Second Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Tuesday, March 3, 2026

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 131

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General (continued)

Teresa Wat

Hon. Niki Sharma

Hon Chan

Elenore Sturko

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2026 (continued)

Bryan Tepper

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson

Steve Kooner

George Anderson

Darlene Rotchford

Jennifer Blatherwick

Hon. Nina Krieger

Bill 6 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Niki Sharma

Steve Kooner

Harman Bhangu

Reporting of Bills

Bill 4 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2026

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2026

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation (continued)

John Rustad

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert

Scott McInnis

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills

Hon. Jessie Sunner

Korky Neufeld

Lawrence Mok

Brennan Day

Committee of the Whole

Bill 4 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2026

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Peter Milobar

Tuesday, March 3, 2026

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 6, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of Supply, the estimates for

the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

In

Section C, the Birch Room, I call Committee of Supply on the Ministry of Post-Secondary

Education and Future Skills. Just for the information of members, when that is done,

they will report out and then, after that, it will be calling the committee stage

on the Supply Act.

I was looking at the second half. I wasn’t quite looking at the top part.

In this chamber,

Section B, it is Committee of Supply, estimates for the Ministry

of Attorney General and Deputy Premier.

The House in Committee,

Section B.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Attorney General

(continued)

The Chair : Thanks, everyone. We’ll call this chamber back to order, where we are contemplating

the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General today.

On Vote 14: ministry operations, $742,545,000 (continued) .

Teresa Wat : The minister was saying that in 52 cases, they were asked by the callers to report

to the police. I know that the minister told me that this will be handled by the Solicitor

General.

I still want to ask. Of these 52 cases, how many of them are actually hate crimes,

and how many of them are just discriminatory in nature?

Hon. Niki Sharma : First of all, we don’t track that information. The second

part is that the determination

of what is or isn’t a hate crime under the Criminal Code would be by police and in

turn, if there was an RCC, by Crown counsel about pursuing it and eventually by a

court of law.

Teresa Wat : I guess I’ll see whether the Attorney General can answer the next question. In the

last year, were there any prosecutions of hate crimes?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Just stemming from the 52 number that the member asked — again, we wouldn’t track

— we don’t know the link between those and any reports to Crown counsel or to prosecutions.

Teresa Wat : How much money is the ministry spending on investigating hate crimes?

Hon. Niki Sharma : That wouldn’t be under our ministry budget. We don’t investigate hate crimes at the

AG. The investigation is the police side of it, so it would be in police budgets under

the Solicitor General’s ministry.

Teresa Wat : Back to the budget itself. Why was the budget for the multiculturalism and anti-racism

branch cut by $187,000 for this fiscal year? There’s still a lot to do on the multiculturalism

file and on the anti-racism initiatives.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : That reduction of $189,000 was specifically for specialized projects, the two that

were kind of in the completion stage so not needed. One of them was the historic Doukhobor

payment that was made for historic wrongs to the Doukhobors. The work of the ministry

had completed largely, on our side, last budget. The other one was a Japanese historic

wrongs settlement and apology.

The reason in the reduction is not to do with the work of anti-racism in response

to the Anti-Racism Act. It’s for these specialized projects.

Teresa Wat : Does that mean that the two projects are completed?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I think I misspoke. It was $187,000, not $189,000.

The thing that I…. Yes, our component of those projects is what has wound down now.

With the Doukhobor settlement, we used partners to get the money out to the community.

With the Japanese historic settlement, our portion of that for the AG is now done

and completed.

But the work of Citizens’ Services for the monument and other things happening are

with other budgets.

Teresa Wat : Last year I didn’t have enough time to ask this question. The government brought

in the Anti-Racism Act in 2024 to replace the Multiculturalism Act of 1996. Can the

minister update us on the transition from the Multiculturalism Act to the Anti-Racism

Act?

Hon. Niki Sharma : The Multiculturalism Act remains in place, and we use it for granting programs. The

portion that we repealed, as a result of putting in the Anti-Racism Act, was to do

with the advisory committee.

The advisory committee that was under the Multiculturalism Act transitioned to PCAR,

which is the advisory committee under the Anti-Racism Act. They’ve been helping us

develop the anti-racism action plan.

Teresa Wat : Actually, the minister for multiculturalism was established since 1991. It was really

robust and very impactful. At that time, there was a full-time dedicated minister.

But now it seems to be downgraded to a minister with the support of parliamentary

secretary to handle the anti-racism file only.

Multiculturalism was not even mentioned in the minister’s mandate letter nor that

of the minister’s parliamentary secretary. The portfolio of the parliamentary secretary

is just for anti-racism initiatives.

[1:45 p.m.]

The only mention of multiculturalism is in the

section of the purpose of ministry

in the service plan of the AG Ministry, which said that the ministry is also responsible

for promoting multiculturalism and leading anti-racism initiatives through the Parliamentary

Secretary for Anti-Racism Initiatives. The parliamentary secretary doesn’t even have

the mention of multiculturalism.

I’d appreciate if the minister can tell this House how she is going to promote multiculturalism.

It was not even mentioned in the Attorney General’s mandate letter nor in the parliamentary

secretary’s mandate letter nor in the service plan.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I’m trying not to take it personally that I’m a “downgrade as a minister to the file”

comment, but I take the point.

The alignment of the work of anti-racism and anti-hate and all those things in the

AG makes a lot of sense, because it is with the justice system. And creating a fair

and just society — that is a lot of my role in my ministry. Putting the anti-racism

work and the multiculturalism work under that ministry, I think, makes a lot of sense,

and we have a parliamentary secretary to help with the work.

Multiculturalism is supported in many ways in my ministry, whether it’s through the

Multiculturalism Act, which is still in place, and the grants and the work with Resilience

B.C. What the community has asked for is work on anti-racism.

We’ve heard in the last few years that what the response of government should be is

to work in removing what is sometimes like systemic racism that’s experienced by communities

with our government services, which is a big project — you know, when you think about

the In Plain Sight report and our health care system and various reports that have come out.

Our focus has shifted on us doing that very important work. It is under the whole

work of creating a just and diverse society, where people’s backgrounds are honoured

and they can live a life free of barriers and have a fair shot at things.

Teresa Wat : I just want to thank the minister and her staff for their work.

Hon Chan : I just want to thank the AG for your time, and we’ll move on to ICBC.

Do you need, like, one minute to move…?

The Chair : We won’t go into recess, but we’re just changing out a team for different questions.

All right. It looks like we’ve got the team in place.

Hon Chan : Thank you, AG, for your time and your staff here.

I just wanted to ask about the financial situation for ICBC first. I can see the budget

for ICBC indicates quite high investment earnings in 2024-2025. That was due to stronger-than-expected

equity markets and improved bond prices for lower interest rates.

Can the minister actually clarify how much ICBC finance improvement this year is attributed

to investment returns rather than operational performance?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : Yes. Primarily that $800 million is from investment income.

Hon Chan : Can you tell us: would ICBC still be reporting positive financial results if the

investment market had performed at the historical average instead of above expectations?

Hon. Niki Sharma : If you take a look at the Q2 outlook, what ICBC booked was in line, same as the outlook

showed there. It was, I guess, projected or predicted that it would be around that.

Hon Chan : Can the minister tell us how sensitive our ICBC premium is to investment volatility,

and if markets underperform next year, will drivers face rate increases to offset

their losses?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : Okay. The way that rates are set is forward-looking. What that means is what happened

with the net income at this period, at this time, doesn’t impact future rates. When

they’re setting the rates for future, they’ll look at the portfolio and the investment

income projected for that year to set the rates. So the past doesn’t influence the

future directly.

Hon Chan : I just want to seek clarification on that. What you meant is: in this coming year,

the market fluctuation does not actually change any rates in the future because it’s

in the past? I just want to clarify on that.

Hon. Niki Sharma : That’s correct. If you look at this year’s net income, it’s based on how the market

performed in the past. So to set the rate for the…. It’s future-looking, so then,

you would look at the projected performance. There are many indicators for that of

how the market is going to do in the future, to set those rates.

Hon Chan : Can the minister confirm whether ICBC’s improved financial position is primarily

due to policy change like the enhanced care, or is it because of the favourable investment

markets in the past few years?

Hon. Niki Sharma : The enhanced-care regime that was put in place for ICBC has been transformative,

specifically when it comes to base rates. Since 2021, there was a 15 percent immediate

drop in the flat rate, and that was specifically because of the transformation to

enhanced care, particularly when it comes to the claim costs and the legal expenses

that would go into each claim.

Then we’ve had seven years of flat rates, and it’s all due to the enhanced-care model

being a more cost-effective way for a resolution of disputes. There was a big chunk

of money that was going to legal fees and lawyers, and it was driving up costs for

everybody and taking a long time for claims to resolve and for money to flow to the

customers, from ICBC’s perspective, that needed the care.

Not only is the service delivery faster, but it’s also way more cost-effective, and

it’s led to flat rates for seven years and an initial drop of rates by 15 percent.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon Chan : Thank you to the minister. I just have a question because the minister mentioned

a 15 percent drop because of the enhanced care. But when we look at the budget and

what the minister actually just mentioned, the investment portfolio attributes for

$800 million of revenue for ICBC.

My question was: was that actually because of the investment market or because of

enhanced care or both? From the minister’s answer, it seems like it’s because of the

enhanced care.

What does that $800 million investment do to ICBC? I think that would actually help

the financial situation of ICBC. Can the minister clarify on that?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I think it would help to answer this question by helping to explain why insurance

providers are regulated to hold capital. It makes sense that if you’re an insurance

company, you need to hold a certain amount of capital. The capital can be looked at

as a liability, so what’s owed to that customer based on all those projections that

go into the number of accidents that might happen in a population, the injuries and

the payouts that you may need to make to that person for the lifespan, up to 40 years

from the time of their injury.

[2:05 p.m.]

The capital that’s held is regulated, and then there’s a buffer. So in case you are

wrong or off on your analysis, you know that the insurance company is holding enough

capital for all of its liabilities.

The base rate is different. The base rate is set for ICBC as a break-even. If the

base rate is set as a break-even, the primary driver for the affordability of our

rates is the legal costs and claim costs going down because of the enhanced-care model.

Hon Chan : Let’s get to something easier. Can the minister confirm the government is not taking

any money from ICBC, directly or indirectly, channelling back to the government in

the past few years?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Yes. In fact, it was our government that changed the law to make sure that that was

never possible again, because of past practices that were using ICBC’s revenue streams

as a piggy bank to fund other services in government at a time where, also, ICBC was

doing really badly financially. That was resulting in higher rates for people and

a financially unsustainable corporation.

Hon Chan : Thank you, Minister. I told you that’s an easy one.

Another one. Can the minister tell us that the basic rate is going to be frozen beyond

March 31, 2026, or should drivers be prepared for a rate increase next year?

Hon. Niki Sharma : The basic rates are frozen till March 2027.

Hon Chan : Can drivers be expecting another round of rebates like last year?

Hon. Niki Sharma : The times that rebates were achievable — it’s great for British Columbians to know

that your insurance company is working so well that it can give some money back —

are determined at year-end when we know finally….

Right now ICBC is projected to go as forecasted at the $800 million, and the decisions

about a rebate or if that’s possible will have to come at a later date and at least

after year-end.

Hon Chan : The minister mentioned that the basic rate is to break even. Can the minister actually

clarify whether the optional insurance rate has also been frozen, or has the optional

premium increased over the same period?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : The optional is quite a bit different than the basic rate. The optional is part of

the competitive market. ICBC prices its optional insurance at competitive rates based

on the marketplace. Although there may be modest increases to that, based on the conditions

of the market, ICBC doesn’t reveal those in the same way as basic insurance, as it

is competitive and based on the market. Primarily, the optional portion of them, their

portfolio, is for theft and vandalism and collision, and it’s for material damage

related to that, so not for personal injuries.

Hon Chan : Thank you to the minister. The minister explained what optional insurance rates were

set. However, she did not answer my question. Were there any increases of the optional

premium over the past years? Just want to make sure that was answered.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I’ll attempt again to answer. It hasn’t been frozen in the same way as basic rates.

It’s competitive in the industry, so the ICBC sets their rates based on the competition.

Because it’s a competitive marketplace, they don’t reveal those rates publicly, and

that depends on the product.

Hon Chan : Can you tell us about the current status of a collective agreement between ICBC and

COPE 378?

The Chair : Member, just a reminder the questions should always come through the Chair, please.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Currently under negotiation.

Hon Chan : From what I know, I think it has expired. The government actually has a timeline

where this can be actually renewed.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Parties are at the table right now. We have to respect the collective bargaining

process. That’s an important process that’s led primarily by the parties at the table,

so it’ll be done when they come to an agreement.

Hon Chan : I’ll move on to a system that the minister was mentioning, about the enhanced care

and the no-fault system. There were actually many increasing reports of seriously

injured individuals struggling to obtain adequate support, raising concern about whether

the system is actually delivering as intended.

We all understand ICBC is saving a lot because of the enhanced-care system. It promised

a faster access to treatment under the enhanced care. Can the minister tell us what

is the current average wait time for extended-care — including physiotherapy, counselling

and specialists, etc. — approval after the initial 12-week treatment package?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : After those 12 weeks, whatever the care provider is for that individual sends a care

plan. Although ICBC doesn’t control how long it takes for that care provider to submit

the care plan into ICBC, once it is, the average is 92 percent are approved within

five days.

Hon Chan : Thank you to the minister.

My next question will be: how many injured British Columbians are currently waiting

for approval of the extended treatment beyond the initial 12-weeks package? Also,

how many have been denied?

The Chair : Not sure if Hansard got that last phrase, but that was “in the past year.”

Hon. Niki Sharma : The stats that ICBC has, to answer the question as best as I can, is about…. Since

the stat of 92 percent are approved within five days, at any given time, about 8 percent

are waiting beyond those five days.

With respect to the number of claims over the last…. I’m assuming we’re in the category

of after the 12 weeks. How many are denied? That’s not a stat that ICBC has right

now, but we can take that away.

Hon Chan : Thank you, Minister. I will just wait for that answer, eventually, for the no stats

for the people who were denied.

We’ll move on to catastrophic injuries victims. Recent tragic incidents such as the

Lapu-Lapu festival attack where families lost loved ones due to intentional criminal

actions have raised serious concern about whether the current no-fault system provides

adequate compensation in the most severe case.

Can this minister tell this committee what the maximum compensation would be under

the enhanced care for a child who actually lost both parents in that incident like

that?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : The answer is complicated in the sense that obviously each case is different. The

assessment of what the person is eligible for is going to be dependent on the case.

For example, in a tragic incident where a child has lost their parents, if the child

is also injured, then they are of course a customer that is eligible for benefits

for that injury or payments related to that injury. Without a specific case, it’s

hard to get a total of what the person might be eligible for.

With respect to just specifically losing both parents — and we’re not adding on top

of the other benefits you might be eligible for or the grief counselling or the funeral

expenses or anything else that might fit the category of that — it would be a maximum

of $720,000 for that child if they lost both parents.

Hon. Anne Kang : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[2:25 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Anne Kang : I recognize that in the gallery today we have some special guests from Japan — from

Morioka, Japan. They’re from Morioka First High School.

I would like the House to please make the teacher, Masato Takao, and also the grade

10s and 11s feel very welcome in the B.C. Legislature.

Welcome to Victoria.

The Chair : Indeed, welcome to everybody in the chamber today.

Debate Continued

Hon Chan : Thank you to the minister for that question.

I’m just curious because last year the minister responsible for ICBC said that the

child who lost both parents will be eligible for…. The death benefit in that case

would be as much as $581,000 on top of additional benefits, including care and treatment.

Not sure why it is different this year, with $700,000, but I do want to carry away

that the Premier mentioned that when there is a criminal conviction, an exception

does allow victims additional legal options.

So can the minister confirm whether families affected by incidents like Lapu-Lapu

can actually hire legal counsel and pursue damages beyond ICBC benefits?

Hon. Niki Sharma : If there is a criminal conviction, then the person can choose to hire a lawyer to

seek non-pecuniary or punitive damages against that individual that is the subject

of that conviction.

Hon Chan : I just want to move on. This government has been a very strong proponent of EVs.

However, last year B.C. Ferries stopped transporting EVs that cannot propel themselves

onto the vessels.

Has ICBC tracked how many EVs have required alternative transportation due to this

restriction? How much did that cost ICBC to arrange barges or other special arrangements

to move non-operational EVs back to the repair facilities?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : I’m told by the ICBC reps here that it’s only been about 50 cars that have been caught

up in this policy, so pretty nominal in terms of expenses of finding a different way

to get the damaged vehicle off the Island or vice versa. Right now ICBC is working

with B.C. Ferries to try to work through and problem-solve that.

Hon Chan : Thank you to the minister.

Can the minister also provide an update on the status of the revised GLP program?

The model drivers now don’t have to have a second road test if they have no infractions.

What specifically qualifies as an infraction? Does that mean minor speeding tickets

or excessive speeding or distracted driving or fault collision or any violations?

Can you clarify on those changes?

Hon. Niki Sharma : These details are being worked out in the regulations, and the regulations are being

held by PSSG. It’s only the implementation side that falls to ICBC, but that policy

work is held by that ministry.

Hon Chan : I guess we can only ask the GLP questions to the PSSG.

Last year we broke out this question to the minister who was responsible for ICBC.

Collision repair shops across the province reported that electronic payments that

once took ten to 20 business days now take over 45 to 90 days, or even longer, leaving

shops to carry tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid invoices and forcing some to

rely on credit lines.

Can the minister provide the total value of outstanding collision repair invoices

as of the start of this year?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : I have data from January 2026 related to this. The average payment-cycle time for

a member of the glass and collision programs has been reduced from the data provided

in 2024. Six days was the average payment cycle for ICBC’s glass program partners,

and 5.7 days was the average payment cycle for ICBC’s collision program partners.

In terms of the proportion of vendors receiving payments, ICBC’s goal of paying within

15 days, 98.5 percent of glass payments and 98.7 percent of collision payments in

January 2026 were made within 15 days of the date of invoicing.

Hon Chan : Thank you to the minister for that answer.

I just want to loop back to the question that was actually asked previously, because

I’m running out of time soon. You mentioned that legal action can be possible if there

are criminal activities involved. Can the minister actually specify which types of

damages could be pursued? For example, past income losses, future income loss or other

compensation not covered under the enhanced care.

Hon. Niki Sharma : If there is a conviction, a person can hire a lawyer to pursue non-pecuniary or punitive

damages.

Hon Chan : I’ll talk about complaints, transparency and accountability. Can the minister tell

us how many complaints ICBC has received annually since 2021? Also, does ICBC track

client satisfaction among injury claimants? What are the results of that?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : We’ve got some comprehensive stats here for you. First of all, in terms of “satisfied”

or “highly satisfied” and that customer satisfaction, 74 percent of all claims report

that they’re satisfied or highly satisfied with the service they received.

In terms of the number of complaints, I think the question was since 2021. Since 2021,

out of the about 250,000 claims that ICBC has received in that time, 600 of them have

filed a complaint. The complaints go to the CRT.

Of that, since 2021, which was in the question, there have been 187 decisions made

by the CRT based on those claims, and 93 of them were upheld, so the position that

ICBC had was upheld. Sixty-nine were mixed, nine were overturned, and 16 were dismissed.

Hon Chan : Thank you to the minister.

I think I will give the time to the member for Surrey-Cloverdale to continue the questions.

Thank you, and thank you to all the staff.

Elenore Sturko : Thank you to the Deputy Premier and Attorney General and her staff for the opportunity

to ask a few questions.

I’d also like to just start off by thanking the employees, the government workers,

who work under this ministry. A particular shout-out to B.C. Crown prosecutors because

I think that the work that they do can often be really complex, can be traumatizing

for those prosecutors to deal with some of the most serious criminal complaints and

prosecutions that our province has.

I think sometimes we often think about first responders and the kinds of situations

they deal with on the front line. They’re the first responders. But when they’re dealing

with prosecutions, they’re also experiencing that vicarious trauma. I’m grateful to

the work that they do.

I’m grateful to everybody who actually decides to dedicate their life, as a prosecutor

or a lawyer, to working in the B.C. prosecution service. I think it goes unrecognized

at times, too, that lawyers can make a lot of money, probably a little bit more than

they make at the B.C. prosecution service, in certain jobs, but it’s a dedicated calling

to want to work in our justice system. I thank every member out there who is doing

this work on behalf of the province.

I have only a few different topics here, and I think I want to start off by asking

a little bit about bail reform. In December of 2023, the first set of federal bail

reforms — Bill C-48, the bail and sentencing reform act — received royal assent and

came into effect in January of 2024.

Bill C-48 of 2023 was supposed to fix catch-and-release justice in B.C. The act was

going to make bail stricter and harder to get, including cases of repeat and violent

offending. It would also create new circumstances of reverse onus.

[2:45 p.m.]

When considering whether to grant bail, the amendments would direct police not to

release an accused when it’s against the public interest or when detention is needed

to protect victims or witnesses. Courts would be required to consider specific factors,

including if the allegations involved random or unprovoked violence and if the accused

had any outstanding charges, and set stricter conditions, including weapons bans.

The changes would make clear that in reverse onus cases, the courts must scrutinize

the bail plan of the accused who would be required to clearly demonstrate that their

plan was reasonable and credible to be released on bail.

This act was also supposed to toughen sentencing laws for repeat and violent crimes,

including car thefts and extortion, meaning those found guilty could spend more time

in prison. Proposed amendments would require consecutive sentences for violent auto

thefts, break and enter, extortion and arson and allow them for violent repeat offending

as well, meaning that one person could serve their sentence one after another, instead

of serving their sentences for multiple offences at the same time.

In March of 2024, the B.C. prosecution service released a report with further data

on bail. They reviewed 4,800 bail hearings between November 2022 and December of 2023.

They found that Crown counsel sought restrictive bail conditions in nearly three-quarters

of these hearings and sought detention in a quarter of the hearings. Judges ordered

detention, however, in less than half of these hearings, approximately 41 percent.

Crown counsel sought pretrial detention in less than a third of bail hearings for

violent crimes, and judges ordered detention in less than half of those cases, approximately

43 percent.

Those stats came from the media statement and the information that was released at

the time by the B.C. prosecution service. The stats were compiled for the period of

time actually just prior to the bail and sentencing reform act of 2023 taking effect.

And since that time, another bail reform bill has been introduced in Parliament, and

Bill C-14, I believe, has passed its third reading.

So my question, based on this information, is: has a subsequent review of bail hearings

in British Columbia been conducted by the B.C. prosecution service, similar to the

one that was conducted in the period I just described, to gauge the effectiveness

of bail reform? Are there funds allocated in our 2026 budget to do this type of assessment,

given that we have further amendments coming?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : Thanks for the question, and I appreciate the beginning of a shout-out to all the

work that Crown prosecutors do. The head of the prosecution service got to hear it

and will, I’m sure, pass it on to that team across the province that does do a lot

of work and, as you point out, faces the trauma of that work too.

Okay. Data in the justice system — I’m sure the member knows this — is always a big

question mark because of the different parties that hold the data and how it’s owned

and how it’s collected.

The report that the member talked about, in March 2024, required Crown to divert resources

from prosecuting to actually pulling files and recording how those files were going.

In all of the FPTs that I’ve been at, it’s been a topic of federal discussion about

how we make sure that we’re aligning data. The federal government has come to the

table to provide grants to prosecution services to better, I guess, align the data

and make it easier to collect data.

I’m told by the head of the prosecution service that they’ll be applying for that

grant. There’s nothing in the budget here, but that grant will be available for them

to do that, to standardize the type of collection of data that we need to have.

Definitely after the first bill that the member talked about, we, through discussions

with what was happening in files in B.C., pushed for further reforms to the bail.

I think a key component that is in the Senate right now — hopefully it’ll pass — is

the principle of restraint, so that principle of restraint that was embedded into

the Criminal Code after certain case law that talked about the court only holding

somebody unless it was necessary and instead exercise restraint.

This is the first time that the federal government has amended that principle within

the Criminal Code. We didn’t have that with the first round of amendments. We were

asking them in this round just to tackle that issue because we thought that was kind

of central in why people that we felt shouldn’t be released were being released.

By those most recent amendments, amending that principle of restraint to put in aspects

of community harm or repeat offending as factors the court should consider, I guess

we’re really hopeful — and that was from B.C.; we recommended those changes — that

that will make the Criminal Code stronger and the system better. Then with that federal

grant, the prosecution service should be able to collect the data better.

Elenore Sturko : Thank you very much, and I appreciate the response. Actually, I’m very happy to hear

that for that type of data collection, a grant might be available from the feds to

the province for us to undertake that work.

I would hope, too, just sort of, I think, for the public interest, seeing how the

changes of the first bail reform that came into effect in 2024 and then what the changes

were incrementally….

Two questions based on this data analysis that could take place. Will this be publicly

available like the first one was? Also, does the Attorney General anticipate that

there will be a significant shift, for example, in some of what was seen in the report

that was done prior to even the bail reform act of 2023?

Interesting to bring up the principle of restraint. I also agree this has been a significant

barrier in some ways to what we’re trying to achieve for public safety in B.C. I’m

not convinced 100 percent yet that the adjustments that are made are going far enough,

but I’m hoping that the data collection and analysis are something that will actually

help inform the way forward on that.

[2:55 p.m.]

The question again is: will the data be publicly available? Could it include checking

the previous data in the interim period? What types of metrics does the government

expect to see that would be indicators of these reforms being effective?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Yes, I think, definitely, I will confirm that as…. Just like we did before with releasing

public data, once we get the grant and the work at the prosecution service is done,

absolutely it should be released.

Just to say to the member’s question about whether or not our reforms go far enough

or that the reforms that the federal government made go far enough…. There’s one aspect

of it, I think, through the work that we did in B.C., that we did ask for which was

further, which was the time-served sentencing.

When you move tighter on bail, what could happen is that people would get time served

and then released. It ends up being kind of a problem showing up in another space.

We did ask, in the letter that I sent to the federal government, for them to tighten

up that — if we were seeing repeat offending that was using time served as kind of

the scapegoat to get out, that that was tightened up and that it would be kind of

commensurate with the offender and the repeat nature of their offences. We didn’t

get there. We didn’t get there with the federal government, but we’ll keep at it.

In terms of the data and the metrics, I think a really good example of how we would

collect this data or show it is through the ReVOII results. If you look at our report

that we released in December about the repeat violent offending program, it talks

about the difference between that group and a control group and the control group

being not in the repeat violent offender program.

Some of the ways that we measured it were how we compared detention sought by the

Crown in that control group versus the ones in the program and whether there was a

difference. I mean, every case is so different, but I think that was a good way to

kind of track it.

Another measure that we had there was accused detained before trial or remand and

compared the ReVOII group with the group not in ReVOII. That helped us see if the

intervention of ReVOII was making a difference.

Now that we have that March data that was released in 2024, it’ll be really interesting

to see, once we can put the right measures in place, what the changes are in the system.

Elenore Sturko : I’m going to now move on to just a couple of questions about post-decriminalization.

On February 1, the government ended the decriminalization pilot. The government has

stated in its directive to Crown counsel that it will not entertain charges for possession

alone. In my opinion, this essentially continues decriminalization on a de facto basis.

Can the minister please outline for British Columbians under what circumstances a

person would be charged for drug possession in British Columbia?

Hon. Niki Sharma : All of the drug-related prosecutions are federal Crown, so their directives and their

policy would be decided by them.

I can tell you some of the investments that we’ve put in this budget that I think

get at some of the issues that we’re hearing about in communities.

I talked a little bit about ReVOII and how ReVOII was really hitting a mark when it

comes to circling around a problematic public safety issue with a population of the

most repeat violent offenders.

[3:00 p.m.]

This budget expands to C-POII. C-POII is the chronic property offenders. Those are

the ones that I hear about from mayors and councils when they come to me saying that

they’re causing the most issues but aren’t at that level of violent crime where we

would expect the system to hold them for longer as a result of that.

That intervention will hopefully help with the street disorder component of those

populations showing up in the communities.

Elenore Sturko : One of the recommendations of the 2022 LePard-Butler report was to create an opportunity

to divert people away from the criminal justice system. Can the Attorney General speak

to how the government is following this recommendation and any recent results with

respect to recidivism from this program?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Thank you for that question. I think there’s…. We’ve done a lot of investments in

the justice system related to a diversion or lessening criminal justice impacts on

people that could find an alternative path.

It shows up in various ways. A couple years ago, the PSSG invested in restorative

justice programs, which is a component of that.

Recently we’re working with the federal government, the First Nations Justice Council,

which is a body that we stood up to implement the Indigenous justice strategy and

stood up a diversion centre in Prince George — the Prince George diversion centre.

If you ever want to hear stories about how that is so impactful for people…. It has

some focus on young people with their first offence. Instead of the escalating criminality

that might come from a life of being tied to the criminal justice system, that intervention

and connection to culture is changing the pathway for those individuals.

We’ve stood up Indigenous justice centres across the province that are doing this

type of work on the ground, including getting Gladue reports to the right place at

the right time for people that are caught up in that system.

We’re also working through, with the Stanton report that I’ve received on sexual assault

and intimate-partner violence, restorative ways to resolve that, of course led by

the victim in the ways that they would want to pursue that.

I see a really high interest in the justice system right now to try to figure out

that path. I think that’s really exciting for a lot of people working in the system.

There are so many different decision-makers and actors, but if we can come together

at the right time and try to intervene in a way that helps lessen the impact of the

justice system not only on that person’s life but also on the communities around them,

then there can be some really powerful things that come from that.

Elenore Sturko : Thank you for that answer.

I’m actually going to skip my next couple of questions about community courts. That

was a very comprehensive answer. I appreciate it.

I do think that there’s definitely more room for us to use community court programs,

therapeutic court programs and other community-based justice programs to help deal

with our addictions crisis but also street disorder. So I’m encouraged to see investment

taking place in those areas.

In December of 2023, the government added reverse onus for an accused person charged

with an offence involving intimate-partner violence who had been previously convicted

or received a discharge for an intimate-partner-violence-related offence. These changes,

which of course we already discussed, took place in January of 2024.

On July 4, 2025, a young mother from Kelowna named Bailey McCourt was bludgeoned with

a hammer in a parking lot. She died in hospital, leaving behind daughters aged three

and nine.

[3:05 p.m.]

The accused in this case was her estranged husband, James Plover, who had been in

a Kelowna courtroom earlier on the day of the attack. He was convicted on that day

on three counts of threatening and one count of assault by choking McCourt. He was

released to await his sentencing.

Reverse onus was already in effect when Bailey McCourt was murdered. Did the minister

direct a review of the circumstances of this case, and were there any areas of improvement

found that were later implemented at the provincial prosecution level after this incident?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Yes. This very tragic case of what happened in Kelowna, I think, was shocking to

everybody in the province, including myself in the position that I have in the justice

system, about how that could happen.

We did. We looked very specifically at the facts of this case so that we could work

to see how we could prevent it from ever happening again. There are certain key things

that were involved here that I think will help with the transformation that we made.

One is that the time between conviction and sentencing, under the current Criminal

Code, will hopefully change soon. It’s in the Senate. But at that time, it was that

once there was a bail order, it wasn’t revisited at the time of conviction. Then it

was the time between conviction and sentencing that the horrible incident happened.

Two things have changed since then — or will change. One is that the Crown policy

was updated. Now if there’s a fact of intimate-partner violence at that conviction,

they will ask for revisiting of the bail conditions and ask for detention at that

point. That’s the Crown-directed part of it.

The other one is the changes to the Criminal Code that we advocated for to make it

so that the system operated like that and the laws operated like that. What’s before

the Senate right now is a specific change that says that if there is that time of

conviction with intimate-partner violence, if Crown asks, then the person will be

held. That would be the reverse onus kick-in until there is a reason for release.

I’ve been following the cases since then. I’ve been following how it’s been showing

up even since the Crown directive, particularly cases in Kelowna and other parts of

the province. There are examples of courts now making different decisions, particularly

when there’s suffocation and levels of really severe intimate-partner violence, where

courts are responding by holding that person.

We’ll do everything we can to make sure what happened to her does not happen again,

through the best tools that we have as a government, even if we have to advocate to

the federal government, to make sure that system does change.

[3:10 p.m.]

It’s one of other things that we’re working on when it comes to intimate-partner violence,

but I think that’s a very key one. When somebody comes to the system to seek safety,

whether it’s that police officer that they talk to or whether it’s further down in

the criminal justice process, they need to receive that safety. It’s a heightened

time for them because they are most at risk for retaliatory actions by their accused

and the person that’s traumatizing them and harming them.

We have lots of work to do on that. It’s something that you’ll see continual improvements

on in the justice system.

Elenore Sturko : I really appreciate that answer from the Attorney General. That was such a horrific,

awful thing that traumatized our province in many ways — to see a beautiful, young

mother taken in such a brutal and violent and preventable way. So I’m very appreciative

of the work done by the Attorney General and her staff.

The directive…. Hearing that it’s having a positive impact already, that it is having

an impact, perhaps, on decisions to detain someone is really important.

There is a lot more work to do. It’s unfortunate that it took such a tragedy to spur

this type of change. But I hope that, in some regard, knowing that these changes,

in Bailey’s memory, have been made brings some measure of comfort to those who still

miss her and love her today.

There are a lot of changes happening with the Criminal Code that Canadians have been

asking for.

With respect to the 2026 budget and all of the new information that B.C. prosecutors

have to absorb and to learn, can the minister please talk about any parts of the budget

that are tied to professional development to help our prosecution service to navigate

all these changes and to make sure that they can hit the ground running when they

come into effect?

Hon. Niki Sharma : The Crown has a budget of about $1.9 million, a little bit higher than that, that’s

specifically for training for the Crown. As the member points out, there are updates

to criminal law, there are changes on the ground that, constantly, the Crown has to

keep updated — the Crown and all the staff in the prosecution service — so that’s

a pretty healthy budget to make sure that they can do that work.

Elenore Sturko : I’m going to ask a little bit now about solitary confinement. Also, I’m going to

probably tie into that the Review Board of British Columbia.

A settlement worth $60 million was approved by the Supreme Court in a class action

lawsuit against the province of B.C. concerning the use of separate confinement or

segregation in B.C. correction centres. October 22, 2025, is when the Supreme Court

approved that settlement.

This was now…. A claims period has just been opened for people who were placed in

segregation for 15 days or more or for people who were placed in segregation while

suffering from a mental illness — or what they should have known was a mental illness

— without treatment for a sustained period while in B.C. correctional centres.

My question to the Attorney General is: can she speak to what resources might be allocated

or what the steps are going to be with regard to this class action lawsuit to ensure

that there’s meaningful human contact in segregation or other services that will prevent

further harm to people who are being held for 15 days or more or those, particularly,

with a mental illness?

[3:15 p.m.]

I guess I’ll just say…. I know we have the ten beds at Surrey Pretrial, and we have

forensic psych. The ten beds added to Surrey Pretrial are beds that can be used for

mental health treatment under the Mental Health Act. They’re designated for treatment

spaces.

Other jurisdictions outside of Surrey do not have these beds allocated, which means….

I’ll just remind people that in the fall or summer, when they announced the Surrey

Pretrial beds were open, at that time, the Premier’s chief scientific adviser, Dr.

Vigo, had actually said that before these beds were available, they often segregated

people with mental illness.

They couldn’t treat them. They had experienced cases where people were actually banging

their heads and causing themselves brain injuries as a result of not having the ability

to send people to forensic psych, because it was full, often waiting two to three

weeks or more for a space in forensic psych to open up.

In the meantime, that person could be held, depending on what’s happening with their

behavioural health or mental health, in segregation that entire time without any access

to the medical treatment they require.

The ten beds are a good start. But what is going to be done in 2026, especially in

light of this class action lawsuit the government is settling, to ensure that we don’t

treat people this way?

Just to be clear, there is a role to play for isolating people at times, if they’re

a risk to self or others or if they’re violent. But there are certain parameters that

we can operate under, as a civilized province and a kind and caring province, so that

we make sure that we’re keeping people under humane and safe circumstances, for all

people who are in our custody.

Hon. Niki Sharma : To the member’s question. It’s a good question. I think it’s better asked with the

Solicitor General and the PSSG because a lot of the insight or capital expenditures

or things that are related to correctional facilities would be held under her ministry.

I couldn’t give a complete answer when it comes to the upgrades or the changes. That

and Health. I think those are the two ministries that would hold the budgets for the

forensic psychiatrists and the extra beds and any changes to correctional facilities

related to that.

We, as the lawyers for the government, of course, represented the ministry in the

lawsuit that was settled and provided legal advice. That’s kind of the extent of our

role.

Elenore Sturko : Is there anything beyond the $60 million that was approved for settling the class

action? Were there any other agreed-upon conditions in that lawsuit that would stipulate

changes that would be made — for example, with respect to segregation reform?

[3:20 p.m.]

I don’t necessarily need the number of beds or facilities. But with respect to that

lawsuit against the government, as the government’s attorneys, is there anything more

you can share about the way in which the government may have agreed to reform segregation

in British Columbia?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Just in the interest of time, I’m asking the legal team that worked on that file

about the settlement agreement, and I think there were portions of it that were related

to policy reforms that I can get an answer for the member about. I just didn’t want

to…. I know she has limited time, so if she wants to go to the next question, we can

get back to her.

Elenore Sturko : Yeah, sure. Thank you. We can come back to it. I actually don’t have that many questions

left, to be honest. But I am interested in having that, so whether it comes today

or whether they get back to me, to my office, I’m very keen to see how those changes

might be carried out and that we could make sure that we’re taking good care of individuals

with sometimes severe mental illness that come into our criminal justice system.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

This is related to the Review Board of British Columbia, but I’m not necessarily,

in this case, looking for a resourcing answer, and I probably will take these questions

also through a lens of resourcing to the Solicitor General. What I’m more looking

for is about the sort of view of the Attorney General’s office with respect to some

of these concerns that were raised in the 2024-25 annual report by the Review Board

of British Columbia.

[3:25 p.m.]

For my constituents or anyone that might be watching, the Review Board of British

Columbia is responsible for overseeing and making recommendations and deciding the

path for individuals who come into the criminal justice system who are not criminally

responsible because they have a mental disorder or for people who are unfit to stand

trial — people who are in the custody of the forensic psychiatric system.

Each year their chair and their board put forward an annual report. For the last three

years, sadly, their report has not been very positive. A lack of resourcing in the

forensic psychiatric system has been noted. In this last report, actually…. This is

probably one of the most significant reports in terms of how bleak the former board

chair had made the situation sound.

I’ll just read one passage, and then I’ll ask the Attorney General to comment. Then

I have another

section here.

The first

section says: “Resource shortages in the past fiscal year have meant that

the board continues to be challenged to meet its mandate to protect the public and

meet the needs of mentally disordered individuals in B.C. In my view, these shortages

put the safety of the public and the rights of individuals at risk.”

My question to the Attorney General. Is there work going on between the Attorney General’s

office in consultation, perhaps, with the Ministry of Health and with the Solicitor

General to ensure that we are protecting not only the public but we’re talking about

people’s rights?

We have people who are, essentially, incarcerated in a mental hospital. They, obviously,

have met the criteria for being kept in this place. We’re talking about some of the

most complexly ill and, sometimes, dangerous individuals.

What work is going on between the AG, the Sol. Gen and the Ministry of Health to ensure

that the rights of these individuals are being respected while they’re in our care?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I do recognize that the annual report that the member refers to recently talks about

the issues that they’re having at the B.C. Review Board. I just want to assure people

that I’ve been meeting…. There’s a new chair now. I’ve been meeting with the chair

to try to talk through how we can help. Whether it’s getting appointments done on

time so that they have those resources or those people in place….

The other very key one that I heard from them was the inability to do virtual hearings.

In these types of hearings, the travel and also the security and how it’s set up can

actually be very resource-intensive. Because of the way the Criminal Code was structured,

there was, especially in our province because of the way the law is developed, an

inability to have virtual hearings.

[3:30 p.m.]

One of the many things we pushed for in the bill that’s before Senate right now is

a change specifically related to that, so they could have virtual hearings. I hope

that that will come through from the Senate. Hopefully that part will be untouched

at least. That’s going to be a big change in the number of resources that they need

to direct towards travel and the other kinds of things.

The uptake of virtual hearings was something they asked me to help advocate for. With

that change almost on the books, I’m hopeful that will help their processes. On my

end, getting their appointments as quickly as they can when they need it, changing

the virtual hearings so they can have those, so they can use our resource more efficiently.

And I’m meeting with that chair to try to understand.

When she took on the role, she was in the assessment phase of what the needs were.

So I committed to her that I would continue to meet with her to understand how I can

support from our ministry side.

Elenore Sturko : I appreciate the answer.

One more excerpt I’m going to read from the ’24-25 Review Board annual report. It

says:

“As I’ve discussed with you and reported previously, British Columbia has only one

psychiatric hospital for treating and assessing forensic patients and many competing

demands for that hospital’s services. The forensic psychiatric hospital in Coquitlam

provides assessment and treatment services to in-custody accused persons either unfit

to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. The Forensic

Psychiatric Hospital also provides services to inmates who are temporarily absent

from correctional centres because they require assessment for court or treatment under

the Mental Health Act.

“At times this year, the demand for admission has exceeded the supply of appropriate

beds. When this occurs, court-ordered admissions are delayed and the board cannot

convene a hearing to review the matter. This leaves many mentally ill, disordered

individuals without psychiatric care they require, potentially endangering themselves

and those around them and in the case of unfit accused, delaying judicial proceedings

before a verdict is reached, which can be deeply distressing for victims seeking closure.”

So my comment first is…. This is the situation that I had discussed in the previous

question, about the number of beds available for people who come into our correctional

facilities who might need some type of mental health intervention — the ten Surrey

Pretrial beds.

People potentially being held in isolation were segregated as a result of exactly

what the Review Board chair talks about in this report, which is that they don’t have

demand for admission exceeding supply of appropriate beds.

Given that we have here an indication that it’s delaying judicial proceedings and

that court assessments under the Mental Health Act may also be delayed, is this a

priority for the Attorney General and her ministry to push and to advocate and to

ask for more resources in terms of infrastructure and more forensic psychiatrists

and psychiatric nurses to be on the ground here in British Columbia to expand those

services? Is this a priority for the AG?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Just to the answer to the question previously from the member. The settlement agreement

contained a requirement for quarterly meetings to discuss potential segregation reform,

so that was part of the policy side of that settlement.

The short answer is yes. I think that, obviously, the number of forensic psychiatrists

and nurses is a major gap in a lot of places across the province. I see that through

the justice system.

We were having discussions about how to open up the ability for forensic psychiatrists

that are outside of the province to be able to work here in B.C. and within our justice

system. There’s a lot of talk about interprovincial trade and dropping of labour barriers.

That’s something that I’ve been interested in pursuing or thinking about. If we can

think about that…. I’ve had discussions with the chair of the B.C. Review Board about

this, about how we open up the number of people that are able to be part of the system.

It’s going to have benefits in so many parts of my side of it, which is the justice

system portion of it.

[3:35 p.m.]

I would say that the member should also talk to the Ministry of Health, which I’m

sure she will, and the Solicitor General. It’s one of those issues that intersects

between various ministries, as the budgetary items of this wouldn’t show up in our

budget. If it’s forensic psychiatrists, it would be Health, and then some of the correctional

aspects would be PSSG, but she probably knows that already.

Elenore Sturko : Thank you to the Attorney General for the answer. I guess I knew already that the

building-the-jails part and building-the-hospitals

part isn’t within your ministry,

but this is where the interconnectivity of the ministries is at play. If the Attorney

doesn’t push and the priority isn’t that we need to make it a priority to fix some

of these….

These are pretty bad issues that they’re talking about — breaching people’s rights,

not potentially caring for some of the most seriously mentally ill and potentially

dangerous people that exist, that have rights to be treated fairly and to be free

under certain circumstances within our province.

I guess I will be asking further questions about the infrastructure side of it, but

if we don’t have people pushing from other ministries where the money isn’t coming

from…. Ministries have a lot of priorities of their own — especially health care,

for example. They have a lot of competing interests because there are all kinds of

branches of health care.

When it comes to people under the forensic psychiatric system, I often feel that they

don’t have a lot of people rooting for them because there’s a lot of stigma attached

with some of the very serious crimes that some individuals in the system have been

accused of or were part of and some of the very significant mental illnesses that

they also are suffering from.

I’m glad to hear that the Attorney General is speaking with the Review Board chair.

I hope that it continues to be a priority and that that interministry cooperation

and push to…. It’s a great idea, actually, to have other provinces’ forensic psych

doctors come and help us, because that’s a rare specialty. There are not actually

a lot of forensic psychiatrists, and they’re in high demand, so finding those avenues

is great.

But we also need places to treat those people and to keep them. When the Review Board

chair says there are not enough spaces, it doesn’t matter if you have extra doctors

if there’s no bed expansion either within pretrials or within other correctional facilities

with live-in mental health units — within Corrections or at the Forensic Psychiatric.

I just have one last question here. I thank you so much for your time, and I thank

the ministry staff also. I look forward to receiving the further information about

the lawsuit as well.

On February 9 of this year, a provincewide survey from Save Our Streets coalition

showed that British Columbians continue to live in fear in their communities, with

73 percent saying crime and violence were impacting their quality of life, and 37

percent said that they were a victim of a recent crime.

Some of the other notables were 53 percent of people say they fear for the safety

of their family and their community. Over half of British Columbians, 56 percent,

said that there are areas in their community that they actively avoid because they

fear for their own safety. For 87 percent, addiction and mental illness contributed

significantly to crime and public issues in their communities.

Ninety percent said that they believe crimes go unreported in the province, and 48

percent of those were victims who confirmed that they hadn’t reported. Again, 90 percent

of people in this survey said that they believe that crimes are not being reported,

and 48 percent of those people in this survey actually were victims of crime and confirmed

that they didn’t. And 71 percent of those people in this survey said a lack of confidence

in the justice system was the reason that they didn’t report.

A significant portion and a foundation of our justice system and law and order and

safety is people’s trust. In fact, having our justice system fall into disrepute is

one of the reasons that we’re supposed to keep people…. To maintain the trust. I do

appreciate the work that is going into bail reform because trust has been broken in

many cases in many communities.

[3:40 p.m.]

As my final question, can the minister please outline, hopefully beyond just the bail

reform part of it, what this government is doing to restore that trust that…? At least

according to this survey, 71 percent of people in this survey lack confidence in our

justice system.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Thanks for the question. I think it’s a really important one. It’s something that

I think about a lot and I think everybody in our ministry thinks about a lot.

It’s true. A foundation of our democracy is our justice system being trusted by the

people that it serves.

A lot of it is my job, to make sure that we have courts that are running on time;

that we have enough judges; that we have enough sheriffs, which was a big investment

and push of our system; that the courts run in a way that can be more modernized,

which is another component of my budget, so we can do things in faster, quicker ways

that people expect.

Also, that we can transform laws to make it easier for people. All the work that we’re

doing on transforming the family justice system, transforming…. Not just the Criminal

Code changes but that when people come to the courts or a justice process for resolution,

that it’s done in a way that reduces the level of trauma that they experience going

through that very adversarial process.

All the interventions in the family justice system that are showing up for people

in different ways — like the early resolution process; the justice access centres

that are funded; the changes that we’re doing in the family law, which is the legislative

component of it — to make it a better process. Those are all, hopefully, parts of

it.

Also, I think showing up for people where the harm is happening is also part of it

— the online safety work that we’re doing with the CRT. Making sure that people can

access court orders on their phone, or try to get them on their phone, for something

that’s happening to them right now is another intervention that I think is funded

in the budget and, also, is really important for people.

The member mentioned people not reporting. One of the reasons that they don’t is the

barriers to access to that system or the lack of trust in it. The more we can bring

down those barriers, the more we can support people through a trauma-informed way

to access a justice system. And then changing the actual processes so they’re not

so burdensome for people once they’re in the system is something that we’re definitely

committed to.

A lot of the work that we’re doing with the Stanton responses — the report that’s

about why people don’t report sexual assault…. Those numbers are way worse than the

numbers that the member quoted, right? The number of people that have experienced

it and the number of people that actually report it is very low. We need to change

that.

Of those 21 recommendations that Dr. Stanton has given me, 13 of the 21 are now underway

or being actioned or completed. We’re going to get to the ones that we think are going

to change the system effectively.

With respect to safe streets, I think that’s another aspect of it. Some of it is my

job, and some of it is a combination of other jobs. One is, like I mentioned, the

justice system working as it should — running on time, the effective laws. We can

control those components of it. I’ll keep at that work.

Another component of it is interventions within the system, like the ReVOII and the

C-POII programs, that are showing that all those really capable and brilliant people

that are in the system — those Crown counsel, those police officers, those corrections

officers — when you give them the space and resources to circle around the most prolific

repeat violent offenders, our data shows it works, right?

Those interventions work — the number of times that those people are interacting with

the police; the stability of their mental health; their incarceration, if needed,

if they’re not safe for society, increases the rates of that.

So expanding to C-POII, which is in the budget right now. That’s the chronic offenders.

The Save Our Streets, I know, have been asking for more interventions on that level

of crime that is repeated but doesn’t reach the violent level like the ReVOII population.

That investment is in here.

It’s a big thing to make sure that people trust the justice system, that we can keep

making it better. Crimes are going to change. Laws are going to change. The way people

experience the justice system is going to change. We always have to be changing with

it.

It’s something that’s been a focus of myself and the ministry. I’m just so grateful

for the ministry staff. I come here representing them, and hopefully I do it okay.

But they do the work every day to make sure that the justice system is a strong one

in B.C. and that we continue to adapt to make it strong.

The Chair : Seeing no further questions, I ask the Attorney General: would you like to make any

closing remarks before I call the vote?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Just thanks for the questions. I appreciate all the questions that we got. I think

it was a really good debate for British Columbians.

[3:45 p.m.]

I just want to also thank all the teams, some of them sitting here and some of them

in a room somewhere, waiting to see if there’s a question. The amount of work that

goes into making this process go with the information collected is astonishing every

year. I’m always impressed by that, and I’m just thankful for everybody’s work.

The Chair : Seeing no further questions, I will now call the votes.

Vote 14: ministry operations, $742,545,000 — approved.

Vote 15: judiciary, $115,950,000 — approved.

Vote 16: Crown Proceeding Act, $24,500,000 — approved.

Vote 17: independent investigations office, $13,983,000 — approved.

The Chair : Attorney General to move the motion.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair : This committee now stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 3:47 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:48 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Mable Elmore : Committee of Supply,

Section B, reports resolution and completion of the estimates

of the Ministry of Attorney General and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Anne Kang : I now call continued second reading on Bill 8.

[3:50 p.m.]

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Civil Forfeiture

Amendment Act, 2026

(continued)

Bryan Tepper : Today I rise on behalf of the official opposition to address Bill 8, the Civil Forfeiture

Amendment Act, 2026.

Let me be clear from the outset. British Columbians deserve a government that relentlessly

pursues criminals, money launderers and organized crime so that crime does not pay.

The civil forfeiture office has, since 2006, forfeited more than $221 million in ill-gotten

assets. That money has funded $93 million in community safety grants and $1.7 million

in victim compensation. Those are real dollars taken from drug traffickers, gangsters

and fraudsters and, in theory, put back to work for law-abiding families. We support

strengthening those tools.

The Cullen commission laid out the scale of money laundering in our province and called

for a more proactive civil forfeiture office.

The core objective of Bill 8 — expanding the office’s ability to investigate independently,

target high-value assets and streamline litigation — is something British Columbians

and, certainly, British Columbia Conservatives can and do support. But support is

not blind endorsement.

This bill also hands the NDP government even more power over seized assets while doing

nothing — absolutely nothing — to increase transparency over what happens to the money

afterward. And that is the heart of the matter, because under this government, the

most secretive administration British Columbia has ever seen, civil forfeiture risks

becoming just another slush fund mechanism, another pot of cash funnelled through

opaque grant programs, staffed by party insiders and spent with minimal public scrutiny.

Let us first walk through what the bill actually does by comparing the current Civil

Forfeiture Act with the amendments before us.

Section 5 now requires anyone filing a response to a forfeiture proceeding to set

out particulars of the nature of the interest, including the extent of the interest.

The current act simply says you file a response. The new requirement is a technical

hurdle. Innocent owners — a grandmother whose car was stolen and used in a crime,

a small business whose rented premises housed a grow op without their knowledge —

will now face immediate procedural traps. One missing detail and their claim can be

dismissed.

I think I should say that I did reach out to some subject-matter experts on this to

get their opinion on some of these things. I have included that in my comments.

Clause 2, new

section 7.1, introduces default forfeiture orders. If a party fails

to file and serve a proper response, the court can forfeit the property without a

hearing on the merits. The current act gives the court discretion, under

section 7,

to refuse forfeiture if it is clearly not in the interest of justice. That safeguard

is now bypassed by default.

The government’s own explanatory note calls this “streamlining litigation while preserving

fairness.” But I say, fairness for who? Certainly not for respondents who miss a deadline

because they are in hospital or out of province or simply unaware.

Clauses 3 and 10, sections 36 and 73, extend key timelines from 30 days to 60 days.

Under the current law, after a notice of dispute, the director must decide within

30 days whether to commence court proceedings or withdraw. After notice of intent

on personal property held by a public body, the same 30-day clock applies. The bill

doubles that window. The director now has twice as long to sit on assets, let them

depreciate or decide at leisure whether to proceed. Meanwhile, legitimate owners wait

longer for their day in court.

Clause 5,

section 39, tightens the rules for innocent owners who miss the dispute

window. The current act already requires them to prove that their failure was not

wilful or deliberate and that they acted as soon as reasonably possible. The amendment

revises the circumstances in which they may even commence proceedings. The government

calls it updating dispute rules. Innocent British Columbians will call it moving the

goalposts.

[3:55 p.m.]

Clause 6, new

section 45.1, does provide one genuine improvement. It allows examination

for discovery of the director. Claimants can now question the very official seeking

to take their property. That is a fairness safeguard we welcome.

Clause 7,

section 59.1, adds a presumption that motor vehicles depreciate over time.

When the government eventually has to return value to a successful claimant, it can

now argue that the car is worth less. Again, the explanatory note frames this as “cutting

costs and preserving asset value.” Preserving whose value?

We have clauses 8 and 9, sections 67.01 and 67.1, that expand information-sharing

with other jurisdictions and entities while removing the six-month gag order on organizations

that receive a director’s request for personal information. The director must now

notify the affected individual within the specified period. Broader powers to collect

data across borders are reasonable in the fight against transnational crime, but the

permanent removal of the time-limited non-disclosure rule tilts the balance further

towards secrecy.

Clause 11,

section 95, adds regulation-making authority over notice and service of

certain orders — more rules written behind closed doors.

Transnational provisions, which is clauses 12 to 18, ensure the new rules apply immediately

to ongoing files.

The net effect of Bill 8 is clear. Easier defaults for the government, longer decision

windows for the director, higher procedural bars for claimants, broader information-gathering

powers and one or two modest fairness concessions.

These changes will almost certainly increase the volume and speed of forfeitures.

The government has given no estimate of additional revenue, but with the office now

explicitly mandated to run proactive investigations, the inflow will rise. The 2023-24

grant report already shows $8.2 million distributed in a single year. More seizures

mean more money flowing into the civil forfeiture account.

Here we reach the most critical issue, the one the government refuses to address.

Under the current Civil Forfeiture Act,

part 8, all cash and sale proceeds go into

the civil forfeiture account — a special account inside the consolidated revenue fund.

The director first pays the office’s own operating costs. It remains self-funding.

Then comes compensation to eligible victims, capped at net proceeds from the specified

unlawful activity. Then grants for prevention of unlawful activities and remediation

of the effect of unlawful activities. Finally, other prescribed purposes, but only

with the approval of the Minister of Finance.

That’s a mouthful. In plain language, after the office pays itself and a few victims,

roughly half the money, according to the government’s own report, is funnelled into

the civil forfeiture grant program, which could be a great program — it has had great

results — but that program is run entirely by the government. Streams are chosen annually

by the ministry. Applications are scored internally. Awards go to community groups,

Indigenous organizations, police departments for equipment, restorative justice programs

— all worthy on paper. But the decision-making remains opaque.

In the grant selection process, there are a few questions to be asked. Who exactly

makes these decisions? Can we provide the organizational chart of the decision-making

body, the names of current members and their biographies? Are they public servants,

political appointees or independent experts?

[4:00 p.m.]

What is the detailed weighted assessment rubric used to score applications? Committee

members should be provided with a copy of the full application and scoring manual.

Are minutes kept of grant adjudication meetings, and if so, would the government commit

to publishing redacted versions to show the rationale for funding decisions?

So there’s a little heads-up on some of the questions that may be coming.

The annual report gives totals and feel-good project summaries, not line-by-line accountability

showing exactly who received what, whether outcomes are measured or whether any recipients

have political connections to the NDP. This is not ring-fence trust money. It sits

inside the consolidated revenue fund. Any unspent balance, any other prescribed purpose,

can ultimately be directed by cabinet.

Beyond the annual report’s list of recipients, will the government provide for the

past five years a line-by-line data set showing the application organization, the

amount requested, the amount granted, the stated purpose of the grant and the reported

outcomes or deliverables? What is the follow-up audit process? How many grants are

audited for compliance? What are the consequences for misused funds?

Why is the compensation for victims of crime, a paramount and morally unambiguous

issue…? Use of these funds is only $1.7 million since 2006 — a tiny fraction. It’s

less than 1 percent of the total generated. Does this not suggest the primary function

of the fund has become community grants, not victim restitution?

The Cullen commission itself recommended transitioning the office away from self-funding

precisely to remove the incentive to chase revenue. This ignores that recommendation.

Instead, this bill is expanding the office while keeping the same perverse incentive

structure.

British Columbians have every right to ask, where is the rest of the money going?

Why no independent oversight board? Why no requirement for audited outcome reports

on every grant? Why no public database showing every dollar?

Because this is the most secretive government British Columbia has ever seen. We have

watched the axing of the independent Office of the Merit Commissioner, the very body

tasked with ensuring public service jobs are awarded on merit, not connections. Just

last month there was a move to dissolve it, despite a documented spike in flawed hirings

and complaints of favouritism. We have seen grant programs across housing, climate

and community safety repeatedly directed towards organizations with government ties.

We have seen freedom of information responses delayed or redacted.

Now we are being asked to hand the same government even more untraceable cash from

civil forfeiture without a single new transparency safeguard. The pattern is unmistakable.

This government loves slush funds. They hate independent watchdogs. Bill 8 feeds that

machine.

Let me be explicit. We are not opposed to community grants. We are not opposed to

victim compensation. We want victim compensation. I think everybody does. But we are

opposed to a government that treats seized criminal assets as general revenue it can

sprinkle around with minimal accountability. Criminals are not transparent; government

should be.

Yet this bill contains zero amendments to

part 8, zero requirements for detailed public

reporting, zero independent audit provisions, zero fenced-in funds outside the consolidated

revenue fund. If the government truly believes these amendments improve fairness and

efficiency, then it should have no problem adding real accountability measures.

Here are the minimum changes British Columbia deserves before this bill passes.

[4:05 p.m.]

Amend

part 8 to create a truly independent civil forfeiture oversight board with representatives

from all parties — law enforcement, civil liberties groups and victims advocates —

to approve all grants above a modest threshold.

Require the director to publish, within 90 days of each fiscal year, a fully auditable

schedule of every grant recipient, amount, purpose and measured outcome.

Move the civil forfeiture office to core government funding, as the Cullen commission

recommended, ending the self-funding model that incentivizes revenue chasing.

Prohibit the use of forfeiture funds for any purpose not directly tied to crime prevention,

remediation or victim support — no other prescribed-purposes loophole.

Mandate that any regulations made under the new

section 95 powers be tabled in the

Legislature and subject to affirmative resolution.

Without these changes, Bill 8 is not modernizing civil forfeiture. It is supercharging

a secretive revenue tool for an already opaque government.

Colleagues, organized crime does not respect due process, but neither does unchecked

government power. The fight against money laundering must never become an excuse to

erode the very rule of law we claim to defend.

British Columbians expect us to take criminals’ luxury cars, cash and mansions and

then expect us to account for every dollar afterwards with forensic precision. This

government wants the first part, as do we all. They resist the second part. That resistance

tells us everything about the priorities.

We will support the principle of a stronger civil forfeiture office, but we will fight

at every stage of this bill for the transparency British Columbians have every right

to demand.

I will say, while I wasn’t a subject-matter expert, I did work with them in my time

with the police. This was always on the top of everybody’s mind, where we still need

to protect the innocent.

I call upon the minister to approach committee stage not as a defensive exercise but

as a collaborative one. Bring the data. Bring the policy rationales. Be prepared to

discuss amendments that strengthen safeguards. The shared goal of dismantling criminal

enterprises is too important to be undermined by a process that is seen as unfair,

secretive or politically self-serving.

Again, when working with the police, I was a very large proponent of this act. Everybody

that’s involved in it has used it to great success. But if we allow this money to

disappear into the NDP’s favourite black box labelled only “community grants” and

administered by party insiders, then we have not defeated organized crime. We have

simply created a new state-sanctioned version of it.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : Everyone deserves to live a life of dignity with the services and supports that they

need not just to survive but to thrive. Addressing poverty and inequality is the right

thing to do for people, for families and for communities. We’re stronger when we take

care of each other.

We are working to build a province where everyone feels safe, welcomed and included

in their communities, where people can find and get the help that they need. We brought

in a lot of change for people, but there is more to do.

Violence and related trauma can lead people to lose their homes, their jobs, their

support systems. This loss of resources and stability is a real factor in poverty.

I’m going to speak to Bill 8 from that perspective.

The Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act makes changes to the Civil Forfeiture Act to streamline

processes and ensure more funds are returned to community.

[4:10 p.m.]

Since its inception, the civil forfeiture office has seized over $221 million from

the proceeds of crime. Approximately half the funds from all forfeitures go back directly

to B.C. communities and community-serving organizations. The civil forfeiture grant

program provides one-time funding to support community-safety-related initiatives

throughout the province. Funding is allocated through streams chosen on an annual

basis that align with government priorities.

These grants have been used to help support those struggling with intimate-partner

violence and sexual exploitation. We’re taking broad action to address gender-based

violence, including through providing stable funding to sexual assault response services.

These acts of violence can cause traumatic brain injury, damaging the part of the

brain that can organize tasks, remember important events and control emotions and

impulses. I’m particularly grateful to the Nanaimo Brain Injury Society for bringing

in academics and forums to raise the profile and understanding of the links between

gender-based violence and brain injury. Ending violence, supporting survivors and

creating safe communities are crucial.

In the 2023-24 year, over $2.3 million was provided to programs to end gender-based

violence. This includes programs to support victims of gender-based violence, like

Warmland Women’s Support Services Society’s project called Calling Ourselves Home.

It’s located in the Cowichan Valley, and it delivers Indigenous-informed, culturally

competent outreach programming for young, street-entrenched, equity-deserving, perinatal

Indigenous women — survivors of intimate-partner violence — through 35 strength-based

weekly group workshops.

Another program funded through the proceeds of crime is the Covenant House in Vancouver’s

Supporting Homeless Exploited Youth project. It engages 70 trafficked and exploited

youth, aged 16 to 24, homeless or at risk of homelessness.

Projects from United for Literacy in Surrey to VI Counselling Centre for Immigrants

and Refugees on Vancouver Island provide supports for mothers and children living

in transition homes while fleeing domestic violence.

During the same period, the civil forfeiture office provided nearly half a million

dollars to programs designed to prevent domestic violence and to intervention programming.

Nicola Family Therapy’s men’s counselling program delivers trauma-based counselling

sessions for men who have used or are at risk of using violence in their relationships.

As part of my ministry’s poverty reduction strategy, we recognize that Indigenous

people are disproportionately impacted by poverty, due to intersecting colonialism,

historical and ongoing practices and impacts of colonialism. That recognition is foundational

to our updated poverty reduction strategy, and it will help ensure that British Columbia

is a place where the inherent rights of Indigenous people are recognized and where

Indigenous Peoples thrive by leading the way forward.

The updated poverty reduction strategy includes actions that were identified by and

for Indigenous people, reflecting their priorities and unique needs related to poverty

reduction, including economic, social and cultural development.

The civil forfeiture office has an Indigenous healing funding stream that awarded

$1.43 million in the 2023-24 year, for 37 projects. The Indigenous healing fund provides

grants to support healing of Indigenous people from the impacts of intergenerational

trauma, crime or victimization. Projects focused on healing approaches are reflective

of or aligned with Indigenous cultural and world views, including healing for the

individual, the family and the broader community; the emotional, mental, physical

and spiritual aspects of healing; and other culturally identified practices that contribute

to healing.

One example is the resiliency program, a provincewide program delivered by Pacifica

Treatment Centre Society. It provides people from Indigenous communities who are undergoing

treatment for substance misuse with essential skills and coping strategies. In ’24-25,

they integrated resiliency practices into their Indigenous treatment services through

the 2024 resilience project. The project engaged 68 clients in biweekly healing circles

led by Elders and Indigenous alumni, emphasizing strength, connection, harmony and

cultural renewal.

[4:15 p.m.]

Another example, in Nanaimo, was funded through a grant to the Island Crisis Care

Society, an organization that just has such enormous capacity and reaches their arms

around people in so many ways. They operate several supportive housing projects for

us in community and do a lot of employment and skills development work. This particular

program is called Lifeskills.

Indigenous Women’s Healing Centre offers culturally rooted support for Indigenous

women ages 19 to 79 in Nanaimo and Oceanside, people who have faced homelessness or

housing insecurity. They have weekly one-hour workshops led by an Indigenous facilitator

or Elders, and they reconnect with cultural practices, building skills to support

well-being and integration to the broader community. That’s just a $40,000 grant,

but I hear it has a real impact on people’s lives.

Not only does the civil forfeiture office return money through grants, but it has

also developed a victim compensation package to provide financial assistance to people

who have suffered a financial loss due to unlawful activity linked to property forfeited

to the civil forfeiture office. To date, almost $1.7 million has been distributed

to support eligible victims across B.C.

Now, Bill 8 introduces new measures to cut costs and protect asset value, including

a presumption of vehicle depreciation to allow for earlier liquidation. This means

greater value for forfeited items and more money can be returned to the community

through grants. About half of the funds recovered from forfeitures go back into B.C.

communities, but there are ways to find more efficiencies so that more of the dollars

go directly to serving people.

Currently about 85 percent of civil forfeiture cases are uncontested and result in

a default judgment. Even though most cases are uncontested, they still require, right

now, a full hearing, consuming valuable court time and legal resources. Bill 8 changes

that default-order power to quicken uncontested cases while preserving judicial discretion.

This change will speed up the process so that the province is able to liquidate forfeitures

before their value depreciates, while simultaneously reducing labour costs associated

with long, uncontested hearings.

Bill 8 also introduces a presumption of vehicle depreciation. Cars often sit in storage

for months or years, losing value and costing the programs hundreds of thousands of

dollars annually. Currently the act does not require judges to consider depreciation

or storage costs, so by the time a case concludes, the vehicle’s value may well be

very low or gone.

This presumption is consistent with the best practices in other jurisdictions internationally.

The presumption prompts courts to consider early liquidation, and this is intended

to reduce storage costs, preserve value and ensure that proceeds can be reinvested

in community safety. That doesn’t mean that judges lose authority to decide on sale

of forfeited vehicles. Presumption simply informs the court’s decision so that judges

retain full discretion to refuse sale where fairness requires.

While Bill 8 streamlines liquidation of forfeited assets, it also extends statutory

timelines from 30 days to 60 days. This will be helpful to the system, because the

current 30-day window is too short for complex cases, leading to rushed filings and

errors sometimes. Extending timelines will align British Columbia with other provinces

and improve accuracy. Mistakes in the proceeding can result in longer cases or reversal

of the forfeiture, and our goal is to reduce errors and ensure lawful retention of

property.

The amendments improve fairness and reduce procedural challenges, ensuring property

is held under lawful authority, while giving people a fair chance to respond.

Providing supports to victims in the community is just one aspect of civil forfeiture.

The civil forfeiture office is giving our province one more tool to combat crime in

our communities. We’ve gone after drug dealers and organized criminals, seizing the

proceeds of crime, like in Nanaimo, where the Hell’s Angels clubhouse was seized and

then demolished. The Hell’s Angels clubhouse had been used to coordinate criminal

activities. It leaves the courts to seize illegally obtained assets. That was a very

long court case. I’m so glad the Attorney General’s office pursued it with such diligence.

This action today is possible thanks to the brave undercover officers, anti-gang officers

and police agencies who referred their case files to the civil forfeiture office and

worked tirelessly to see justice done. The province seized not only the Nanaimo Hell’s

Angels clubhouse but also Hell’s Angels clubhouses in Vancouver and Kelowna.

[4:20 p.m.]

Our government will continue to go after gangs, guns and toxic drugs that are hurting

loved ones and will continue to take away their illegally acquired assets and protect

British Columbians.

Funds gained from liquidated assets are distributed to the crime prevention funding

stream from the civil forfeiture office. It awarded $1.643 million to 44 projects

dedicated to crime prevention.

Far too often young people are lured into gang life with tempting images of fast cars,

glamorous homes and luxury goods. These initiatives focus on preventing criminal activity

through direct interventions for vulnerable people at risk of criminal activities

or behaviour.

This includes a program that we’re funding in Nanaimo, the youth early prevention

program run by the Boys and Girls Clubs of Central Vancouver Island. I visited this

place. They’re doing child care and after-school programming across the whole range

of children’s lives. I love how they’ve identified here delivering programming on

crime prevention, reducing bullying and improving social connections for participants

ages eight to 12. They invite into their centre at the boys and girls club positive

adult role models and RCMP officers.

In closing, we can’t know what the future will bring, but together we will build a

stronger future that is ready to respond to new and emerging drivers of poverty. The

Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act introduces practical changes to reinforce the province’s

ability to disrupt organized crime and money laundering. With these changes, British

Columbia’s civil forfeiture office can continue to take the profit out of unlawful

activity, prevent property from being used to cause harm and support victims and crime

prevention. For these reasons, I fully support Bill 8.

Steve Kooner : I rise today to speak to Bill 8, the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2026, which

proposes amendments to British Columbia’s Civil Forfeiture Act.

Let me begin clearly. Criminals and money launderers should not be allowed to live

in luxury off their ill-gotten gains. Crime should not pay. In British Columbia, where

money laundering and organized crime have caused real harm to our housing market,

our economy and our public confidence, we must ensure that illegally acquired assets

are pursued, seized where appropriate and returned — to support communities and victims.

At the same time, we do need accountability and transparency, as my colleague for

Surrey-Panorama was talking about. We need accountability and transparency to make

sure the civil forfeiture funds and assets and the funds from those assets get to

proper community safety groups and victim supports. That’s absolutely crucial.

The principle of the Civil Forfeiture Act and making it more efficient is something

that I support.

British Columbians have lived through consequences of weak enforcement and slow institutional

response. The Commission of Inquiry into Money Laundering in British Columbia, the

Cullen commission, made it clear that organized crime and money laundering were significant

and pervasive problems in our province. One of the recommendations was to strengthen

proactive investigations — from the Cullen commission — and give the civil forfeiture

office the tools it needs to independently identify money-laundering schemes and pursue

high-value assets.

Budget 2026 proposes expanding proactive operations of the civil forfeiture office

in line with those recommendations. Modernizing the civil forfeiture office so that

it can more effectively target organized criminals and money launderers is a step

in the right direction, and it’s a step forward.

[4:25 p.m.]

The government has framed this piece of legislation as improving fairness, clarity

and efficiency. Specifically, Bill 8 aims to streamline litigation while preserving

fairness, update timelines and dispute rules, cut costs and preserve asset value,

improve information-sharing with safeguards and add fairness safeguards for record-gathering.

These are reasonable objectives.

Since 2006, the civil forfeiture office has generated over $221 million for the government.

Of that, approximately $93 million has gone towards crime prevention and community

safety grants and about $1.7 million towards victim compensation.

Now, the intent of allocating funds towards community safety grants and towards victim

compensation…. That’s a well-served purpose, and that should be facilitated, especially

in today’s time.

In today’s time, we are seeing an increase in the amount of victims as a result of

crime that’s running rampant throughout British Columbia. We are seeing victims as

a result of repeat violent offenders. We are seeing victims as a result of repeat

property offenders. We are seeing victims in the form of businesses that are just

trying to keep up and stay afloat. We are seeing victims being re-victimized, and

we are seeing the extent of victims increase throughout our province.

This is the time that we need to actually do more for victims. We need to make sure….

We need to step up the process to go after these criminals and seize their property

that they’ve gotten from illegitimate purposes. We need to help fund proper community

safety grants as well as victim supports.

But with the same token, we also need to have accountability and transparency, to

make sure these community safety grants are properly allocated and victim supports

are properly allocated so these are reaching the individuals and the groups of victims

that actually need these supports.

I just briefly went through some numbers in terms of how much has been generated through

the civil forfeiture office. These are meaningful numbers. Recovered criminal assets

should be redirected to strengthen community safety and support victims.

However, it is not estimated…. Something that we don’t know as a result of these amendments

is: how much will these actual amendments generate further? How much of a difference

will they make?

It would have helped to actually know the research behind this so we could, in a more

fruitful way, debate this bill. The purpose seems to be that we need to get more funds

to community safety grants and victim supports and that we need to really deal with

these criminals that are profiting off their illegitimate business. But a crucial

fact and a piece of information and research that would help us in this purpose would

be to actually know what sort of revenue would be generated as a result of bringing

forward these amendments — by having more efficiency and clarity in this legislation.

That raises an important point. If the government is going to expand the powers and

efficiency of civil forfeiture, transparency about how those funds are used must increase

as well.

We must make sure that the proper research is done. We must make sure that these funds

from the civil forfeiture are actually making it to the proper recipients that it’s

going to benefit the most in terms of victim supports. Criminals are not transparent.

Government should be transparent.

Let me now walk through some of the major clauses of Bill 8.

[4:30 p.m.]

Clause 1 amends

section 5 to require that a person filing a response must provide

full particulars of the nature and extent of their claimed interest in property. The

original provision required particulars, but this amendment clarifies and strengthens

what must be included.

Now, I have a background in law. I’ve been a lawyer for approximately 19½ years. I

know when you bring clarity to statutes, that takes away a lot of ambiguity, and it

really affects the efficiency of how to interpret a statute. That really helps you

to streamline problem-solving.

To the extent that these amendments now bring efficiency and they bring more clarity,

that’s something that I support. We need to have more clarity. We need to have more

efficiency in our statutes and in our regulations because that really helps the legal

profession. It really affects anybody that is relying on statutes to further the purposes

of the statutes that we look at.

Going back to this clause that I’m looking at, clause 1, this brings some changes,

brings clarity for litigation. It ensures that the court and the director know precisely

what interest is being claimed and on what basis.

Clarity brings a lot of benefits, as I just touched upon. Clarity reduces delay. Clarity

reduces legal costs. Clarity reduces gamesmanship.

Just to touch upon legal costs, one of the ways that we do see legal costs increase

in litigation is that when someone attempts to bring a solution to a problem but it’s

not the proper solution, the litigants have to keep trying to get to a safety spot

where they can actually solve the problem. But if the legal tools were clear and the

parties really knew exactly how to solve the problem and exactly which technique to

use, that would actually save a lot of time.

We know with the wheels of justice, they kind of move slowly. As they move slowly,

that takes a lot of time, and as a result of the time, that’s where…. The legal profession

bills based upon the time, and that’s why the legal costs accumulate. If there’s a

way to make the process more efficient, to understand the legislation better and to

get to the root of the problem better and to supply the solution to that problem,

that would make the process simpler and more efficient in terms of reducing legal

costs.

Again, when I see words used such as “clarity,” “efficiency” and “reducing ambiguity”

in statutes, that’s something that really triggers me because I know it can really

make a difference if we deal with these items within our justice system.

Going back to clause 1, if someone claims an interest in property, they should be

able to explain what the interest is and how it arose. This all promotes fairness

on both sides. So clause 1 does add some value here in terms of Bill 8.

Clause 2. If we go further into clause 2, clause 2 introduces a new default judgment

mechanism where a party fails to file and serve a response. So a new mechanism where

a party fails to file and serve a response — when you know there’s a claim but there

hasn’t been any response filed in relation to that claim.

[4:35 p.m.]

The original

section 7 in the original act allowed a court to refuse or limit forfeiture

if clearly not in the interests of justice. That protection still remains, even with

this amendment in clause 2, but this new provision allows the court to proceed where

parties simply do not respond. If there’s no good reason and there’s no response filed,

the court can proceed. And if the court can proceed, that allows for more efficiency

in terms of dealing with civil forfeiture of criminal assets and illegitimate funds.

Clause 2 really addresses a real litigation gap. When respondents fail to engage,

proceedings stall, assets sit, value deteriorates and costs rise. This amendment streamlines

the process while maintaining judicial oversight.

The court must still be satisfied that the requirements are met, so this is a safeguard

as well. There is still the ability to set aside or vary orders. Under this provision,

orders can still be set aside, so that’s an important safeguard, although if a party

without good reason doesn’t file a response, action can be taken. That allows streamlining

civil forfeiture.

Then going a little bit further into clauses 3 and 10, there is some updating of timelines.

The original statute talked about 30 days, and now these particular clauses talk about

60 days. Clauses 3 and 10 extend certain timelines from 30 days to 60 days for the

director to commence proceedings or withdraw notice.

The original 30-day window may have been too tight, given the complexity of modern

financial investigations. We know sometimes criminals can get a little bit creative

in how they hide assets, so investigations have to get even more significant. As the

investigations get more significant, they may take longer. Increasing the time period

from 30 days to 60 days makes sense.

Money-laundering cases are not simple. They involve layered transactions, shell entities,

cross-border components. That’s a little bit of the gist of what could happen when

we’re dealing with criminals that are trying to hide their money from illegitimate

sources.

Extending to 60 days improves administrative clarity and reduces rushed litigation.

It ensures better preparation and more efficient proceedings overall.

Now getting into clause 4 of this bill. Clause 4 clarifies language. As I stated earlier,

clarity, taking out ambiguity, in statutory language is very important. Clause 4 clarified

some language. This is a drafting clarification that improves precision. Precision

in legislation improves fairness and reduces interpretive disputes.

I’ll move on to clause 6 next. Clause 6 formalizes how the director may be examined

for discovery. For the people listening to the word “discovery,” discovery is an examination

under oath. It could be kind of a proceeding akin to something happening in court.

Usually examinations for discovery are done under oath, just like court proceedings

are done, and usually before a court reporter. This clause 6 talks about examination

for discovery of directors. Clause 6 formalizes how the director may be examined for

discovery, limiting examination to one knowledgeable representative.

We often see…. When we are looking at court rules and you want to examine, say, a

company or, say, an organization, usually that organization or company exists with

a name but there are many people behind that organization or the company. It’s not

just that you’re dealing with one person.

[4:40 p.m.]

So you have to have a person who’s a representative or a person that is an authoritative

voice from that organization or company that you can ask questions to under oath.

This clarifies who one would be asking questions to.

This clause 6 formalizes how the director may be examined for discovery, limiting

examination to one knowledgeable representative. This promotes efficiency and reduces

duplicative examinations, while still preserving the ability to test a director’s

case. It’s a practical litigation modernization.

Now moving next to clause 7 of Bill 8. This clause 7 adds a presumption that motor

vehicles depreciate over time in interim preservation applications. Although many

people know that vehicles are usually depreciating assets, there could be some vehicles

that are collectibles that accumulate value over time. Most vehicles do depreciate

over time.

It’s important for legislation to put this presumption in the legislation because

if you don’t have the presumption in there, you may have to resort to experts to decide

what the value of that vehicle asset is. So this is an important tool in terms of

clarity and taking out ambiguity, having this presumption.

A presumption, essentially, is a term used when…. Rather than presenting evidence

to prove something, you have a term such as “presumption.” The statute actually states

that is the evidence if you have that fact scenario.

If you have vehicles, the presumption is that vehicle is depreciating, without having

to actually prove that. That’s a legal term that is brought forward into this legislation.

To have this type of presumption for clarity purposes is just common sense.

Allowing timely disposition preserves asset value so that proceeds can support community

safety grants. We really do need to know about whether there are vehicles. If they

are being confiscated and they are being forfeited, we do need to know that they are

depreciating.

Why it’s important for civil forfeiture purposes is we need to get the maximum value

to community safety grants, to victim supports. If we wait too long and a vehicle

asset depreciates, loses all its value, there may not be much there to actually give

in terms of a community safety grant or a victim support. So this particular clause

serves a very important role. It’s about preserving public value, and it actually

serves a crucial purpose.

Moving next to clause 8 of Bill 8. This clause authorizes a director to collect and

disclose specified information to jurisdictions inside or outside Canada where reasonably

required. Money laundering, as we know, is transnational. Criminals don’t really operate

within borders. They try to expand where they’re operating. Money laundering flows

with those criminals and is a transnational crime as well.

If the civil forfeiture office cannot share information effectively with other jurisdictions,

it cannot effectively pursue high-value organized crime assets. There needs to be

an element for the director, under the civil forfeiture office, to be able to collect

and disclose information across jurisdictions, inside or outside Canada, for this

legislation to be effective in terms of getting at criminal illicit funds — in order

to forfeit those funds and in order to get those funds and assets and values from

those assets to community safety grants and victim supports. Clause 8, again, serves

an important purpose.

[4:45 p.m.]

Clause 9 talks about removing the fixed six-month limit on non-disclosure of a director’s

information request but adds a requirement that notice be given to the individual

as soon as practical after the six-month period expires.

Now this talks about information that the director is trying to get in terms of civil

forfeiture. The original act had a time limit on it. But sometimes a time limit may

not make sense because if the investigation is taking longer, if the process is taking

longer, if the director is not able to comply with a certain time limit, that may

kill the efforts to actually conduct civil forfeiture.

This clause is important in that it moves away from an actual time period, but it

actually creates a different form of a safeguard — this particular clause does. It

adds a requirement that notice be given to the individual as soon as practical after

the six-month period expires. So although the six-month period expires — now you’re

not operating within the six-month period — there is still a requirement on the director

to provide disclosure of the director’s information request as soon as practical after

the six-month period.

As long as the investigation doesn’t get jeopardized, if it’s not getting jeopardized,

that disclosure should be happening. This balances investigative integrity with eventual

notice. Investigations cannot succeed if subjects are tipped off prematurely. At the

same time, individuals are entitled to notice once secrecy is no longer required.

That is a reasonable safeguard.

There are also some transitional and consequential clauses in this bill, as many bills

usually have, towards the end of the bill. The transitional clauses ensure procedural

consistency across ongoing matters. The consequential amendments to the Offence Act

and the Unclaimed Property Act align timelines and

definitions to reflect the updated

60-day framework. These are technical but necessary to maintain coherence across statutes.

In conclusion, money laundering and organized crime are not abstract policy discussions.

Money laundering distorts housing markets. Money laundering funds drug trafficking.

Money laundering empowers transnational criminal networks.

Strengthening the civil forfeiture office so it can proactively identify and pursue

high-value criminal assets, as recommended by the Cullen commission, is a step forward.

Reducing litigation delays lowers taxpayer costs. Clarifying processes improves fairness

for respondents. Preserving asset value ensures more funds are available for crime

prevention grants, community safety initiatives and victim supports. These amendments

move us in that direction.

While I support these changes, I believe there must be greater transparency in how

recovered funds are allocated and returned to communities, as I stated at the outset.

As the member for Surrey-Panorama was stating earlier, there needs to be some accountability

and transparency to make sure the funds collected from civil forfeiture do end up

addressing victim supports and real community safety grant initiatives.

[4:50 p.m.]

It can’t be based on a partisan basis. It has to be based upon the victims that need

it. As I stated earlier, the amount of victims that we are seeing in this province

is increasing. More and more crime is being committed. As a result, there are more

and more victims, and there’s a diverse extent of victims right across this province.

We need to make sure that the civil forfeiture funds are actually reaching victims

that actually need it. With that, we need to have proper transparency and accountability

to make sure that those funds are getting where they need to get.

Over $221 million has been generated since 2006 through the civil forfeiture office.

That is significant. But British Columbians deserve clear annual reporting on amount

recovered, clear breakdowns of where funds are distributed, measurable outcomes tied

to community safety grants, transparent criteria for allocation. If we are expanding

efficiency and investigative power, we must expand public accountability. Criminals

operate in secrecy; government should not.

All in all, civil forfeiture of funds and assets that criminals have accumulated from

illegitimate activity is a good thing, and we should make the process more efficient.

But at the same time, there needs to be more transparency to make sure the funds from

civil forfeiture are getting to the victims that actually need those funds.

George Anderson : I rise today to speak in support of the proposed amendments to B.C.’s Civil Forfeiture

Act.

At its core, this legislation addresses a simple but profound principle of justice,

that crime should never pay. Organized crime, money laundering and illicit financial

networks do not survive on ideology. They survive on profit. They depend on houses

used to grow drugs, vehicles used to transport illicit goods and bank accounts used

to hide illegal proceeds.

If government fails to disrupt the financial incentives behind unlawful activity,

then we leave intact the very engine that drives crime. Civil forfeiture exists to

remove that engine and allows our government to pursue property connected to unlawful

activity as a means to provide a preventative legal remedy designed to protect the

public interest.

I might first begin with a bit of a legal foundation regarding civil forfeiture.

It’s important to understand what civil forfeiture is and what it is not. Civil forfeiture

is not a criminal prosecution. It is a civil proceeding brought before the courts

under the well-established balance of probabilities. The focus is not on guilt or

innocence. The focus is on whether property is the proceeds of an instrument of unlawful

activity, and that distinction matters.

Our courts have repeatedly recognized that governments have a legitimate interest

in preventing property from being used to facilitate crime. Civil forfeiture operates

alongside criminal law, but it serves as a distinct public purpose — preventing future

harm, disrupting criminal enterprise and removing the economic rewards of illegal

conduct. This approach has become an important tool used not only in British Columbia

but across Canada and internationally in efforts to combat organized crime and financial

crime.

[4:55 p.m.]

Why are these amendments necessary? The reality is that criminal organizations evolve,

they adapt, and they exploit procedural gaps. Over time, litigation has revealed areas

within the civil forfeiture framework that require modernization.

After years of court proceedings and operational experiences, several challenges have

become clear: procedural inefficiencies that create unnecessary delays, gaps in information-sharing,

increased sophistication in financial crime and rising costs associated with complex

litigation.

Organized crime today does not operate in isolation. It operates through networks

that cross provinces and international borders. Money moves digitally. Assets are

hidden through shell companies and intermediaries. Information flows between agencies

become critical to ensuring enforcement is effective.

If government does not adapt, we risk creating a system where criminal proceeds remain

protected by procedural obstacles, and that is not something that British Columbians

expect of us.

What do these amendments do? The amendments before this House aim to strengthen the

act in several ways.

The first area that I will talk about is civil litigation. These amendments help streamline

the litigation process. Civil forfeiture cases can be complex, involving multiple

parties, assets and jurisdictions. Just starting at a point of multiple party litigation,

you have individuals who could be in British Columbia, Alberta — anywhere in the country,

the United States and internationally. But actually going through the process of ensuring

that they are treated fairly under our systems, of ensuring that proper notice is

given, of ensuring that we go through the proper litigation processes even before

getting to the point of discovery….

To clarify the point of what a discovery is, it is essentially a deposition where

individuals are able to have a discussion, at least an examination, for discovery

of the pertinent pieces of evidence.

By moving forward with the amendments that are suggested, I don’t think that I’m debating

the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education. But that being said, perhaps I will be later

on.

Civil forfeiture is focused on reducing the procedural inefficiencies, lowering litigation

costs, reducing court burdens and allowing cases to be resolved more efficiently.

We know that our court systems are overburdened. There are several cases that are

going through the courts, and whatever we can do to ensure