

CANUCKS AUTISM

NETWORK

A. Kang:

“Let’s play a game. I’ll give you a bunch of clues, and you try to

guess who I am.

“I am not a person, place or thing. You can’t see me, touch me or

smell me.

“I am considered a human condition, but really, I am a collection of

symptoms.

“I am the twitching finger and the flapping hand.

“Because of me, Mozart wrote complicated yet beautiful

symphonies.

“Because of me, Michelangelo splashed the Sistine Chapel with

amazing lights and colours.

“Because of me, Albert Einstein was a genius but did terribly in

school, and Sir Isaac Newton, of the fallen apple, had no

friends.

[1:55 p.m.]

“I will make you have bad days and good days and bad days and then

good days.

“Some days I taste like shame and bitterness burning up from a

mother’s heart like sour indigestion. But other days I taste like the

purest joy, like cotton candy and pride exploding from your

heart.”

This is an abridged and modified excerpt by Carrie Cariello, an

author and a mother of a son with autism.

April is World Autism Awareness Month, and I would like to use

this opportunity to highlight the wonderful work of the Canucks Autism

Network. The Canucks Autism Network’s vision is for every individual

with autism to be understood, to be accepted and supported in all

community spaces. The Canucks Autism Network, CAN for short, delivers

programs across the Lower Mainland, in the Interior and on the

Island.

CAN has proven to be a provincial leader and a change-maker that

is committed to increasing autism awareness and acceptance, through

training and awareness initiatives across the sectors of community, in

spaces such as Rogers Arena, Science World, Vancouver Aquarium and the

Vancouver International Airport. These initiatives and awareness

projects make a big difference in the lives of people living with autism

and their families.

A big thank-you to Canucks Autism for all that you do.

REBUILDING OF WHITE ROCK PIER

T. Redies: On December 23, 2018, the day that British Columbians found out

the dramatic results of the proportional representation referendum,

another drama was unfolding in the city of White Rock.

White Rock’s iconic pier, a symbol of our community for over 100

years, became the victim of a massive storm. Whipped by winds that

topped 90 kilometres an hour, a number of boats were ripped from their

moorings and crashed against the pier. The boats beat the century-old

structure mercilessly, until a large

section the size of an airplane

fell away into the ocean. As the

section broke off, one man was trapped,

cut off from the shore by the downed part of the pier, and required a

dramatic helicopter rescue from the remaining section.

It was the damage to the pier that left the people of White Rock

heartbroken. White Rock pier is a structure that is at the heart of our

community. For more than 100 years, it has graced White Rock’s beautiful

shores, a draw for the residents of our community but also for people

from Surrey, Langley and Vancouver — and, indeed, people from around the

world.

White Rock resident Lynda Honing, whose great-great-grandfather

helped build the pier 100 years ago, eloquently captured the importance

of the pier to our community. Lynda said: “People walk the pier every

day. It’s part of people’s lifestyle. It’s part of their morning

routine. It’s their walk. It’s their run. It’s where people get proposed

to. They have their dinners out here. It is our community.”

The pier is also vital to the many small businesses and

restaurants that operate along Marine Drive. It is an important landmark

that attracts visitors and patrons to these businesses, and without it,

many businesses are concerned with their ability to make ends

meet.

The citizens of White Rock are rallying to help raise money to

rebuild the pier. From our wonderful White Rock Youth Ambassadors,

who’ve been holding a number of fundraising events, to ordinary citizens

buying pictures of the pier, we are all rallying around our love of this

community and the structure that is at its heart.

The city of White Rock is working with the federal government and

the provincial government to find funding to rebuild our beloved pier.

On behalf of the citizens of White Rock, I urge the provincial

government and the federal government to work expeditiously with the

city to rebuild this iconic structure. It is the symbol of our community

and our home, and we must rebuild it.

SUPPORTIVE HOUSING

B. D’Eith: Earlier this week my colleague from Vancouver–​West End rose

to say that we owe it to our communities and to each other to act on

ending homelessness because it’s the right thing to do. I couldn’t agree

more. How we respond to issues such as homelessness says a lot about who

we are as elected officials, as community leaders and as

people.

Now, the housing first model is based on the best evidence out

there, but at its heart, it’s a very simple idea. It says that, first,

we need to give people experiencing homelessness a safe place to sleep.

Then we provide them with wraparound services to connect them to the

community supports that they need to get back on their feet. Housing

first helps people navigate a very, very difficult transition, freeing

them from this survival mode, gaining a sense of safety and security in

their housing, establishing a productive daily routine and living

meaningful lives. We see this model working all over the

province.

[2:00 p.m.]

In Maple Ridge, Vancouver, the Interior and on the Island, the

growing need for supportive housing is finally being addressed. While I

know in my community it’s been a challenge to get more supportive

housing built, I also know that we cannot afford to be divided on this

issue any longer. We simply cannot afford to leave people in need on our

streets any longer.

I would like to thank the hard-working staff at Coast Mental

Health and Fraser Health, in my community, and B.C. Housing, as well as

the thousands of British Columbians in communities across the province

who are reaching out to the people moving into supportive housing,

saying: “Welcome to your new home.”

ROYAL CANADIAN MARINE SEARCH AND

RESCUE VOLUNTEERS IN

RICHMOND

J. Yap: Today I would like to honour the Royal Canadian Marine Search and

Rescue, or RCMSAR, in Richmond, and two gentlemen who have devoted a

large portion of their lives to this organization. The RCMSAR is B.C.’s

pre-eminent volunteer-based charity that saves lives on the water. It

operates 33 marine rescue stations on the British Columbia coast and in

the interior, all of which are on call 24 hours a day, 365 days a

year.

Richmond is currently home to RCMSAR station 10, which was

formally created in 1988. Its beginnings were humble, with some of the

fundraising being just enough to keep operations — pardon the pun —

above water. RCMSAR still relies on donations by the community, in

addition to fundraising events. I recently had the honour to present

them with a $45,000 community gaming grant.

Barry Hastings, aged 76, and Ron Robson, 75, have a combined 66

years of experience volunteering with the RCMSAR. Mr. Robson came to

RCMSAR with 25 years experience in lifesaving, examining and

instructing, while Mr. Hastings has the organization’s Steveston

Harbour–based vessel named after him. These two brave rescuers are

highly respected and still offer valuable mentoring and educational

support when called upon.

A look back at RCMSAR’s 2018 highlights will show that more than

990 members volunteered at the stations. The rescue crews spent 984

hours on search and rescue missions, saving and assisting 413 people, as

well as saving over $19 million in property.

In honour of Barry, Ron and all the volunteers at RCMSAR, I ask

that this House join me in applauding their hard work keeping us safe on

the water.

TSUNAMI PREPAREDNESS

J. Rice: Hon. Speaker, I know you’ve missed her, but the dean of disaster

is back.

On the coast, the ocean is our neighbour. It’s not just beautiful

scenery but a part of daily life. But there are times when we’re

reminded of the strength and the power the ocean holds. Though a tsunami

can hit at any time, most of us remain complacent about it.

Emergency preparation gets put on a to-do list but never checked

off as done. That’s why each year, during Tsunami Preparedness Week,

which runs April 8 to 14, we’re asking individuals and communities to

make sure they’re prepared for the possibility of a tsunami. And it is

possible. Many British Columbians were reminded of this fact last

January. On that morning, just before 2 a.m., a magnitude 7.9 earthquake

in the Gulf of Alaska caused a flurry of tsunami notifications to most

of B.C.’s coast. In the end, the warning was rescinded, with no damage

reported. We were lucky.

However, this warning showed us that many coastal British

Columbians remain unprepared for the possibility of an earthquake or

tsunami. So what do you do if there is a danger of a tsunami in your

area? Get yourself to higher ground or a pre-identified safe area.

Tsunami waves can last several hours, so stay there until you receive

the all-clear message from your local government, not from armchair

Different communities have different local conditions. What’s safe for

one is not necessarily safe for the other, so wait until your local

government gives you the all-clear. Never go to the beach to watch the

waves. A tsunami can move faster than you can run.

During this week, I urge all members and British Columbians in

tsunami zones to make a plan to move to higher ground and to put

together an emergency kit. All the info you need is available in our

tsunami preparedness guide on the PreparedBC website. Don’t wait to

prepare. I assure you that a tsunami won’t wait for you.

[2:05 p.m.]

BARBARA

M c LINTOCK

L. Reid: I rise today to pay tribute to an incredibly special person. I had

just been sworn in as a member of the 35th parliament in British

Columbia. It was a lovely moment in time. I walked back down the hallway

with a warm, funny woman by the name of Barbara McLintock. It became a

common refrain, “Walk with me,” and MLAs always did. She was unassuming

yet hugely observant.

There weren’t many women elected at the time, and Barbara was the

only woman in the press gallery. Barbara worked as a reporter for more

than 30 years. At just 24, she was acclaimed as president of the press

gallery, becoming the youngest ever and the first woman to achieve the

office.

Barbara Jean McClintock was born in Regina General Hospital on

December 10. She was the only child of a teacher and a newspaperman.

Attending her celebration of life was a remarkable experience. Many

wonderful stories were shared which highlighted her spirit, sense of

community, her love of guiding. In fact, she and I spent many a day at

Guide camps with young women. She was a marvel and wonderful

mentor.

She and I and Sheila Orr would meet for dinner. Barb always made

us smile when she would ask if we were dressing up for the White Spot.

Barb loved the White Spot.

Her skills as an investigative journalist led to a very successful

career as a coroner. In 2011, she became the first coroner of strategic

programs, working to improve communications with the public.

Barbara has always paid it forward. Her gifts of time have

launched many a career. I will always be grateful for her wry humour,

her sense of purpose and her mentorship.

Thanks for the memories. Rest in peace, McTick.

Oral Questions

Mr. Speaker: Members, before we begin question period today, I should mention that

yesterday, being an example of the last few days, we burned off seven

minutes of time of that question period, almost a quarter of the time, doing

nothing but being unruly. Perhaps today we could bring that number

down.

Thank you for your help in making that happen.

LNG CANADA PROJECT AND

TEMPORARY FOREIGN

WORKERS

A. Wilkinson: I think we witnessed yesterday that with a few limited exceptions,

this House recognizes that there are significant benefits that can be

brought to British Columbia by the LNG Canada project. It does require,

however, a level of transparency and openness and straightforward

disclosure by the province of British Columbia in the form of the

government run by the NDP.

This week we learned that as many as 65 percent of the workers on

this project, with a $40 billion budget, will likely be from outside

British Columbia. Of course, a good chunk of them will be temporary

foreign workers, under this government.

That raises the obvious question. With 35 percent of the workers

coming from British Columbia, perhaps the wages will fall down to 20

percent or even 10 percent of the total bill that will be paid to

British Columbians, because the skills will come, according to this

government, with Texas and Louisiana licence plates attached to

them.

The obvious question for the Premier is: can he explain what

actions, what tests, what documentation he’s produced with LNG Canada

with respect to granting access to temporary foreign workers?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question and his interest. He will know

that there were a number of proposals brought forward prior to this

government taking office that involved temporary foreign workers. We

worked very diligently with LNG Canada. They put forward a policy, a

local-hire-first policy, that will ensure the first hire will be to

local communities and First Nations, second hire to British Columbians

across the province, third hire to Canadians in other provinces and,

lastly, if only necessary, temporary foreign workers.

LNG Canada has already hired 600 people in the region. They have a

25 percent target for apprenticeship training. Again, these are issues

that we felt were critically important. We put them to the company. We

came to agreement. We have a letter I believe your critics have had for

a couple of days that outlines how they’re going to proceed. We’re very

excited about the prospects moving forward, as I know many other members

are.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: That is no answer to the question whatsoever. So let’s go back to

the Premier’s words in 2015. The Premier said this in 2015: “With no

guarantees for direct jobs and no direct guarantee for local

procurement, that strikes me as a failure all around.”

The Premier failed to secure guarantees for British Columbia

employment. He has a vague promise that, as a last resort, British

Columbians will be employed.

[2:10 p.m.]

The basic question the Finance Minister would not answer

yesterday…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Wilkinson: …was about temporary foreign workers.

Premier, here’s your chance. What is the deal with LNG Canada on

temporary foreign workers, and why won’t you disclose it to the people

of British Columbia?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, there was a deal for temporary foreign workers between the

former government and other providers that came to British Columbia. We

entered into no new agreements in our time in government. In fact, we

worked with LNG Canada. We laid this out in debates over a number of

days. The Minister of Finance made it abundantly clear that they have a

local-hire-first policy. They have project labour agreements in place

for the construction of the facility as well as the construction of the

pipeline.

We’re hoping to see 10,000 jobs in northern British Columbia, the

vast majority of them going to locals, going to British Columbians. The

key here, which was missing — the key which was missing from every

single thing that the B.C. Liberals did on liquefied natural gas — was a

25 percent target for training the next generation of skilled workers in

British Columbia.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, the Premier seems to be a little blind to the fact of what’s

happened in Norway, in Alberta and in Australia, where there are job

guarantees and training guarantees so that those workers go on to work

all around the world, based here in Canada. In return, we have nothing

from this Premier in terms of job guarantees.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member.

The Leader of the Third Party, you’re out of order.

A. Wilkinson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, in 2015, the now Premier said: “There’s not one

syllable committing that company to providing jobs for British

Columbians. Their own documents suggest quite the contrary — that they

will be using numerous temporary foreign workers.” The evidence here

shows the Premier has no job guarantees on a $40 billion project, only

aspirational goals.

Why has this Premier sold out the workers of British Columbia, has

no guarantee on temporary foreign worker limits and has basically sold

the farm to LNG Canada?

Hon. J. Horgan: I was talking to forest workers today, and I reminded them of the

30,000 forest jobs that were lost on the watch of the other side. I was

reminded of the complete absence of any binding agreements from the

previous government when it came to developing liquefied natural

gas.

What I will agree with the member opposite on…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …is what the difference between 2015 and today is. In 2015, there

was no final investment decision. In 2019, there is — $40 billion for

northern British Columbia.

M. de Jong: We would have to extend question period by days to quote back what

members of the government had to say about the use of temporary foreign

workers. “Local hiring” — the Premier, the Finance Minister, the

Minister of Energy — “must be guaranteed and written into the

agreement.” We know that didn’t happen.

The Finance Minister finally admitted, in the last two days, that

less than half — her projection is less than half — of the labour

opportunities, the work opportunities, will accrue to British

Columbians. On the question of temporary foreign workers, she ducked and

dodged and twisted and turned. I thought I was debating LeBron

James.

Interjections.

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

you.

M. de Jong: “Not my department,” she said. “You can ask the Minister of Jobs.”

Great. Minister of Jobs.

Will the Minister of Jobs confirm that he signed a decision note

on December 13, 2017, designed to ensure that LNG Canada would have

unique and expedited access to temporary foreign workers?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Well, another epiphany in question period. The opposition has

discovered that they are now opposed to temporary foreign workers. On

their watch, they envisioned that 70 percent of the labour…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Ralston: …would be temporary foreign workers. They passed legislation to

give unlimited indemnities to companies, tying the hands of future

governments.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, you may want to repeat your response, going back for the

last 30 seconds, because it was impossible for me to hear what you had

to say.

Hon. B. Ralston: They won’t listen a second time either, Mr. Speaker.

Even then, they failed to get it done. What’s different now, as

the Premier has just said, is that we have a final investment decision,

in 2019, that will bring jobs and prosperity to British Columbia,

particularly northern British Columbia.

The previous government put in place a letter of intent with

respect to the temporary foreign worker program as it relates to LNG

Canada. We signed no new agreements.

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

M. de Jong: What this side of the House is opposed to is a government that

says one thing and then secretly negotiates agreements that do exactly

the opposite. “The employer receives an exemption from the four-week

advertising requirement, an expedited application process and an

exemption from doing a transition plan for each temporary foreign

worker.” Then on the next page, approved and signed by the Minister of

Jobs.

What British Columbians want is a measure of honesty from this

government — to acknowledge that what they have done is said one thing

and, quietly, behind closed doors, negotiated an agreement for expedited

access to temporary foreign workers.

Hon. B. Ralston: The member is referring to the letter of intent with respect to

temporary foreign workers that the previous government signed. We signed

no new agreements.

Let’s talk about what’s happening in Kitimat. LNG Canada is

committed to a local-first hiring policy. First priority will be locals

and First Nations members; second…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Ralston: …British Columbians from across the province; thirdly, Canadians

from other provinces as well. If and only if, then there would be an

opportunity to access temporary foreign workers.

What’s happening there now? In December, 600 people were hired,

and 45 percent of those were local or members of Indigenous First

Nations. The company has strongly committed to that policy, and they are

carrying it out. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and that’s

what they’re doing right now in Kitimat.

PROPOSED PUBLIC INQUIRY AND

REPORTS ON MONEY

LAUNDERING

S. Furstenau: While the two old parties debate on where the chair should go

while they drive the Titanic full speed, we’ll turn to

something else right now.

Over a year ago, I asked the Attorney General….

Interjections.

S. Furstenau: I’ll remind every member of this House that there’s still an

opportunity to vote against this bill.

Interjections.

S. Furstenau: Oh, we don’t want to be in the debate about the chairs, but we can

vote against the bill every time.

Over a year ago, I asked the Attorney General for more

information….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, I notice that the entire back side of the

gallery cleared out after the last question exercise. My worry is that

the rest of the gallery is going to clear out too. So perhaps we could

be respectful when somebody is asking a question.

Proceed.

[2:20 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: Over a year ago, I asked the Attorney General for more information

on the extent of money laundering happening in the province. I asked

about how this illicit money was being generated by the fentanyl crisis

and being parked in real estate.

Yesterday we discovered that the U.S. Department of State has now

listed Canada as a major money-laundering jurisdiction. Our country was

also designated as a major precursor country for illicit narcotics and a

source country for fentanyl — the Wild West indeed.

Since 2016, over 8,000 Canadians have died from opioid-related

overdose deaths. Thousands of overdose deaths, a housing crisis, with

billions in laundered money — it’s all linked, with Vancouver at its

centre. The Attorney General said last week that a big piece of the

public inquiry would be to determine if the decisions that augmented

this crisis were “simple incompetence, wilful blindness or whether, in

fact, it was corruption.”

My question is to the Attorney General. We’ve heard for months and

months that a public inquiry is a maybe. But as we learn more and more,

it becomes harder and harder for this government to sit on the fence.

What is the timeline for the government to decide if a public inquiry is

indeed warranted?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question. The member knows that we

hired Peter German. He’s been out there doing phase 2 of the work,

focused on real estate, luxury cars and horse racing. We’ll be getting

that information out to the public as soon as we can. The reason, in

part, we commissioned that report was so the public would know what was

going on and so the members of this place would also know, if they don’t

already.

The second piece that the member asked about is in relation to

political accountability and a public inquiry. I’ll note simply that we

have written now multiple times to the member for Abbotsford West asking

for the opposition to disclose to the government, confidentially, the

work that they did when they were in government on

anti-money-laundering.

We heard from the member for Langley East they did a great deal of

really important work. We’re having trouble finding it, hon. Member, so

we’re hopeful that they will waive the privilege and allow us to review

the documents, confidentially, so we can build on the very important

work that they tell us they’ve done. I don’t know why, but the member

for Abbotsford West has stopped replying to our

correspondence.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for his response. Let’s hope we can have

a collaborative approach to this very serious problem in our

province.

Sam Cooper, the journalist who has been a leading force behind the

exposure of the money-laundering scene in the province, has stated that

in Vancouver approximately 50 percent of the most expensive luxury real

estate is owned by non-transparent structures like shell companies.

Often the owners, on paper, are stay-at-home parents or students —

people whose reported income couldn’t possibly support the ownership of

$20 million or $30 million homes.

Statistics like this shed light on the urgent need to better

understand the potential connection between money laundering and real

estate. I appreciate that the Minister of Finance has introduced Bill

23, which is meant to increase transparency of land-ownership but will

not answer the many questions about how we got to this terrible

place.

The Attorney General now has two reports in front of him that were

designed to look directly into the real estate, money-laundering

connection. British Columbians have waited a long time for answers on

this.

My question is to the Attorney General. Since we don’t have

clarity yet on a public inquiry, can the Attorney General provide a

timeline on when he will be commenting on these reports and what they

contain?

Hon. D. Eby: Just before I get into that timeline, might I just take a moment

to reflect on the amazing work of the Finance Minister of British

Columbia, who introduced two bills yesterday that are literally going to

transform law enforcement and tax authority. They’re going to transform

law enforcement and tax authorities’ ability to see who owns real estate

in our province, who actually owns it and how they paid for it. It is

transformational, and I thank her very much for that work.

On the issue of the release of the reports. The process is that

staff go through the reports. They identify individuals who have been

specifically named in the report. Those individuals are given an

opportunity to respond and explain. This helps mitigate potential

defamation risk, for example. We also make sure that we’re not

compromising any active law enforcement investigations.

It’s is a bit of a time-intensive process. However….

Interjection.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Now, the member for Langley East, again, the one who called the

RCMP to yell at them about reporting money laundering in the casinos,

which we know was actually happening…. I have yet to hear an apology

from that member for getting that RCMP member who had the courage to

speak out about a problem in our province disciplined. He owes that

officer an apology.

It’s a bit of time-involved process. We will get there, hon.

Member. One of the main reasons we commissioned these report was to let

the public know what’s going on in this province.

FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY

SOCIAL SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS

AND WORKER WAGES

S. Bond: Yesterday dozens of social service agencies came from right across

British Columbia with a message for this government about the

discriminatory wage policy decision they have made. Apparently, the

non-answers from not one but three ministers certainly didn’t impress

those representatives. What did they do? They walked out of here, and

they went to the steps of the Legislature and condemned the

disrespectful approach and the discriminatory wage policy.

Here’s what they had to say. “Providing wage increases to only a

segment of workers in the sector is divisive and

disrespectful.”

Yesterday not one minister wanted to answer for what their

government decided to do. The Minister of Children and Families has

another chance today to stand up and to explain to thousands of workers

in British Columbia in this sector how she thinks it’s fair to pay

non-union workers less than union workers for exactly the same

work.

Hon. K. Conroy: After years and years of ignoring and underfunding our social

services sector, which has really hurt people in the sector and also

hurt the people that people rely on to deliver those services, I am

certainly not going to take any advice from that side of the House, who

actually, in 2010, didn’t provide any funding increases for anybody in

the public sector.

The members opposite…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Thank you.

Proceed.

Hon. K. Conroy: …actually neglected the needs of vulnerable children and families.

Under the old government, the only time there were substantial increases

to the Ministry of Children and Families was either right before an

election or when there were just absolute scathing reports on a failing

system.

The first chance — this will be a reminder to some of the members

— they got an opportunity to increase the budget for the Ministry of

Children and Families, the very first chance, what did they do? They

decreased the budget by 23 percent. They absolutely gutted the Ministry

of Children and Family Development, and I know this created

hardship…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Conroy: …because I was working in this sector at the time.

We are funding social service agencies to support fair increases

for their employees….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. K. Conroy: We are funding social service agencies 6 percent over three years

— unlike those members on that side of the House.

S. Bond: Well, nice try, Minister. It didn’t work yesterday, and it isn’t

going to work today.

Frankly, the minister is completely entitled to ignore me, but to

ignore workers in this province is absolutely reprehensible. This is a

decision made by this government, and now we see ministers simply

running for cover and refusing to defend a policy decision that they

made.

[2:30 p.m.]

Yesterday we actually had a minister stand in this House when we

raised issues on behalf of these agencies and call it “griping.” Well,

he can call it whatever he wants, but I can assure him we’re going to

stand in this House and hold them accountable for a discriminatory wage

policy, a decision they made.

The minister can continue to bluster, but let’s listen to what the

B.C. CEO Network had to say about her answers yesterday. Here’s what

they said: “To treat workers unfairly, as government” — that would be

this government — “is proposing to do, is profoundly disrespectful.” Not

my words. The words of the CEO Network.

It is time for this minister, or any one of the three that got up

yesterday, to show some respect and end the discrimination. Will the

minister get up and fix this mess and make sure that non-union workers

get the same wages as union workers?

Hon. K. Conroy: Well, let’s talk about hypocrisy. In 2002, when the Liberals

cut….

Interjections.

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

Minister, just take your time until you feel you can speak with

quiet.

Hon. K. Conroy: Thank you.

In 2002…. And the member for Prince George–​Valemount will

remember this well because she was here. She didn’t stand up for the

social service sector. In fact, they cut the sector’s wages by 12 to 14

percent.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Conroy: They cut wages by 12 to 14 percent. And do you know how hard it is

to get back to where the social service sector needs to be? That is

something that we need to do, and we are increasing wages. We are

increasing wages.

I’ll say it again: 6 percent over three years, which is the same

agreement that we have with all the public service, with the K-to-12

support staff, with health science professionals and with nurses. We’re

committed to working with the social service sector, unlike the members

on the other side of the House.

T. Redies: The only thing hypocritical is a government that says it’s about

the people and then discriminates against non-union workers. This is

about a decision of this government to discriminate against

non-unionized social service workers.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

T. Redies: According to the B.C. CEO Network: “The decision by the government

is shocking and, without question, will have a huge negative impact on

tens of thousands of British Columbians.”

To the minister, will the government reverse this discriminatory,

offensive policy and extend equal funding to non-union social services

sectors?

Hon. K. Conroy: Well, let’s talk about people who are discriminated against. Let’s

talk about that. Yeah, let’s talk about that.

Interjections.

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

Hon. K. Conroy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let’s talk about Budget 2019, which included $109 million for a

sector that had been discriminated against for ten years. Let’s talk

about Community Living B.C. — home-share providers. Let’s talk about

them.

[2:35 p.m.]

Let’s talk about foster parents. Let’s talk about foster parents,

who do their best to provide services to children and families in this

province and were ignored and discriminated against for ten years by the

other side of the House.

Let’s talk about a social services sector that was really

discriminated against by the other side. Let’s talk about the early

childhood sector, who got nothing from the other side, who got thrown

out of the CEA organization, who got discriminated and, for the first

time ever, got a wage increase. They got a wage increase by this side of

the House. It just goes on.

Again, I will repeat. Obviously, the other members didn’t hear. We

are increasing wages 2 percent — 6 percent over three years. In my eyes,

that’s an increase. They are getting an increase. I don’t know what you

don’t get about increasing 6 percent.

T. Redies: What this side doesn’t get is why that side of the House thinks

it’s okay to pay union workers $4 an hour more than non-union

workers.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, take your time making the question — as long as you think

you need to have.

T. Redies: I’m happy to wait, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Proceed.

T. Redies: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s this government that believes only union workers deserve a

raise. Doug Tennant of the B.C. CEO Network said: “The decision by the

provincial government to only fund a subset of those that work in the

community social services sector is both hypocritical and offensive.”

These are not our words. This is the B.C. CEO Network

speaking.

My question to the minister. Will the government stop this

discrimination and extend equal funding to non-union social services

workers?

Hon. S. Simpson: I thank the member for the question. The member, in an earlier

question, talked about people. Well, I can assure the member over there

that nobody has ever accused the B.C. Liberals of being concerned about

people in this province. Nobody has ever suggested that the B.C.

Liberals were concerned about people who are vulnerable. Nobody has ever

worried about how the B.C. Liberals, for 16 years, devalued people in

this province who were vulnerable.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Simpson: As soon as the prattle over there stops, we’ll continue. We have

heard over the last two days, time and again, about debacle after

debacle with that group when they were in power. They hurt people, and

they didn’t care about it.

[2:40 p.m.]

If even one member over there would stand up and acknowledge what

a horrible job you did for 16 years for people who were struggling,

maybe you’d have a shred of credibility in this discussion. You have

none — none.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. S. Simpson: In answer to the question, I had a great meeting this morning with

the CEO Network. We talked about the future. We talked about how we move

forward to meet the needs of people living with developmental

disabilities. We talked about how we build a strong sector. We’re

excited about moving forward and doing that — and about how thankful we

all are that you guys don’t have anything to say about it.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report intituled

2018-2019 Annual Report from the Office of the Merit

Commissioner.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 11, continued debate on the

Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act. In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call

continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural

Resource Operations and Rural Development. When that is finished, we will be

calling the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Trade and Technology.

Hon. A. Dix: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: I always think of him from Williams Lake. He’s not from Williams Lake

any longer, but he’s one of British Columbia’s remarkable ambulance

paramedics, a leader in CUPE 873 for a long time, from there. Our friend

Richard Vollo is in the gallery, and I ask everyone to make him

welcome.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — CIVIL FORFEITURE

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2019

(continued)

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place and continue my second reading speech on

Bill 11, Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act.

When I left off last week, I’d just completed articulating three

specific examples wherein the application of civil forfeiture in the

province of British Columbia had led to some issues that require some

critical oversight as to how civil forfeiture operates. The first

example I raised, just to bring some continuity to the speech, was with

respect to a 74-year-old, Ellen New, who had the charges against her

stayed. Those were charges for possession of cocaine for the purpose of

trafficking. But nevertheless, her home was ordered forfeited in

Another example of inadvertent consequences with respect to the

application of civil forfeiture in British Columbia was the example of

David Lloydsmith’s house. There, police showed up at his house and

entered without a warrant. They found a couple of pot plants, and

despite no charges being laid, the civil forfeiture office sued to seize

his home in 2011, four years after the initial RCMP raid. In 2015, eight

years after the initial raid, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that the

rights of Mr. Lloydsmith were, in fact, violated.

The third example I outlined was in the case of Mumtaz Ladha, who

sued the provincial civil forfeiture office and the RCMP for pushing a

false narrative and relentlessly trying to take her home. In this case,

the police allegedly ignored witness testimony problems and pushed a

false narrative of Ms. Ladha being linked to human trafficking in

British Columbia, so the civil forfeiture office then tried to take her

multi-million-dollar home. The RCMP issued an apology, and the claim has

been settled.

[2:45 p.m.]

The reason why I outlined these three examples is to provide a

cautionary tale as to the application of civil forfeiture in British

Columbia. As it stands today, we have some of the strongest laws in the

country, and before us, Bill 11 purports to bring forward even stronger

laws. While much of this bill is not controversial, certainly aspects of

it are, with respect to putting the onus of proof onto the defendant as

well as some of the timeliness issues with respect to how fast civil

forfeiture can move.

The examples were deeply problematic, because they showed that the

scope of the civil forfeiture office is sometimes overreaching in its

powers. We don’t know for sure, but I suspect that there are other

examples than what we’re hearing about. It may be but a needle in a

haystack.

The minister has said that some of these problems can be

attributed to growing pains and that it’s important that the civil

forfeiture office is used in the spirit it was intended, which is

organized crime and gang crime. You’ll get no argument from us here that

it is important to ensure that civil forfeiture is used for the purposes

that it was introduced for, in particular for organized crime and gang

crime.

However, this bill does not seem to do anything to ensure that

civil forfeiture is used for organized and gang crimes specifically and

not applied in broader cases. In that case, I raise again the issue of

the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, and the Canadian Constitution

Foundation as well. They raised some concerns, I would suggest valid

concerns, and the Attorney General, obviously, has spent some time

working in the former organization and would recognize that he, too,

raised similar concerns when he was there.

I bring these forward not in speaking in opposition against the

bill but purely as a cautionary note. We already know we have one of the

most aggressive forms of civil forfeiture in the country, and we’re

proposing to make it stronger, with increasing powers. Again, I put that

in the context of British Columbia has an outrageous money laundering

problem, and frankly, we have not yet got to the bottom of it. So I

bring these concerns, and I raise them mainly as a cautionary

note.

The B.C. Green caucus is supportive of the province taking

measures to go after those responsible for money laundering and

organized crime. But we need, at the same time, to ensure that innocent

British Columbians are not also targeted. We’d recommend that the

Auditor General review how the office is operating and if it is

achieving its objectives, particularly in light of these increased

powers.

I articulated in the previous speech last week a number of calls

for review by members in government caucus, as well as external

agencies, as to how civil forfeiture is operating. I would hope we’d

have an ongoing assessment as to the effectiveness of that office, not

with any punitive goal in mind but more to ensure that it’s targeting

that which should be targeted, which is organized crime and gang

activities.

As I’ve said, we have a couple of concerns in the bill. We look

forward to hearing government’s explanations. The most notable will be

section 14, where the burden of proof changes. In

section 14, if a

suspect has an after-market compartment in their vehicle, for example,

certain equipment or cash over $10,000, this is now considered to be

proof of being an instrument or a proceed of illegal

activity.

Heaven forbid that you be a type of person who likes to buy things

in cash, and there frankly are people who do that — people from my

father’s, my mother’s, my in-law’s generation, where cash is king. The

notion of paying with cash is king. It would not be uncommon with some

people who hold that belief to actually pay for things in cash, and

having $10,000 is not all that much these days, in cash. Certainly, in

many cases, it would not be indicative of it being proof that a crime

has been committed and this is an instrument of crime. So we express

some caution there.

While I personally have never carried around $10,000, I do know

people who have carried around $10,000, specifically to pay for cars,

where they paid cash for cars, and the car was over $10,000. You might

ask the question: “Why are you paying cash?” That’s a legitimate

question to ask, but it does happen. Certainly, it was not money that

comes from proceeds of crime.

Not only does the burden of proof change. In what was already a

regime that simply needed the balance of probability, it also means that

the defendant might have to implicate themselves to produce evidence to

counter the evidence of the civil forfeiture office. For example, an

after-market compartment in a vehicle — that’s like a hidden compartment

in a vehicle — might have nothing to do with trafficking drugs. You

might have bought a car from somebody who had the compartment. You may

not be aware of it. You probably are, but you may not. You may just

ignore it — whatever.

[2:50 p.m.]

The reality is that can now be considered as proof of illicit

activities, and it’s not clear that, in fact, the burden should have to

go onto the owner of the vehicle to prove that the existence of that

after-market compartment is proof of illicit activity.

Maybe, for example, there’s somebody who lives in their car. We

know this is more and more common. We have students living in their

cars. We have senior citizens living in their cars. Maybe in their cars

they might want to have a space where they protect their valuables. They

have a locked or secret compartment where they put their credit cards,

their birth certificate, their driver’s licence, maybe some other

valuable goods, some jewelry. That might be out of necessity.

That’s certainly not evidence that the car or anything in the car

has been acquired as an instrument or proceed of illegal activity. So I

would suggest that we must be cautious in putting the onus of proof on

the individual as opposed to the actual accuser. It’s potentially

problematic.

We look forward…. I’m sure members opposite will also be exploring

this further at committee stage. I would suggest that that is probably

the most controversial aspect of this bill.

Of course, there’s also the regulation-making authority. Quite a

number of items in this bill…. As is common in all bills that government

brings forward, a lot of what will be done is left up to regulation.

One, for example, is the ability to prescribe what would be considered a

piece of equipment relating to trafficking. What does that mean? Who’s

going to make the determination? Cabinet, based on advice, I

suppose.

I would have thought that we would have thought this through a

little more before bringing it to the floor. Nevertheless, this bill, we

believe, is something that is worthy of support, and we look forward to

exploring this at committee stage.

To summarize my remarks on this. Clearly, as you will know from

question period, we have been raising this issue. We are profoundly

troubled about what’s been going on in the issue of money laundering. We

are now being labelled a nation of money laundering by U.S. officials.

This is not a terribly flattering label to be given. Our caucus is

profoundly troubled by this, so we are supportive of the inclusion and

addition of more tools to prosecute criminals in British Columbia. We

hope that this bill is used accordingly.

While no one should benefit from the proceeds of crime, it’s also

important that we are vigilant in protecting the rights of Canadians and

the freedoms of Canadians as well. In particular, we must be very wary

of the potential abuse of power that this legislation instills upon the

civil forfeiture office. You know, they’ve sought to obtain property

from innocent British Columbians in the past. We need to ensure that

this does not happen moving forward and that British Columbians are

protected in the case that inappropriate civil forfeiture attempts are

moved forward.

Our caucus has heard from civil rights organizations. We’ve heard

from constituents about the concerns with regard to the issues that I’ve

raised here in the legislation. The government, when they were in

official opposition, also had similar and strong concerns about the

civil forfeiture office. Ironically, one might say, we’re now moving to

increase its powers.

With that said, though, I suspect the government — now moved from

a position of opposition to a position of government — opened the books

on the money laundering and realized just how serious this issue is.

From the answers we’ve been getting from the Attorney General over the

last couple of weeks, we are convinced he’s taking this issue very

seriously. We’re convinced that he finds this to be a very troubling

issue and that he’s hoping to ensure that more and more tools are

brought forward to allow his office and the province of British Columbia

to get to the bottom of what’s been going on in money

laundering.

It is inappropriate. It is not right. It is something that British

Columbians do not support — people using the proceeds of crime to build

monster homes, leave that money there and have there be no

accountability. So we recognize that, in fact, this bill does

potentially give police and others more power to actually go after those

who’ve committed criminal activities.

We’ve also heard, as I mentioned, from others about this

legislation. We’ve recognized that there is some concern. But we are

supportive. We’re going to look forward to exploring this in committee

phase, and I look forward to the questions and continued debate from

members opposite. We believe that, right as it stands, there is

reasonable justification for the changes being made, but we hope to

canvass this further at committee stage. I look forward to listening to

the further speeches at second reading.

[2:55 p.m.]

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise to Bill 11 and speak to the Civil

Forfeiture Amendment Act.

I’ve reflected over the last couple days about the importance that

our constituents have instilled in us to come here and take our roles

very seriously. Part of that is the robust debate. Part of that is also

to be here for the vote on Bill 11, so I look forward to this vote and

other votes to make sure that I’m fulfilling my duty as an elected

official for my constituents, to make sure that my vote is counted and

registered and not find another reason to not be in the House when Bill

11 comes forward for a vote, because it is an important piece of

legislation.

I think it’s incumbent on all of us, on any important piece of

legislation, to make sure that you stand by the courage of your

convictions, to make sure that you question, absolutely, through

committee stage. But then you have to follow through on behalf of your

constituents and make sure that you really are standing, literally, in

this House and having your voice registered so that your constituents

know where you stand on a particular topic.

I do look forward to the continuing debate on this. I look forward

to committee stage. More importantly, I know that I — and I think I can

safely speak for the rest of my caucus — look forward to the opportunity

to actually be able to vote on a piece of legislation and make sure that

we are taking that role very seriously.

In terms of the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, it is a piece of

legislation that in principle, I think, that many of us can get behind.

Certainly, I understand the concept and the principle and have been

supportive of the previous legislation, as well, in my former role as a

mayor, because it was a tool that, at a local level, you could work on

with agencies to try to effect change, to try to bring some resolution

to issues going on within your community.

I can totally understand, though, the concerns about the potential

of an over reach. As we’ve heard — again, reflecting back on Bill 10,

around LNG…. It’s astounding, in this place, how many times one person’s

former words and actions can come back to be in totally different form

when they’re in government. It was not that long ago, really, that the

now Attorney General was the head of the B.C. Civil Liberties

union.

My understanding was that the minister at the time when he was the

head of the B.C. Civil Liberties union had serious concerns about the

existing civil forfeiture legislation. What we see here is the 2.0

version, which actually, as we’ve heard from previous speakers, adds to

the powers and the abilities for seizure and action to be taken under

civil forfeiture. So it is interesting how people’s opinions and views

of the world suddenly change when they have the title “minister,” versus

not.

Certainly with this bill, though…. I think communities are

screaming out right now — we see that daily on the news, unfortunately —

for police to have the ability, for locally elected officials to have

that ability to try to manage the problems that they see being created

within their communities.

Civil forfeiture is one of those tools where, as long as it’s

being implemented properly…. I would note that a great many of these

provisions do, thankfully, line up with provisions that we see across

the country in other jurisdictions, other provinces, and that’s a good

thing. Although none of them have lost in a constitutional challenge at

this point, my understanding is that none of them have actually been

challenged to that degree yet either. So the jury — pardon the pun — is

still maybe out on whether or not these would withstand that ultimate

scrutiny.

I think we’ve hit a point with what we see in our streets where we

need to take that step. We need to, within a level of reasonableness,

take that next step to try to bring other tools to bear, to try to

expedite the seizure and to try say to people that do not have the best

of intentions in our communities that that’s not acceptable.

In this day and age, when you look at the bar that we as a society

set for what we deem to be acceptable societal behaviour — to not put

people at risk, to not put your friends and neighbours at risk — it’s a

very low bar, frankly. We are, as a collective within this province,

saying to people: “If you can meet this standard, we’re pretty

easygoing.”

With the civil forfeiture, with these updates, we’re essentially

saying that if you can’t even meet that bare minimum of a bar, of a

threshold, where you’re not filling secret compartments in your cars

with goods and trying to cling to the excuse that you didn’t know the

compartment was there because you bought a used car, perhaps you do need

to have a little more explaining to the authorities as to how it came to

be that you came into possession of that car and how it exactly

unfolds.

[3:00 p.m.]

I’m not going to stand here and try to try trials or run off a

litany of examples, because there’s a lot of great detail and nuance to

all of these in terms what police did or didn’t know in the background,

how people maybe were being targeted and looked into.

We heard a concern about people living in their cars. I would

suggest that if a person is truly homeless and unfortunately forced to

be living in their car, they’re probably not high on the civil

forfeiture list for our police agencies to be targeting and going

after.

I think with years of experience behind the police agencies, I

would trust them enough to see when somebody is truly unfortunately

immersed in homelessness and living in their car with a secure

compartment with their birth certificate and whatnot locked up in there

versus somebody that has a secret compartment that may be full of drugs

or illicit cash.

I would trust, and I think most people in this House would trust,

that our police agencies would have that basic level of common sense to

them as they’re looking into these types of situations and would not

really see the value in needing to seize a homeless person’s car that’s

doubling as their home. I think that’s a bit of a red herring that we

heard from the previous speaker, from Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

Really, when I look at the provisions in this act, you know, I

can, again, get behind the concept and get behind why it’s being brought

in. We have to continually be looking at ways to be modernizing,

especially when it comes to things around policing, especially when it

comes to things around tracking or trying to inhibit criminal behaviour,

especially around the drug trade. Make no mistake about it.

Those that partake in that side of the world and that side of life

certainly are ever changing and ever trying to stay ahead of police

agencies and always trying to stay ahead, one step ahead, of not just

their own on-the-street-level drug competitors, but they’re always

trying to make sure they’re ahead of what agencies are trying to do to

restrict their ability to make our neighbourhoods and our communities

unsafe.

That’s really at the core of this. I think that’s the spirit and

the intent that the Solicitor General has brought this forward in. It’s

an attempt on his part to try to modernize and take a next step to

revamp rules that people have started to find workarounds on.

The original legislation came in at a time that it was needed, and

it worked for a time. It still to some degree works, but it definitely

does need to have an update to it and a refresh look to account for

things like, when this was first brought in, the idea of an after-market

locked hidden compartment for a car that you could easily and readily

access.

It was probably not really high on the radar screen. But nowadays

it’s much simpler and much easier to access that. So of course we have

to start making sure that our legislation keeps up with that.

It’s not much different than when we think of our privacy issues

and our privacy concerns and records management or any of that, with the

newer devices and the way things flow back and forth. There’s always a

look and an updating of those types of procedures and rules and laws, if

needed, to make sure that things are operating in a modern fashion as a

government.

That makes perfect sense, and it’s totally logical, just like this

bill needs to do that. And that’s what it’s doing. Now, again, the

Attorney General back in his former life as the Civil Liberties head had

serious concerns about the previous legislation, which didn’t reach as

far as this legislation. So it’ll be interesting to see how that gets

shepherded forward and moved forward, recognizing that this is the

Solicitor General’s bill and not the Attorney General’s bill.

But it’s still an underlying piece that I think is a concern out

there for some in the community. I think, really, what will put some of

those fears at ease is as people see this bill enacted or moving forward

and actually actioned and see what circumstances they’re being actioned

under and what actually holds up to judicial review, what seizures

actually result in an improvement to what’s going on in our

communities.

Will we see a reduction in some of this activity? That is

certainly the hope and the goal, I think, of this legislation. That’s

something I think most members in this House can get behind. Because

ultimately, that’s what we’re here to do. We are here to make sure that

we are continually looking at ways to modernize and improve public

safety within our communities.

[3:05 p.m.]

I can think of no topic that comes up more than public safety when

you’re talking with people. First and foremost, people want to feel safe

in their community and where they live.

I can tell you, again from personal experience, if this

legislation does nothing more than instil confidence in people that they

feel like there are some other measures and actions that are making

their communities safer, then that’s a step in the right direction.

People, ultimately, if they start to feel safer in their community, if

they feel like there’s tangible action being taken, if they feel like

there’s the proper protections in place for them and that there’s the

proper resourcing of agencies in place, frankly, whether one more person

has been arrested or taken off the street at that point or not, people

actually do feel safer.

It’s no different than feeling safer when you drive by and you see

a fire hall somewhat near to your home. It doesn’t mean that they’re

coming to your house every week or every day or anywhere in your

neighbourhood, but you just feel a little bit safer going to sleep at

night, with your kids in the house, that there’s a fire hall down the

street.

It’s much the same way with these pieces of legislation. There’s

the perception of safety, and there’s the actual enactment of safety.

This piece here, I think, does lead us down that road where we actually

could see some tangible benefit to our communities in terms of people

feeling like people that have found loopholes and ways to work around

the rules will now be back under tighter scrutiny, closer

scrutiny.

You know, you often hear from people: “Oh, there’s a drug house

down my street. Why don’t the police ever do anything about that drug

house down my street? How can they not know there’s a drug house down my

street? Everyone in the neighbourhood knows there’s a drug house down

the street.”

Well, ten times out of ten, the police do know there’s a drug

house down the street. Nine times out of ten, in my experience, when you

talk with the police…. Although they don’t share operational things with

you, again in my former role, they would indicate that they actually had

operations going on. Sure enough, usually a lot of the people you saw

coming and going would be undercover officers. So they were taking

action, but it takes a long time in our legal system to enact and to be

able to build the evidentiary proof that you need to be able to shut

something down, as that house, which can be a big burden to a

neighbourhood.

You jump that forward to that neighbourhood, watching cars come in

or out or a house being built, where they’re scratching their heads and

wondering how that person that never seems to ever work is suddenly

affording not just the fancy car but the fancy house and everything

else. They see zero action being taken by the authorities. It starts to

lend to that community belief that anything goes, and the government

turns a blind eye to it.

With civil forfeiture, that definitely does send a very tangible

message to the broader community that government does take these types

of situations seriously, that they do recognize that some processes take

a very long time and have a very high evidentiary bar to go after. But

if we can inflict a little bit of discomfort and unease on the community

that is doing these illegal acts, and if we can target and go after some

of the illicit money they have made and the illicit investments that

they’ve pushed that money into, the community says: “Okay. We’re willing

to keep working with you, because we see that you’re tangibly doing

something to continue to try to make us a safer neighbourhood, a safer

community and a safer province.”

Again, on balance, I think we have to weigh off that there is,

unfortunately, always going to be the occasional case of something gone

a bit awry with the application of some rules of law. But that happens

right now. That happens on all sorts of areas of law that have nothing

to do with civil forfeiture.

We don’t turn around and say that we will never investigate or

charge people with other crimes because somebody had a mistaken

situation happen or there was a massive misunderstanding happen. We try

to rectify that. You have the legal system try to learn from that.

That’s why we have the judges and the system we have in place, to try to

catch those. As unfortunate as it is for that person that goes through

that process, fortunately we live in a part of the world where that’s an

occasional occurrence, a very rare occurrence, versus the

norm.

That’s why I say that with this legislation, although we have lots

of questions for committee stage and we still have a few concerns we

want to better understand…. Again, it doesn’t mean you’re always opposed

to everything in this House when you’re asking questions. To have,

sometimes, the pushback when we have the temerity to dare to stand up on

behalf of our constituents and the broader community to ask questions….

Sometimes the pushback seems to be: “How dare you even think that that

would happen.”

[3:10 p.m.]

The reality is that we need to make sure, when it’s going to

become law…. There are certain roads that have been paved with the best

of intentions out there, and we need to make sure that this isn’t just a

document that’s full of best of intentions.

We need to question and make sure that all of the possible angles

and all of the consequences have been thought out, for each

section and

each clause, so that we, as an opposition, can feel comfortable that the

possibility of somebody wrongfully going through this process and seeing

a seizure and needing to go through all of those other processes after

the fact is as nonexistent as possible. That’s really our role as

opposition here.

Again, on principle, certainly I can support the concept of this.

I’ve long supported civil forfeiture as a process, a way and a means to

move forward, to try to provide that community safety piece. It’s but

one aspect of it that we need. But frankly, I’ve talked about how our

community needs to see those actions being taken. Our law enforcement

officials need to see that this House is taking these issues very

seriously as well, because they’re on the front lines day in and day

out.

It has to be a little demoralising, sometimes, when they see

people walking scot-free when they know in their hearts what that person

is doing. They’re not able to actually get it to that level of proof,

but they’re able to prove it at another level. It’s not unlike, I guess,

when we look at our legal system and burden of proof — if it’s a

criminal charge versus if you’re going through a civil process. There’s

a much lower bar when you’re going through a civil process already. We

already have a tiered approach, even within our legal framework, to make

sure that people can advance things in a way that makes sense given the

situation.

I think the law enforcement community out there — be it the RCMP

or the independent police agencies out there, like the VPD, Delta,

Nelson and others — will look at this as a way of this Legislature

saying to them: “Yes, we want to keep trying to support you in your

fight to keep our streets safe and your fight to make sure that our kids

can walk to school and not feel threatened by what may or may not be

rolling down the road in a vehicle, in terms of hidden compartments and

hidden weapons and the like.” It all, ultimately, stems from the drug

trade, and it stems from that flow of money and moving it

around.

We need to make sure that we’re taking every action possible. I

would prefer to do things like this bill, where we’re pushing the limits

of what may be allowable or not, and move forward. I think it’s a

calculated pushing of the limits, in this case, in terms of making sure

that many, if not all, of the provisions line up with what we’ve seen in

other provinces, what other provinces have been using to try to

instigate civil forfeiture proceedings. Those seem to have held up to

this point, to the degree that someone’s not willing to challenge it on

the constitutionality of the seizure.

It doesn’t mean it won’t happen in the future. But it means, at

this point…. That would indicate to me that even for people who have

been impacted by these changes to legislation in other provinces, their

best legal advice has been: “I don’t know that we’d win on a

constitutional challenge.” That’s my guess as to what the advice

probably is. That’s good to know — that at least, to this point, it’s

holding up to a little bit of rigour. It hasn’t been just instantly

challenged on day one, like we saw with the recent changes to

ICBC.

That was challenged on day one. As soon as those came into effect,

the lawyers were in court and filing to try to get a ruling on whether

or not those changes are, in fact, allowable under Canadian law. I’m not

offering an opinion whether they are or they aren’t. I’m just saying

that that just shows you the difference, sometimes, of when a piece of

legislation is deemed to be way too much of a reach. You let the courts

decide, or people go to the courts instantly to start trying to decide,

whether or not it’s too much of a reach.

Another good example would be the proportional representation

referendum. That went to an instant challenge as well, and was working

its way through the courts while we were in the referendum. That’s

another example.

I apologize, I guess, if it sounds like all I’m coming up with are

Attorney General overreaches that the community doesn’t seem to be happy

with, but maybe that’s why I have a little bit more comfort with this

bill, because I’m confident that it won’t see an instant

challenge.

[3:15 p.m.]

If this had been brought forward by the Attorney General, based on

the track record of his 18 months to this point, I would suspect we

might see an instant challenge to the constitutionality of provisions

within the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act. But it has, thankfully, not

been brought forward by the Attorney General. It’s been brought forward

by the Solicitor General, and I’m not aware of any of his work in the

last 18 months that was instantly challenged in court, let alone several

pieces that have been challenged in court basically the day they get

enacted.

With that, I can safely say at this point that I offer support in

principle to Bill 11. I definitely do want to listen to the committee

stage and hear the explanation, the answering and the logic and making

sure that those forward-thinking problems and what-ifs were truly

thought through and explored fully with the legal minds within

government to make sure that this holds up to the most amount of

scrutiny and is the most fair to somebody that really shouldn’t have

something like this apply to them but is still strong enough that it

will actually capture the people that it’s intending to capture and not

have that law of unintended consequence of capturing people that it’s

not intended to.

Again, based on the fact that it’s the Solicitor General bringing

this forward, and his legislation has not been instantly challenged in

the courts the way the Attorney General’s legislation has been getting

challenged continually in courts in the last 18 months, I think I can

safely say at this point that I can support Bill 11 heading into

committee stage. We’ll see what the answers are in committee stage. I

thank you for this time on Bill 11.

Hon. J. Sims: It’s my pleasure today to rise in full support of the amendments

to the Civil Forfeiture Act, Bill 11, introduced by the Minister of

Public Safety and Solicitor General.

First of all, I want to start off by commending the minister for

the work he has done to address gangs, violence and the drug trade. I

think he understands the issues. He knows that if we’re going to get a

handle on the prevalence of gun violence and look at the drug trade and

gangs, we’ve got to have a multifaceted approach. We’ve got to start

with education. We have to have early intervention. We have to have

rehabilitation. We have to have enforcement, and then we have to have

reintegration and readjustment back into the community.

There is no simple, sweet pill that anybody in this House or

outside this House can come up with that will address the issue of gangs

and the killings in our streets, as well as the opioid crisis. Yet it’s

one that I think both sides of the House can be 100 percent committed

to.

We have to address this because it is about our kids. It is about

our communities and the focus to build safe communities that are

inclusive but, at the same time, to make sure that we have systems in

place to support those who are struggling with addictions, to help those

who are attracted into gang life to get out. Also, as I said earlier,

it’s to provide education that moves into a certain kind of a life.

Being enamoured of big cars, big houses and big pieces of jewelry may

look attractive at the beginning, but once you’re into that life,

getting out isn’t that easy.

Doing some of that work and coming from Surrey-Panorama, one of

the best constituencies, as we all will acknowledge…. I’m sure everybody

in this room will with me. It’s one of the best constituencies in

British Columbia. I am always proud to be their representative here in

this House and thank them for their support.

I know that constituents in Surrey-Panorama and Surrey are very,

very concerned about the crime in our streets, about the gangs, about

the drug wars that go on. Of course, being a mother and a grandmother,

I, like many other parents and grandparents, want our streets to be

safe.

[3:20 p.m.]

We want them to be safe because all of us, every one of us living

in Surrey, North Vancouver, as we heard the other day…. Whether we live

in Burnaby, Abbotsford or Vancouver, wherever we live, we want to make

sure that our children, our young people, are safe when they go out.

Because of that, we as a government are very, very committed to taking a

multifaceted approach that takes a look at tackling this social enigma

that many agencies are struggling with.

Many parents are saying: “Why is this happening?” We as a

government have looked at early intervention, prevention and

rehabilitation. As a government, we know that the technologies and the

systems we have change constantly. We have to be aware, also, that those

engaged in crime, in doing bad things in our communities — whether it’s

through drug trade gangs, gun violence or gangs and organized crime —

are also changing the way they do business and the way they conduct

themselves in our communities. So we have to do everything in our power

and use the myriad of tools available to us to stop these networks from

forming and to protect our communities.

The civil forfeiture program is just one aspect, one of the tools

that we have. I was looking at the figures. Since the civil forfeiture

program has been in place, since 2006, $87 million in forfeitures have

been confiscated from people. Out of that, $37.5 million went to crime

prevention and community safety programs, and $1.63 million has gone to

victims compensation. So when we’re looking at, say, civil forfeiture of

cars, houses, jewelry and other items that have been gained through

crime, what we’re looking at is to make sure that those do not benefit

and those are not ignored.

The changes in this legislation, the amendments, are very, very

telling. We know that often, when we go through the legislative process,

you actually have to prove that these items were gained through illegal

activities. Well, the changes to the Civil Forfeiture Act, when passed….

I’m sure, listening to my colleagues across the way and their support,

that this legislation will come into effect — these

amendments.

This will shift to the defendant, to the person who owns, or is in

possession of, a luxury car, a mega-mansion, a luxury home or any of the

assets that they have — that that asset is not an instrument or proceed

of unlawful activity. That’s an important amendment, because it’s a

question I often hear asked. I know we’ve been hearing a lot about money

laundering.

I want to take a second now, maybe more than a second, to thank

our Attorney General for the amazing work he has done on this file to

shine a light on money laundering and on bagfuls of money going into

casinos, and being ignored by people who are now sitting on the other

side of the House, and the need for us to address these issues: people

owning homes, mega-mansions, and maybe not having much of an

income.

All of that raises the question: well, where did that money come

from? By the way, this is not an attack against people who’ve worked

very hard, who add a lot to our economy and who can then make enough

money that they can afford to buy a fancy car and live in a big house.

We’re not talking about people, British Columbians, who are hard-working

and who enjoy those items. We’re talking about people who are using the

proceeds of crime or things they’ve got as the result of doing

crime.

[3:25 p.m.]

As a result, I am really in full support of this legislation. Any

tool that we as a government can put into place that will protect our

children, our young people in our communities, is a tool that we need to

make sure exists.

I’ve heard from many, many people and even talking to law

enforcement at times: “You know what? This young man driving a Hummer

works 20 hours a week. Where did that money come from?” Most of us don’t

have to think for too long. Yes, in some cases, it might be parents

who’ve been very successful in their business and can afford to buy that

Hummer for their child. I’m not talking about that particular instance.

I’m talking about the kind of assets that are the result of crime and

for those to be….

With this piece of legislation, one of the amend­ments will

address the impact of instantaneous wealth transfer beyond B.C. borders.

This will give the office of the civil forfeiture the ability to dive in

and to stop the transfer of mega amounts of money in one way or another.

Or the taking of cars, buying of cars, and then transferring them over

the border just to escape getting them captured.

This is one thing that I believe: we will have agreement from both

sides of the House, even though my colleagues on the other side ignored

this issue when they were on this side of the House. I’m talking about

the need for us to track money, whether it is through gambling or

whether it is through crime, and to make sure that we are using all of

the tools that we as a government can provide.

I know my colleagues get upset sometimes when we bring up the fact

that for years…. I’m not saying it; independent reports have shone the

light, and the media have carried pictures of duffle bags full of money

being dumped into casinos. We know that an RCMP warning and a warning

from those engaged in the business said, “Don’t increase the limits,”

but the limits were increased for reasons that I won’t get into

here.

Really, at the end of the day, my colleagues across the way do

have to acknowledge that they did drop the ball when it came to

addressing moneys that were appearing by bagfuls and by suitcases,

whether it was to buy houses or whether it was to clean the money

through our casinos.

Also, at this time, I’m so proud of the legislation brought

forward by, I would say, one of the best Finance Ministers in the

country. She has us in the black and is putting checks and balances in

place to make sure that ill-gotten money — whether it is from money

laundering through housing or through our casinos, whether it’s money

through drug trade, through the gangs…. Our Finance Minister has

introduced legislation and put legislation…. We’ll have legislation in

place so that we can start tracking the money.

Even through the speculation tax, which…. I know that the other

side was worried about the hundreds of hours it was going to take, and,

for most people, it only took a few minutes. The importance of us being

able to get a handle of the role that money laundering has played in our

real estate market as well as in our luxury car market.

Once again, for me, this is about our community. This is where we

are in total agreement, on both sides of the House, that we do want to

have safe communities. We want to raise our children so that they are

safe from engagement in gang activity and safe from the drug trade and

the drug wars that exist. It’s because of this that we do have to have a

multifaceted approach and have to make sure that those who are the front

line….

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

A huge shout-out to our front-line workers in the RCMP as well as

those that are not part of…. The rest of our police force, the municipal

police forces across this province. A big shout-out to them, because

they put their lives in danger almost every single day trying to keep us

safe, and they do such an amazing job.

[3:30 p.m.]

It’s because they are doing the very best they can with the tools

they have. The more tools we can come up with, the more assistance we

can provide to them, the better it gets. One of those

assistances….

Our young people and those who are not so young, because we can’t

always assume it’s young people that are engaged in things that are bad

in our communities…. They don’t benefit from having a luxury car or a

bigger house or huge amounts of money in their bank accounts and enjoy a

lifestyle that is based on, that is a result of, crime.

It’s because of that I am so, so proud of the work that is being

done, not just in one ministry, as I have pointed out — right across

ministries. This is the kind of collaboration we need to make sure that

our streets are safe. I’m going to invite my colleagues across the way….

So far, in a couple of speeches I’ve heard, they are in favour and in

support of this legislation, and I’m hoping they will rise and make sure

that we’re providing the tools back into our communities to build safe

communities, inclusive communities, and to keep our children, our

grandchildren, safe.

I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker. No matter where you live in

British Columbia — whether it’s Surrey, Vancouver, Burnaby, Campbell

River, Quadra Island, Gabriola Island, Nanaimo, Mission, Maple Ridge —

every one of us wants a safe community. Every one of us appreciates the

work that is done by our front-line enforcement agencies, by the mental

health workers, by those who are working to root out the drug trade, by

those who are working to get our kids out of gangs, by those who are

working to keep our kids out of gangs and out of criminal

activities.

We all, everywhere, right across British Columbia, want to make

sure that our communities are safe, and I don’t think any of us,

anywhere in B.C., should be thinking: “It can’t happen here.” My

experience is, as I’m looking at some of the news from the last week, it

can happen anywhere.

Let us, from this House, the people’s House, make sure that we

have legislation in place, make sure that we give the tools that are

necessary for education, early intervention, rehabilitation, and for

enforcement and then rehabilitation back into our communities. Let us

all support this legislation and build safer communities for all our

children.

D. Clovechok: I certainly appreciate the opportunity, and I will try to keep my

comments a little more focused on the actual amendment act itself,

rather than the shameless partisan speech that I just heard.

Nonetheless, as always, it’s an honour to stand in this House

representing the hard-working and life-loving people of Columbia

River–Revelstoke.

I also am very pleased to rise today to speak in terms of Bill 11,

the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2019. Last week my colleague from

Prince George–Mackenzie, who had a long and distinguished career as an

officer in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, spoke to this act and said

it was “music to my ears.” I totally agree.

I’m going to take it another step on behalf of my four RCMP

detachments and the incredibly hard-working RCMP members that I find in

Kimberley, Invermere, Golden and Revelstoke. This amendment is music to

their ears. It’s actually an orchestra, when it comes to putting another

tool in their toolbox to fight crime and keep drugs out of the hands of

people that shouldn’t have them and take them away from those who wish

to sell them.

[3:35 p.m.]

The changes proposed in the legislation aim to strengthen the

civil forfeiture program, which has been an effective tool to punish

criminals by removing unlawful proceeds of crime. These changes

reinforce what I call the teeth of the CFO, which came into law under

the leadership of the previous government, brought in, in 2006. Contrary

to the last speaker, who said that the previous government did

absolutely nothing on any of these files, well, this is true, right

here, that in 2006, we brought this to account.

You know, it’s a darn shame it’s always got to go that way with

those folks over there. But public safety was done in 2006 at the

forefront of the thinking of that, and we’re very pleased that the NDP

today have followed our suit after 12 years of this program being in

place and are moving this forward. I commend the Solicitor General on

that.

We understood the necessity of the program, which is anti-gang,

anti-violence and anti–drug trade while also being financially

supportive of remediation programs. Where I live, in the Columbia

Valley, which is a tiny little place, you’d think that there isn’t a lot

of drug activity. Well, if you talk to the RCMP in Kimberley or in

Invermere or in Golden or in Revelstoke, it’s unfortunate that the drug

trade is alive and well. So this will have a measurable impact in terms

of those members’ toolboxes in order to deal with those people who

choose to break the law.

What this does is take money out of the hands of criminals and put

it back into communities. And it fits into a public safety and crime

reduction framework that we all agree with, which is something all

members of this House can get behind. That’s why I’m excited for the

Solicitor General at this point. The act gives law enforcement another

tool, another angle to seek justice. When you think of that and the

support it will get for RCMP members not only in my communities but the

Vancouver police department, the Nelson police department or Abbotsford,

wherever you go, this is another tool that will effectively help them

prevent crime and gang proceeds.

The bill contains several proposed amendments that will allow the

CFO to expand the ability to target unlawful proceeds. One of those

proposed amendments that I support fully is the shift of the burden of

proof. In this country, if you’re a law-abiding citizen, you’re innocent

before you’re proven guilty, but if you’re going to play on the fields

that some of these people play on, you get to be guilty, and you need to

prove yourself innocent. The proposed amendment requires the defendant

to prove that questionable assets in circumstances are not the proceeds

of crime, unlike the program’s current law, which puts the onus on the

civil forfeiture office to prove that the assets are the proceeds of

crime.

Imagine you’re a young member with the RCMP in the Columbia

Valley, and you make a road stop. In the back seat of a rental car,

which gangs use more frequently than not — they actually even own the

rental companies — you find $20,000 rolled up in a wad in an envelope.

The answer that you get from the individual, who is known to police, is:

“I don’t know where it came from. It’s somebody else’s

money.”

Basically, what this does now is the CFO…. The incum­bency

on the individual who has the money now shifts. Instead of the legal

system having to prove that they actually own the money, now it’s the

defendants who are going to have to prove that they do not own the

money. That’s a shift that I think is incredibly important — to prove

that it’s not from illegal processes.

This closes certain weak and ineffective legal loopholes like: “I

don’t know where that money came from,” “This isn’t my car,” “I didn’t

know there was cash in it.” The list of all those excuses goes on and

on. How frustrating that must be, and is, when you’re a member and you

do a stop and you encounter these kinds of issues. This is, again,

really important for police in giving them another tool in their

toolbox. So now, as I mentioned, the owner of that car has to prove the

legality of the cash, rather than just play dumb and then, eventually,

if you can imagine, end up getting it back.

Making criminals prove they are innocent in the light of

objectively criminal behaviour is a compelling angle for the CFO to

employ. It sends this dark sector of our society the clear message that

you will no longer and you can no longer hide behind the law. We’re not

only coming for you, but we’re coming for what you own.

In the effort to reduce the common behaviour of criminals

off-loading illegal funds, the proposed changes will allow the CFO to

access the banking records of potential defendants. It’s inside those

banking records that you’ll find the evidence. It’s always, “Follow the

evidence,” and most times it leads to those banking records.

[3:40 p.m.]

This is a very good change, especially in light of the large-scale

money laundering here in British Columbia. Stopping the potential to

transfer the proceeds of crime out of B.C. is a very, very good change.

There is no question that there are potential challenges, one being that

the government could overstep their power. We heard the member for Oak

Bay–Gordon Head talk about that. We have a country where we pride

ourselves in the rule of law in our court system. So although I’m always

supportive of measures that take crime off the streets and put bad guys

in jail, we also have to protect our rights.

I’m confident in our court systems. The new provisions actually

mirror other jurisdictions in Canada, jurisdictions that have provisions

that have not yet been struck down by the constitution and in violation

of that constitution. So it’s definitely heading in the right direction

as far as that goes, I can say. However, I still worry about those

Charter challenges. If deemed that the proposed changes are overreaching

and infringe on the personal rights of law-abiding British Columbians,

then that needs to be addressed. But again, the courts will take care of

that, and it’s yet to be seen.

These concerns, for me, however, are really mitigated by the

visible success of the program. To date, it’s my understanding that the

forfeitures, since its inception in 2006 by this side of House, have

returned around $40 million of money back into the good side of society.

These funds, collected through the proceeds of crime, have been given to

the hands of victims — returned to the victims of fraud — funded several

successful anti-gang campaigns and supported numerous programs aimed at

reducing domestic violence.

That’s a good thing, and we’ve got to applaud that. This is a true

positive of this program. How do you punish criminals when jail or a

criminal charge is not an option? You take away the proceeds of their

illegal activities.

We all ask ourselves how fair it is that a drug dealer can bypass

a criminal conviction and still keep their ill-gotten gains. Time after

time after time, I have sat in those courtrooms with my members, in my

detachments, and I have watched those people walk away from those

charges and have those things returned to them. How frustrating that

must feel. I know how frustrating that is to those members. The answer

is: it’s not fair.

People get away with crimes all the time. They skip jail time.

They skip — period — and do not face the judgment that they deserve by

running to other provinces or to the United States. So if you remove the

profit motive of their criminal behaviour, whether it be cash, jewelry,

cars, or a house that they have built with the proceeds of crime….

Anything that has been amassed illegally through the pain and suffering

of others should not be the property of a criminal, plain and

simple.

I want it to be clear that I’m an ardent supporter of personal

liberties and the rights bestowed on private citizens, their land and

their possessions. All of which, of course, are ingrained in the

Canadian constitution. I can also tell you that I feel very different

about those individuals that work outside of the constitution and the

laws, gathering money, rewards or physical properties that have been

obtained illegally. So I applaud the program and the work that’s been

done since 2006 and the work that will continue, ongoing.

I really like the new direction; I really do. Bill 11 sends a

clear message to the criminal predators who live in the light and the

dark of our society. Sometimes when you think of those who break the law

and sell drugs, you think of guys with motorcycles and gang patches on.

But in many, many cases, they’re in suits and ties in downtown Vancouver

or downtown Victoria. Wherever that downtown is, these guys hide behind

the light of the day. We’re sending a message through this bill that

says: “We’re coming from you in ways you’ve never seen

before.”

As such, I support this bill and look forward to more discussion

of this bill at committee stage. Overall, I support this in principle. I

look forward to the committee stage discussion. I do commend the

Solicitor General on bringing this forward and look forward to some

healthy discussions and, once it’s hopefully passed, seeing the great

effects it will have on our society here in B.C.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s my pleasure and honour to take my place in this debate on

Bill 11. It’s an important debate. I can’t say that I can add a lot of

new commentary or perspective beyond that offered by members who have

spoken, on both sides of this House.

Of course, it’s gratifying to see that there is support for this

bill. It is very important, in looking at this bill, to just reflect

back a little bit on the changes we’ve seen in British Columbia over the

last three or four years, over the last five years, over the last

decade, and for many of us, over the lives we knew in British Columbia

when we were growing up and when we were young adults to what we’ve seen

today.

There was a time when the notion of people being concerned about

walking down the street in their communities for fear of being caught in

the crossfire of a criminal gun fight just really wasn’t a factor. It

was a rare occurrence if it ever happened. It was something we

associated with other countries, with other jurisdictions. When it first

started to happen in Metro Vancouver, I think, and in other parts of

Canada, it seemed to many of us and was treated by the media as a rare

occurrence. Now, unfortunately, it’s far from a rare occurrence. It’s

far from a rare occurrence at all.

There are many reasons for this. But of course, criminal activity

focused on turf wars or vengeance or matters related to crime really is

a driver of this indiscriminate violent activity associated with crime.

We’ve seen an increase in crime. We’ve seen the devastating impacts of

the drug trade in British Columbia, in the Lower Mainland, but in

communities all around the province, from the far northeast to the

northwest to the southeast to Vancouver Island to Metro Vancouver. We’ve

seen young lives devastated. We’ve seen not-so-young lives devastated.

We’ve seen families broken apart because criminal activity makes deadly

drugs available.

We’ve seen people profit from this. We’ve seen it far too often,

whether it’s the ability to launder money without adequate restrictions

in place or the ability to hide the profits of crime in property that

was beyond the reach of law enforcement authorities or the government.

It’s simply an encouragement to people. It’s an incentive. It’s one of

the rewards of criminal activity.

The impacts of the ability to money launder has not only impacted

families who’ve been devastated by victims of the opioid crisis or other

impacts of the drug trade that break up families, that create unsafe

communities, that in many ways make our province and our communities

less safe places to live. The impacts go beyond that, because when

people have been able to launder money or otherwise hide the proceeds of

crime, they’ve impacted property prices.

We know that now, and this government has taken long-overdue steps

to address that incrementally, along with a number of other measures

that are trying to curb the very negative impacts on this province for

individuals, for families and also for businesses, when people can’t

find or afford places to live.

This amendment to the Civil Forfeiture Act, therefore, takes its

place in the toolbox, if you will, of things that are available to us to

ensure, not only as the member opposite has said, that people don’t

profit from crime, but also to remove one of the incentives that make it

easier for people to profit from crime and have negative impacts on the

community. We want to do everything we can to undermine the profit

motive of that unlawful activity, and one of the ways to do that is to

go after the tools and proceeds of that activity.

[3:50 p.m.]

The vast majority of cases are linked to drugs, gangs and

organized crime. Civil forfeiture does allow, during a criminal

investigation, law enforcement to seize property — whether it’s a

vehicle, a sum of cash — using their criminal investigative

powers.

It’s also important to note that police can’t begin an

investigation with the sole goal of civil forfeiture, but they may also

refer assets seized as part of a criminal case to the civil forfeiture

office for consideration. The fact that it flows from a criminal

investigation is one of the safeguards that answers the concerns of

people who are worried about property rights or civil rights. It targets

the civil forfeiture proceedings and powers on real criminals and real

proceeds of crime.

There are a number of tests that exist before the civil forfeiture

offices assess whether to proceed with an action. It’s based on four

major criteria: the public interest, the interests of justice, the

strength and adequacy of the evidence, and fiscal

considerations.

These proposed amendments are timely. They’re timely amendments to

a 13-year-old program, a 13-year-old program that can and should be

improved to better address the current realities, the changing

realities, of gang and organized crime.

There are a number of important features that we should celebrate

in this legislation and that bring us all to support it: shifting the

onus to the defendant to prove that an asset isn’t a tool or a proceed

of crime; addressing the impact of instantaneous wealth transfer beyond

B.C. borders; and allowing a director of civil forfeiture to go to court

and seek a pre-emptive hold on property before filing a claim, thereby

tipping someone off that the office might go after an asset, which then

gives the person the opportunity to try to hide the asset.

If these amendments are passed, they, as I said, will shift the

onus to the defendant to prove that an asset is not an instrument or a

proceed of unlawful activity in cases where the civil forfeiture office

provides the court with sufficient evidence that clearly links the asset

to organized crime, gang activity or drug trafficking.

Let me just offer a clear and straightforward example. If the

civil forfeiture office provides evidence that the police seized

$100,000 from a safe that also contained a kilogram of fentanyl, the

cash will be presumed to be proceeds of crime. I think most British

Columbians would think that’s a pretty reasonable assumption. The onus

will then be on the defendant to show that the money came from

legitimate sources.

If it came from legitimate sources, it should not be difficult to

show that link, because people have records and trails and road maps

that show where their money came from. But it is often difficult — even

though it seems patently obvious that the money or an investment,

whether it be in a vehicle or a house, is a proceed of crime, especially

when they’re as closely linked as the example I just gave — to actually

demonstrate a causal relationship. However, if the proceeds or the money

came from honest activity, it should be possible for the defendant to

prove that.

Similar presumptions will apply in cases involving drug

traffickers’ vehicles and the property of members of organized crime

groups.

Modern technology has changed the ability of all of us to transfer

money. It’s no less so — in fact, I would say they’re very skilled at it

— for international organized crime groups and domestic gangs that amass

wealth from criminal activities. They can easily attempt to liquidate

these assets or transfer wealth out of reach of provincial

authorities.

Therefore, the amendments will make it easier for the civil

forfeiture office to identify, trace and obtain forfeiture of these

crime proceeds before they disappear. Of course, when they disappear,

the benefit accrues to the perpetrators of the criminal activity. And as

I said, we want to provide disincentives to engage in criminal activity,

as well as not allowing people to profit from it.

It empowers the office to obtain more basic information from banks

and others about those who may possess proceeds of unlawful

activity.

These amendments also allow the civil forfeiture office to apply

to the B.C. Supreme Court for limited preservation orders before the

office commences formal proceedings.

[3:55 p.m.]

This pre-emptive ability is yet another new tool that will help

prevent criminals from transferring suspected proceeds of crime out of

the reach of the civil forfeiture office before it files an application

in court. The proceedings that ultimately will resolve the matter will

still proceed, but they’ll proceed with meaning, because the assets have

not been transferred out of reach.

Finally, the civil forfeiture process will be more efficient and

cost-effective with these measures, in turn maximizing the forfeited

funds that will be available to invest in community safety programs,

which is where these proceeds are designated.

When people ask about fairness and they question why these

amendments would be brought in or liken it to turning away from the

presumption of innocence, there are a number of checks and balances in

place to ensure fairness. For instance, the program will only accept

referrals from law enforcement that are in accordance with its file

acceptance policy, which includes the public interest that I previously

outlined.

The program will be continuously reviewed, and every contested

case goes before the court, which must be satisfied that forfeiture is

in the interests of justice. Individuals involved in a civil forfeiture

claim have the right to appear before the court and tell their side of

the story.