Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, April 5, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 300

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill 23 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act,

Hon. R. Fleming

Bill Pr401 — Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act,

M. Dykeman

Bill M220 — Defibrillator Public Access

Act

S. Bond

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Khalsa Diwan Society in Vancouver

G. Chow

Coy Cup hockey championship in Quesnel

C. Oakes

Shaheed Bhagat Singh and Sikh Heritage

Month

M. Elmore

Mount Baker Secondary School

T. Shypitka

Massimo Cerantola

R. Glumac

Green Shirt Day and organ donation

awareness

G. Kyllo

Oral Questions

Housing affordability and single-family

zoning

K. Falcon

Hon. R. Kahlon

K. Kirkpatrick

Government action on homelessness and community

safety in Downtown Eastside

A. Olsen

Hon. R. Kahlon

Crime in communities and impact on

businesses

P. Milobar

Hon. R. Kahlon

T. Stone

Tabling Documents

Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, report, Toward

Inclusion: The Need to Improve Access to Mental Health Services

for Children and Youth with Neurodevelopmental Conditions

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 11 — Election Amendment Act, 2023

(continued)

Tributes

Byron John Joseph

Hon. B. Ma

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 11 — Election Amendment Act, 2023

(continued)

M. de Jong

Hon. N. Sharma

Reporting of Bills

Bill 11 — Election Amendment Act, 2023

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act,

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Morris

A. Olsen

J. Sims

B. Stewart

Hon. R. Fleming

Hon. M. Farnworth

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation (continued)

M. Lee

Hon. M. Rankin

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation

Hon. M. Rankin

A. Olsen

M. Lee

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and

Food

I. Paton

Hon. P. Alexis

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon

Innovation (continued)

T. Shypitka

Hon. J. Osborne

Estimates: Ministry of Municipal Affairs

Hon. A. Kang

D. Ashton

A. Olsen

K. Kirkpatrick

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2023

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: A. Singh.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Whiteside: It is such a treat for me today to introduce my dear friend Jude

Morrison, who is joining us in the gallery all the way from Ottawa for a

visit. Jude and I went to SFU together some years ago and both went on to

careers advocating for people.

Jude and I have protested, lobbied, raged and celebrated together over very many social

issues over very many years. I am deeply grateful for our ongoing

friendship.

Would the House please join me in making her very welcome.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: It is my pleasure to introduce the B.C. Common Ground Alliance. The

Alliance’s executive team, led by Dr. Dave Baspaly, and several members are

here in the gallery today to recognize April as Safe Digging Month in the

province of British Columbia. These are the people who work so hard to

ensure the highest possible standards are in place for workers, for public

safety and to prevent damage in connection with underground

infrastructure.

Please, everybody, remember to keep yourself safe and stay smart.

Don’t forget One Call and B.C. one click if you’re planning to dig a project

of any size.

Would members please help me in making members of the Common Ground

Alliance very welcome here today.

Hon. N. Cullen: I have the very special pleasure today to introduce my family, who

made the pilgrimage with me in the car and over ferries, the 15½ hours from

Smithers, B.C. You met them earlier, Mr. Speaker — my wife, Diana, my twin

boys, Isaac and Elliot Cullen, outstanding students, outstanding athletes,

the joy of my life. It’s the good people of Stikine that allow me to be

here, but without Diana’s tireless support, I wouldn’t be here.

Would the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

G. Begg: All of us who are fortunate enough to have a seat in this House are

supported at home by a vast array of people who work hard to make sure that

we work hard every day. Not the least of those are our constituency

assistants.

Yesterday and for the next two days, the constituency assistants

from the government side of the House are here in Victoria at a training

seminar. Some of them are here today for what they tell me they expect to be

the highlight of their time here, so I would urge all members of this House

not to disappoint them during question period.

I know you’ll all join me in welcoming the constituency assistants

from the government side of the House to the Legislature.

Hon. R. Fleming: Joining us in the gallery today from Reynolds Secondary School is

Madam Jones’s grade 10 social studies class. Reynolds is a noted,

distinguished school in my constituency. It has produced some notable

people, including one former Premier, who just concluded 18 years of

distinguished service in this House last week. I can assure the House, were

he here today, this would be a considerably longer introduction from the

class president of 1977.

Among the student guests here today from Reynolds is Jacques Volk.

Jacques’ dad, Kevin, may be known to many members on both sides of the House

for his work supporting and building many very difficult major projects all

across B.C. as assistant deputy minister in my ministry.

I wish Madam Jones’s class all the best during their tour here today.

I look forward to seeing more future Rey­nolds graduates continue to

serve our community, make their mark in this great province and across

Canada and, indeed, across the world.

Will the House please join me in making these students all feel

welcome in the Legislature today.

K. Falcon: I’m pleased to be joined in the gallery today by two individuals I

have enormous respect for. The first is Karim Alam, who was my campaign

manager for the leadership race, which I know the members opposite will be

so thrilled that he got me elected into this position. He’s a very good

friend of mine and did a great job and continues to be a great

supporter.

I’d also like to recognize the great former mayor of Surrey, Dianne

Watts, who is also joining us here and is a very good friend and supporter

of mine.

Thank you for making them feel welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 23 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT,

R. Fleming presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act,

Hon. R. Fleming: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 23, the Motor Vehicle Amendment

Act, 2023. This bill provides new tools to help government transform and

build a cleaner future-ready transportation network on B.C. roads. The

legislation supports our government’s CleanBC commitment to lower GHG

emissions in the transportation sector by 27 to 32 percent by 2030 and

is an accelerated action in the upcoming clean transportation action

plan.

More specifically, this legislation will support an

in­crease of the share of trips made by active transportation to

30 percent by 2030.

The key changes in this act focus on establishing a minimum safe

passing distance that drivers of motor vehicles must observe when

passing pedestrians, cyclists and other prescribed road users. It

establishes a new definition of vulnerable road user and a new offence

framework for drivers who interact unsafely with these road

users.

The bill also enables the use and regulation of new and emerging

technologies, including speed limiters in heavy duty commercial trucks.

It anticipates a future with highly and fully automated vehicles that

will be safety certified by federal agencies responsible in the near

future.

It will also allow for the development of regulations supporting

things like designated delivery robots, micro-utility devices, personal

mobility devices and different classes of motor-assisted cycles or

e-bikes.

Bill 23 also supports expanding the existing authority to pilot

test new and emerging technologies, rules of the road and other matters

contemplated by the Motor Vehicle Act.

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

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 23, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2023, introduced, read a first

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

next sitting of the House after today.

BILL P r 401 — VANCOUVER FOUNDATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

M. Dykeman presented a bill intituled Vancouver Foundation Amendment

Act, 2023.

M. Dykeman: I move that a bill intituled Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act,

2023 standing in my name on the order paper be introduced and read a

first time now.

The changes the Vancouver Foundation is seeking relate to the

foundation’s ability to distribute funds to charities and non-profits,

particularly in periods of economic downturn. Current language in the

act considers a reserve amount calculated based on financial data from

The amendment that they seek will allow the foundation to base

that calculation on financial data from the most recent calendar year

and sustain their capacity to support charities and non-profits when

they need it the most.

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

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Members, pursuant to Standing Order 105, this bill shall stand

referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform,

Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr401, Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2023, introduced,

read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private

Bills.

BILL M220 — DEFIBRILLATOR

PUBLIC ACCESS

ACT

S. Bond presented a bill intituled Defibrillator Public Access

Act.

S. Bond: I move that a bill intituled Defibrillator Public Access Act which

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

now read for a first time.

In 2021, approximately 8,300 British Columbians experienced a

sudden and unexpected cardiac arrest. This can happen to anyone,

anywhere, at any time and without warning. Tragically, fewer than one

person in ten will survive their cardiac arrest.

First responders say that out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is the

most critical and time-dependent emergency that they respond to. In a

sudden cardiac arrest, every minute counts. For every one-minute delay

in intervention, survival falls by 7 to 10 percent. However, with CPR,

the use of an automated external defibrillator or AED, that doubles the

likelihood of survival.

This is why I am introducing this bill for the third time. If

passed, the act would standardize policy around AEDs across the

province, requiring AEDs to be available and visibly located in public

spaces such as libraries, airports and recreation centres. These AEDs

would also be re­quired to be registered, inspected and maintained

so that in an emergency, a 911 dispatcher can direct bystanders to the

nearest AED.

[1:45 p.m.]

Some elements of the bill are in place in regions across the

province, but they are not applied consistently. Adopting this

legislation would close the significant gaps in coverage and keep

British Columbians safe no matter where they live. This is a simple

commonsense public policy that could literally save lives.

Building upon the work that has been done to improve access to

AEDs, together we must ensure that there is a provincewide network of

accessible, registered, maintained and consistently placed AEDs across

British Columbia. Ready access to an AED could mean the difference

between life and death in sudden cardiac arrest. It is time to take

these critical steps to remove the barriers to AED access and improve

survival rates.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

S. Bond: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M220, Defibrillator Public Access Act, introduced, read a first

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

next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

KHALSA DIWAN SOCIETY IN VANCOUVER

G. Chow: April is Sikh Heritage Month. It is an opportunity to honour the

Sikh community and to celebrate the significant contribution that Sikhs

have made to British Columbia and to Canada.

The Khalsa Diwan Society in my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview is a

pioneer Sikh organization that was established 115 years ago in

Vancouver on West 12th Avenue near Burrard Street. It played a vital

role in shaping the social, cultural and economic fabric of the Sikh

community in Vancouver and beyond.

The Sikh community has been settling in the Vancouver South area

around Main Street and 49th Avenue in large numbers since the 1960s. The

area flourished economically and culturally to become the Punjabi Market

on Main Street.

As the community grew, the society decided to relocate and hired a

well-known architect, the late Arthur Erickson, to design the Ross

Street Temple, which opened in 1970. I was introduced to the Ross Street

Temple by the late Jim Green, former Vancouver city councillor and

community leader of the Downtown Eastside. Jim taught us how to act in

the temple — how to bow, sit and put on our head scarf.

I also discovered there’s free lunch at the temple. Seriously, the

free lunch is the langar , or the community kitchen, that was

introduced by Guru Nanak, founder of Sikhism, because of his belief in

the oneness of humanity. Meals are offered free to anyone regardless of

their religion, gender, ethnicity or wealth status. Prior to COVID 19,

the society would offer free meals in the Downtown Eastside.

The society has 12,000 members. It runs the Punjabi language

school and helps seniors file income taxes and fill out government

forms. It has the Komagata Maru Museum and a community policing centre

that opens on weekends. The society also organizes sports tournaments,

women’s-only yoga classes and computer literacy classes.

The society organized the first Vaisakhi Parade in North America

in 1979 in Vancouver and made it an annual event. I look forward to

attending this great event in my riding, the 43rd Vaisakhi Parade, next

Saturday, April 15.

Thank you to the Khalsa Diwan Society and the volunteers for all

your hard work in the community.

COY CUP HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP

QUESNEL

C. Oakes: It is no secret I’m an advocate for the seniors in Cariboo North.

In this instance, I’m not talking about senior citizens. I’m talking

about senior men’s hockey. It has been an exciting year with the 100th

anniversary of the Coy Cup championship being hosted in Quesnel. I would

like to congratulate all the teams and volunteers that

participated.

I’d like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Quesnel

Kangaroos, the 2023 B.C. seniors AA provincial Coy Cup hockey champions.

The Roos won the championship on home ice against their Central Interior

Hockey League rivals, the Terrace River Kings, in front of a sold-out

West Fraser Centre audience.

Members of many Kangaroos teams were in attendance with their

vintage Kangaroos jerseys, saying that never before had we seen such a

large crowd before the Kan­garoos franchise.

[1:50 p.m.]

It was an exciting night. At first, I have to admit, we were a

little nervous when Terrace took the early 1-0 lead. But there was no

sense of panic, folks, because it was Alessio Tomassetti, the team’s

captain, who lit the lamp first for the Roos, bringing the capacity

crowd to its feet.

Tomasetti wasn’t done, and he potted another only a few minutes

later to make it 2-1 for the hometown team. The Kangaroos played strong

in the third, then added to their lead, making it a score of 6-2. Fans

were excited at what felt like what was going to happen, winning the

trophy in our own community.

It was Paul Girodat who scored the Roos’ seventh goal, and the

fate of the River Kings was sealed, with no time for them to have a

comeback.

When the final buzzer sounded, the score was 9-2 for the Roos, and

utter joy for us all. The team…. The volunteers’ hard work paid off for

this tournament. Many challenges…. It was exciting to win the 2023 Coy

Cup home in Quesnel.

Congratulations to all involved. Well done.

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH

AND SIKH HERITAGE

MONTH

M. Elmore: April is Sikh Heritage Month and an opportunity to recognize the

contributions of Sikhs here in B.C.

There will be a Bhaghat Singh Memorial five-kilometre run, which

is held every year in honour of their esteemed martyr, at Bear Creek

Park in Surrey, organized by the Shaheed Bhagat Singh Memorial Society.

There’ll be children’s races, a festival on June 11 in Bear Creek Park

in Surrey.

Shaheed Bhagat Singh is regarded as one of the greatest heroes

across India. He began to protest British rule in India while still a

youth, and soon fought for independence.

He was involved in two high-profile plots against British

authorities that helped to galvanize the Indian independence movement.

He was a freedom fighter in the Indian independence movement in the

early 20th century and was hanged by the British, along with two of his

colleagues, on March 23, 1931, at the age of 23.

He became a symbol of sacrifice for the youth. While he was in

jail, he wrote extensively about the future of society and India in

particular. His journalistic career was marked by relentless courage, as

his efforts to take on the world’s mightiest political power at the

time, the British colonial administration, often brought with it severe

curtailment and repression, to be targeted brutally.

He often had to write…. He was underground and had to use a

pseudonym. He is recognized now across every town square in

India.

There is an 18-foot statue in the parliament to recognize him. You

go to any town square, government office, police station, and you’ll see

his picture hanging there. His message reverberates at the time until

now — his message for an egalitarian society in which there would be no

exploitation between peoples and nations.

We pay tribute to Shaheed Bhagat Singh in recognition of Sikh

Heritage Month.

MOUNT BAKER SECONDARY SCHOOL

T. Shypitka: I rise in the House today to draw attention to the 72nd

anniversary of Mount Baker Senior Secondary School, which opened in

Cranbrook on April 6, 1951. As the largest school in the Kootenays and

the only high school in Cranbrook, it holds a special place in the

hearts of many in the community, including my uncle, who was, in fact,

of the first graduating class in 1951, myself in the great graduating

class of 1980 — no comments — and my daughter Allie, who I will be super

proud seeing graduate this year, of 2023.

MBSS was home to the Trojans and Trojanettes and have since been

rebranded to the powerful Mount Baker Wild.

There have been many changes over the years. Sadly, the school is

falling apart due to its age and is in desperate need of being replaced.

After being open for more than seven decades, the school has seen little

progress to modernize and improve safety for students.

For students and staff with mobility issues, the school has

an old, cumbersome stair lift to access the entire second

floor.

Over the years, our school district has worked tirelessly to

to apply band-aid after band-aid, good money after bad, and it is our

kids paying the price.

[1:55 p.m.]

Schools play such an important role in the lives of youth. They

stimulate learning and growth, and are often considered to be second

homes for students.

As the only high school in the largest city in the Kootenays, it

is critical we address the current and future challenges this aging

building presents. After 72 years, it is time for the school to be

replaced.

To enable our youth to learn in a safe, modern environment, it is

important for all of us to pay attention to the state of our

schools.

Congratulations to the grads of 2023.

MASSIMO CERANTOLA

R. Glumac: A week and a half ago I had the honour of attending a ceremony for

Lt. Massimo Cerantola, where he was awarded a commendation and a medal

of merit. Massimo is a Vancouver firefighter. He lives in Port Moody,

and he is a true local hero.

On a quiet afternoon on March 25 of last year, Massimo was doing

some yardwork when he heard a commotion out on the street, and he became

aware of a car fire. He immediately sprung into action — ran to the

vehicle to confirm that no one was in the vehicle and that his

neighbours were safe. But in that instant, as he stood 25 feet away from

the burning vehicle, it exploded. As he pulled the burned clothing off

his body, he immediately instructed his neighbours to keep his kids

inside, because he didn’t want them to see his injuries. Even in that

moment, he was thinking of others.

Massimo spent the next six weeks in the burn unit, with second-

and third-degree burns to over 40 percent of his body. During that time,

his firefighting colleagues came in every day and brought him lunch and

dinner, and he called the nurses in the hospital his angels because they

fed him when he couldn’t move his arms or hands. Through all this, he

kept his characteristic smile and positive attitude. He says: “Tough

times don’t last. Tough people do.”

He doesn’t like to be called a hero; he refers to it as the “h”

word. But on that day, his quick action kept people from getting too

close to that burning vehicle. Without even a moment of hesitation, he

made sure that everyone was safe.

Those are the actions of a hero.

GREEN SHIRT DAY

AND ORGAN DONATION

AWARENESS

G. Kyllo: April 7 marks five years since the Humboldt Broncos bus crash,

which tragically took the lives of 16 and sent shock waves throughout

the nation.

Among the victims of this terrible tragedy was defenceman Logan

Boulet of the Broncos, who helped to save and improve the lives of six

people through organ donation. Logan’s selfless act has opened up the

conversation around organ donation, inspiring thousands of Canadians to

register as donors and to carry Logan’s legacy forward. Today it is

called the Logan Boulet effect.

Friday, April 7, is Green Shirt Day. On this day, we join

Canadians to honour, remember and recognize all of the victims and

families of that fatal crash and to continue Logan’s legacy by inspiring

Canadians to talk to their families and register as organ

donors.

In Canada, almost 90 percent of Canadians say they support organ

donation, but sadly, only 32 percent have taken the time to register

their intent to donate. Though donation rates have improved over the

last ten years, there is more to be done, as approximately 250 Canadians

die annually awaiting an organ transplant.

I believe that we can do better, so on April 7, I encourage

everyone to wear green, to learn more about and to raise awareness of

organ donation and to take the bold step to register as an organ donor

on transplant.bc.ca. By registering as a donor, we have the potential to

save and improve the lives of those awaiting an organ

transplant.

I can’t express enough the gratitude and support we have for those

that have already registered. Let’s get B.C. to a place where not a

single person dies awaiting an organ transplant.

[2:00 p.m.]

Oral Questions

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

AND SINGLE-FAMILY

ZONING

K. Falcon: Earlier this week the Premier released their latest new housing

plan. Not surprisingly, it has few details. It will delay important

decisions being made for many, many more months. And in a wonderful

flashback to the 1990s fudge-it budget, it also has numbers that

absolutely, totally mislead the public in an effort to hide their

housing failures.

Now, it’s important to recognize that after six years in their

current housing plan, how we have done here in British Columbia. Well,

we know we’ve got the highest housing prices in North America, third

highest on the planet, and we now have the highest average rents in the

entire country right here in the Lower Mainland of British

Columbia.

Instead of working with communities and saying, “Okay, let’s

establish the targets that allow us to get some density along transit

and arterial corridors, and ensure that the growth is consistent with

the official community plans,” this Premier and the NDP government want

to impose fourplexes in every single-family neighbourhood in the

province.

What on earth have we got local government for if all of the key

decisions are going to be made by this NDP government right here in

Victoria? Every official community plan has now been rendered

meaningless — completely meaningless.

I can guarantee you that the Premier and this Housing Minister

have not thought this through, and what few details we have, frankly,

make it evident that they have no idea what they’re doing.

My question to the Premier is: given the Premier’s abysmal track

record as a Housing Minister to date, based on the results we see, how

on earth are British Columbians going to have any confidence that this

latest plan they’re coming up with, with all the inaccuracies that show

in it, is going to do anything other than give more failure to the

public of British Columbia?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I was very proud to be able to stand with the Premier to announce

our housing strategy, homes for people. We know decades of

underinvestment in housing, we know with interest rates going up, that

we have a real housing crisis. We need action, and that’s what they got

out of this strategy.

I was at the UBCM conference. The amount of people that came to us

and said, “This is what we needed. This is the strategy we needed,” was

overwhelming. Overwhelming. And you know what?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I heard the Leader of the Opposition’s speech, and, quite frankly,

it was hard to make sense of it. It was hard to make sense of it. “I

support the flipping tax,” and then, every day, he comes in here and

says he doesn’t like taxes. He supports the flipping tax.

Then he says: “Oh, I don’t like the gentle density in

communities.” He was a developer for a long time. He doesn’t like

density? Then he spends the entire time talking about how we need more

towers in communities. Then he went on to talk about targets in

communities and how he needs to put targets on communities.

They have no plan. They have no vision for housing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Order. Order, please.

Hon. R. Kahlon: They have no plan. They have no vision for housing now. They had

no vision for housing when they were in government for 16 years, because

they did nothing. They did nothing. If you talk to stakeholder after

stakeholder, they will say that decades of underinvestment are the

reason why we’re in this challenge.

So we are proud of our strategy.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The core of this housing strategy is to ensure that young people

can continue to live in British Columbia. When a house gets torn down

and another house gets put up, it’s not affordable for

people.

I’m not saying that single-dwelling homes are going to be gone. If

a person can afford one and they want one, the market will ensure that

those housing units continue to get built. But for far too many, that’s

not affordable.

What we’re doing here is providing options for people. We want to

ensure that young people can continue to stay in British Columbia, we

want to ensure that seniors can have their grandkids close to them, and

that’s what this strategy is about.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

K. Falcon: Well, what I care about and what the public cares about are actual

results. As I pointed out, we’ve got the worst results in North

America.

[2:05 p.m.]

Just to be clear so that the Housing Minister understands, with

their great plans and, apparently, their genius at understanding the

housing sector, they’ve managed to single-handedly get us to the worst

place in North America for housing prices and rents.

I can tell you this. When I left government in 2013, the average

townhome in Surrey was about $400,000. Today, under the genius of the

NDP, it’s now over $1 million for a typical townhouse. That’s the kind

of results they’ve generated.

I’ve always said, Mr. Premier, and we’ve always said on this side,

that we need to flood the zone with more of everything. We need more

market rental, more affordable rental, more condos and more townhomes.

But we also recognize we need to work with local governments to make

sure it’s consistent with the plans that they’ve laid out for their

communities.

Now, if the member opposite and the government opposite had

listened to the voices, like this opposition and the private sector,

that were warning them years ago when they first came up with their

housing plan that didn’t even talk about housing supply, they wouldn’t

be in the situation they’re in today, where they just loaded all these

costs and taxes onto housing.

If we’re going to do housing right, it’s got to be smart. It’s got

to make sure that the housing is going to be on those transit corridors

and those arterial corridors and that you’re working with local

governments to make sure it’s consistent with the vision they have for

their local situation in the local communities. But to say that every

single-family residence in the province of British Columbia is going to

be upzoned because these people think they know best is the wrong

decision. It’s not going to get the results you need if you talk to

anyone that knows anything about the housing sector.

Imagine what that’s going to do to already overcrowded schools —

for example, in a place like Surrey, where this government promised to

eliminate all portables in the first four years. Today we’ve got more

portables than we’ve ever had.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Falcon: Now they want to make every single-family lot a fourplex. Imagine

what that’s going to do to the schools, the hospitals and the

infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

K. Falcon: I’ll conclude with this. I want to say that instead of working

with local governments and making sure that the growth and the density

that we’re talking about, which we all agree we need…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Falcon: …is going to be in the areas where it makes sense, where it’s good

for the environment, good for transit and good for cycling and walking,

why have this minister and this Premier decided that every single-family

home is going to be now zoned to a fourplex in British

Columbia?

Hon. R. Kahlon: When that member left government, it was a good day for British

Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Members, come to order.

Members will come to order now.

Hon. R. Kahlon: It was a good day because of the cuts this person brought to this

province.

Mr. Speaker: Through the Chair.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Okay, hon. Speaker.

What the Leader of the Official Opposition.…You can’t have it both

ways. You can’t say, “We need density,” and then say: “We don’t want

density.” You can’t have it both ways, and he says he knows

best.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Member, we will come to order now.

Please continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: We worked with stakeholders on this strategy. I’m very proud of

it. It is going to move British Columbia in a good way.

Again, to the core of what we’re talking about here is the ability

for young families to be able to get into the housing market. That’s

what we’re talking about here. We want to place here in British Columbia

where a young person can actually access a home and where people can

raise their kids in the same neighbourhood they grew up in. That’s what

we’re talking about.

When a house is torn down and if it’s only a house that’s built,

that is only affordable for some people. If they can afford it, they’ll

buy it. As I said, the market will deliver for them. But for too many,

we need more options. That’s what this plan is about.

There have been stakeholders that have come out in favour. The

member may know Neil Moody, who’s the CEO of the Canadian Home Builders.

He said that there are so many cases where we’ve got problems with

people that have been in their homes for many years, and they’re

house-rich and cash-poor.

[2:10 p.m.]

This type of strategy is going to be able to ensure that people

like this woman, Kathleen, in my community who was able to tear her

house down and build four units on the same lot where she is living with

her husband…. All of her kids are in the units there. Imagine the

opportunity for people to be able to have all their family living with

them on one site.

This is going to unlock more homes…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: …for people in a quicker way. I’m proud of the strategy. It’s

unfortunate that they can’t figure out what they stand for on that

side.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m not sure what conference the minister was at yesterday, but

certainly it wasn’t the same one I was at in speaking to the people at

my table and their response to this new housing plan.

I’d also wonder about all these kids and families that the

minister professes to be concerned about providing housing for as a

result of this complete debacle with all of these condos now moving to

55-plus, because they are certainly not going to be living in those

condos.

Right on the heels of that chaos with the Strata Act changes, the

Premier is now asking us to trust him as he botches another major change

to family housing. The Premier talked about California and what’s

happening with California. Well, I’ll tell you. California’s legislation

targeted development around transit corridors and included reasonable

limits to protect low-income families and deter speculation.

This side of the House does not have a problem with density. It’s

concerned that it is not done the right way. It is not targeted in the

right places.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

K. Kirkpatrick: And it’s being done irresponsibly with­out the respect of

the communities it’s being forced upon.

This Premier has done none of those things on this

back-of-envelope plan. Communities are already saying that

infrastructure will not be in place.

Richmond mayor Malcolm Brodie says: “Do you have the sewers and

the pipes and the water supplies, every­thing that it takes? And

we’re just going to assume that traffic is going to take care of

itself?”

Why is the Premier eliminating single-family homes provincewide

instead of targeting the missing middle in communities where it’s most

needed?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I have to correct the member. We are not eliminating single-family

homes. Single-family homes can still be built in communities. If people

can afford them and they want them, the market will deliver those homes

still.

What we’re providing here is options. We’re providing options for

more people to get into the housing market.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t come out there and say:

“I’m pro-density. I want towers everywhere. But oh, don’t build units in

communities. Oh, don’t come to Vancouver-Quilchena.” That’s what I hear.

I hear: “Don’t come to Vancouver-Quilchena. We don’t want more

peo­ple in our community. But everywhere else, go ahead and

build.”

That is not an acceptable response. That’s not leadership. That’s

not leadership.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Please continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Now when it comes to Richmond, I think Richmond is an example of

showing how it can be done. If you go to Richmond, you will see

fourplexes, you will see row houses, you will see triplexes. The

community has that right now. The message we’re saying is that if it can

be successful in one part of the community, it can be successful

everywhere.

Now, the members talked about transit-oriented development. I’m

glad they’ve caught up, because that’s in the strategy here as

well.

Imagine this: they all of the sudden are alive to the idea that we

should be building housing near transit. Do they not know the entire

time they were in government, there was a policy that said we could not

buy land near transit stations to build housing? Do they not know that?

That’s what we’ve changed.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Oh, he says: “Who built it? Who built the transit?” I’ll tell you

who built it. It was temporary foreign workers. It was temporary foreign

workers that came in to work on the Richmond line. Oh yeah. We can talk

about that at greater lengths.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Shhh, Members. Hold on. Hold on.

Interjections.

[2:15 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Mr. Speaker: Enough. Shhh. Member.

We have young kids in the audience. They are here to learn and see

the democracy in action. This is not what we want to show.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, both sides.

Okay. Minister, conclude.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Philip MacKellar from Homes for Living says: “The government seems

to get it. On small-scale multi-unit change, I would like to say that

this makes a dent in the supply side of the equation. The evidence for

this is in New Zealand, and that has had an impact on house prices there

as well.”

Casey Edge, executive director of Victoria Residential Builders

Association, thinks: “I think this has enormous potential.”

Small-scale, multi-unit zone changing will help people that need

something bigger than a condo but can’t afford a single-family

home.

Hon. Speaker, I’ve got pages of this, so if they want to keep

asking questions, I’m happy to share that with them.

Mr. Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Capilano, supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: Where to even go from there.

Smart planning is what’s needed. Smart planning with development

focused on transit corridors with proper plans, schools, hospitals and

basic infrastructure already in place to support growing populations.

But the absence of any specific details and answers to basic questions

in the Premier’s back-of-envelope housing plan is causing chaos, and

it’s holding up these homes that we desperately need.

Kevin Murdoch, the mayor of Oak Bay, says he expects “lag of

development, because if I was a developer right now, I’d probably stop

working on projects and wait six months.” This will have a disastrous

impact on building much-needed housing in our community

today.

Is the Premier seriously going to tell every municipality to stop

development for six months while they wait to figure out how the Premier

is going to impose fourplexes on every single family

neighbourhood?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, the contradictions. You know, first, questions say: “You’re

doing it. You shouldn’t be doing it.” Now they’re saying: “Why can’t you

do it fast enough? Why can’t you do it faster, because we want the

housing to be developed.” You can’t have it both ways.

Again, let me share some additional quotes with the

member.

We had Andy Yan, who’s a well-known housing policy advocate, say:

“I think, overall, this housing plan really covers a larger spectrum in

terms of housing policy. It covers supply, it covers demand, and it

covers finance, which I think is a really smart way of moving towards

trying to house all British Columbians.”

The mayor of Saanich said: “I’m really pleased to see the province

taking this challenge very seriously.” I’ve got a councillor in my

community, Dylan Kruger. Maybe they may know him. He also came out and

said: “This is a fantastic policy.” You know why? Because young

councillors understand that in trying to get into the housing market, we

have to find innovative solutions to ensure there are options for young

families to get into the housing market. That’s who we’re fighting

for.

We should all be together to fight for young families to be able

to get housing in communities. Not all of them can afford a

single-dwelling home. I appreciate some can, and they will be able to

buy them. The housing will exist. But for those that can’t, we need more

options. That’s why we’re doing this work.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

HOMELESSNESS AND COMMUNITY SAFETY

IN DOWNTOWN EASTSIDE

A. Olsen: In the same week that the Premier stood in front of a

million-dollar townhome and declared his housing affordability plan,

he’s scattering the homeless population in Vancouver’s Downtown

Eastside. Just hours ago people’s belongings were thrown in garbage

trucks, street cameras were rendered inoperable, and barricades were put

up to keep the public away. It’s a complete erosion of public

trust.

The Premier promised to resolve this decades-old crisis in the

Downtown Eastside. In November, he promised 90 temporary shelter units

for the neighbourhood. The deadline has passed, and those units are

nowhere to be seen.

Today what we see is not leadership; it’s policing pov­erty.

The sweeps have never worked. Year after year, month after month, people

displaced without a plan, and look where it’s gotten us — to

today.

To the Premier, where does he suggest the most vulnerable people

in our society go?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you to the member for the question. This is certainly a

challenging issue. The city of Vancouver notified me this morning that

they were going to move in and move on the encampment. We have been

working closely with the city of Vancouver on housing, on related

issues, on supporting people with mental health.

[2:20 p.m.]

I agree with the mayor that it’s not safe right now. The

encampment on Hastings, in particular, is not safe. The fire risks are

great. Many of the housing units that we have on Hastings have been at

risk, with some of the fires that have happened. We know that there was

a recent report from a not-for-profit that interviewed 50 women, and all

50 of had been reported to be sexually assaulted.

We have been working with local government, in particular, but

we’ve been working with not-for-profit partners to work with the

individuals that are in the encampment. We have been able to house 90 of

them, which was, I think, a positive thing. We estimated there were

around 70 people that said that they would be interested in housing. We

have shelter spaces open. I’ve been getting reports that people have

been leaving the encampment and going to shelter spaces, which is

positive.

We’re going to continue to work with the city to expand the

opportunities. We have 330 additional units that are coming on by the

end of June, 100 every month — 100 this month, 100 next month, 100 the

next month. We have additional units coming this fall.

The city has been moving on some of the projects that we’ve

already approved and saying: “You know what? We can actually add more

density to those units, because we know the need is great.”

All that work is happening, but it is a challenging

situation.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

A. Olsen: No doubt it’s a challenging situation. It’s been a challenging

situation for more than a decade.

It’s kind of shocking to hear that the mayor just called the

Minister of Housing today. The rumours have been floating around social

media for the last couple of days that this action was going to be

taken.

The Premier has said that he’s worried about fires and the

assaults that the Minister of Housing has pointed out. I agree, and I

think we agree, that there are safety issues and concerns at the

encampment. But the Premier also hasn’t mentioned the fires, the

assaults and the disgusting conditions at the SROs in the province,

which is part of the solution that this province has,

apparently.

A man living on the sidewalk in Downtown Eastside said that he

feels that he’s safer on the street. He said they face overdoses,

violent deaths, assaults and filthy conditions in those dilapidated

buildings.

The Premier says that this is a safety issue, but let’s be clear:

rounding up people and moving them inside without fixing the deplorable

situations in the SROs is not ensuring safety. Scattering people across

the communities of the Lower Mainland isn’t making those most vulnerable

people in our society more safe.

The Premier wants dignified housing for people, but it appears

that he actually wants them off the street more.

To the Premier, can he confirm that there is dignified housing,

like he promised, available today — not the end of June, today — for

every person that is being displaced by this action in downtown

Vancouver today?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, thanks to the member for the question.

He is correct. The challenges that are faced by many, especially

around the Downtown Eastside, are decades in the making. It is a complex

situation.

We are working with our partners, all partners, to find paths to

get people into safe and adequate housing, so I’ll make a couple of

comments. One, some SROs are not in great shape. We have SROs that are

very old. The buildings are in tough shape, and we’re working with our

partners to renovate, to make them safer. All that work is

happening.

We know, over the long term, that we need to move away from the

SRO model. That work has also begun. City of Vancouver, CMHC and B.C.

Housing have been working together on what does that plan look

like.

We also know, and the member will know also, activists will tell

you that for now, a lot of those SRO spaces are adequate housing for

people. We, in fact, have activists come to us often to say, “An SRO

building is going on sale. The province should buy it,” because people

understand, for the time being, it’s adequate housing.

Shelter spaces are available. We’re moving people into shelter

spaces. I will say to the member…. I would say that right now the

shelter spaces are safer than the encampment for people. Given the

fires, given the increased crime, the shelters are a safer place for

people.

Then when they get into shelters, we assess their needs. From

there, we move them into different housing units. We have housing units

coming on in the short term, by June — 330. We actually have hundreds

more coming in the fall. We’re building the capacity as fast as we can

to get people housed.

[2:25 p.m.]

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES

AND IMPACT ON

BUSINESSES

P. Milobar: Under this soft-on-crime Premier, social disorder and chaos in our

streets has never been worse. Small businesses have been completely

deserted by this government and left to fend for themselves.

The Premier’s decision to purchase motels and warehouse

individuals with severe mental health and addictions issues without

providing any proper supports has created a large part of this utter

chaos in the downtowns across this province. When you layer on the

soft-on-crime Premier’s catch-and-release system, businesses are feeling

powerless against the chronic and violent shoplifters they are dealing

with on a daily basis.

Small businesses are being pummelled, as people feel unsafe

shopping downtown and on all the extra costs — replacing broken windows

and glass, installing security systems, addressing fires, staff safety

issues and the vio­lence that is coming at an increasing level

with the shoplifting.

With so many small businesses barely hanging on, when will this

soft-on-crime Premier finally provide them with the financial relief

they desperately have been asking for and seeking, as this government

sits on their hands and does nothing to help the business

community?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member talks about us, as a government, buying motels and

moving people indoors. Yes, we did. We did that through the pandemic. We

did that because people were struggling, and we needed to do everything

we could to get people housed. So yes, we did that.

We’re proud of the actions we took. We saved a lot of people’s

lives by giving them the housing and the mental health supports and the

wraparound supports. If we had the opportunity and this all happened

again, we would do it again. These folks that we’re talking about are

some of the most vulnerable people.

The member from Saanich asked me a question about encampments.

I’ll say the same thing again. We are working….

Every single opportunity we see we are trying to capture to ensure

that people have housing. They have the mental health supports. They

have the addiction supports. They have whatever supports they need.

Maybe it’s even connecting with their family members. All those things

are being put in place to help people.

We know that when you can provide people with housing, you provide

them with stability and provide them…. Then you can give them the

additional supports they need. That is the path that we know has worked

in other jurisdictions, and we’re going to continue to do that

work.

T. Stone: The Premier’s decision to warehouse people without supports,

coupled with his catch-and-release pol­icies, has left businesses

all across this province, in all of our communities, defenceless against

the chronic and violent actions that they’re dealing with every single

day.

I will highlight one such business in Kamloops. For 43 years,

Mindy and Nina have owned Sisters Sleep Gallery and Stereo Warehouse.

They have faced massive increases in shoplifting and vandalism. They’re

having to deal with broken glass, fires and overdoses virtually every

other day, it seems. This has been escalating and getting worse and

worse for the past five years. Their customers don’t feel safe. Often

their employees aren’t feeling safe, and Nina and Mindy are not feeling

safe.

Mindy says: “We are constantly being threatened and called names.

Some individuals have threatened to slit our throats and rape us. We’re

here to run a business and make a living, not to be traumatized by all

of this. Our lives, mental health and financial health are all at

risk.”

Businesses like Mindy’s and Nina’s are desperate for something,

anything, from this government to address the crime and the vandalism

that they are facing daily and that threaten to drive them out of

business.

The question is this. When will the Premier provide some financial

relief to these desperate businesses who are literally hanging by a

thread due to the purposeful decisions the Premier has made to warehouse

people without supports and to continue with soft-on-crime,

catch-and-release policies?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think the problem is in how the member asked the question. He

sees this as warehousing people.

[2:30 p.m.]

This is providing housing for people, providing wraparound

supports for people so they can get back on their feet.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: This is not a production line. This is not a business

operation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, shhh.

Members, no side commentary, please. No side commentary,

please.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I won’t go there.

My family ran a business here, a small business, a restaurant here

in Victoria downtown for many years. We often had to deal with violent

situations. We often had to deal with people who came in intoxicated. We

had to deal with windows being broken. It’s hard. It’s hard running a

small business with challenges in the neighbourhood.

The way you address those challenges is you help provide people

housing. You provide the wraparound supports like we’re doing. You help

them get stability in their lives.

This is not warehousing people.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: This is housing people, and we’re going to continue to do that

work.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour to present the report from the

Representative for Children and Youth, Toward Inclusion: The Need to

Improve Access to Mental Health Services for Children and Youth

with ….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I’m presenting a report from the Representative for Children

and Youth. It’s titled Toward Inclusion: The Need to Improve Access to

Mental Health Services for Children and Youth with Neurodevelopmental

Conditions .

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call continued Committee of the Whole on Bill 11,

Election Amendment Act.

In

Section A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations

and Reconciliation.

In

Section C, I call the estimates of the Ministry of En­ergy, Mines

and Low Carbon Innovation. Once the estimates are concluded, I call the

estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 11 — ELECTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 11; S.

Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

The Chair: Minister for Emergency Management and Climate Change

Strategy.

Hon. B. Ma: Close, Chair.

The Chair: I’m reading the wrong one, sorry. Emergency Management and

Climate Readiness.

Hon. B. Ma: I will take it, but I seek leave to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

Tributes

BYRON JOHN JOSEPH

Hon. B. Ma: I’d like to introduce the House today to Squamish Nation Elder

Chief Byron John Joseph, son of the late Stanley Joseph and Caroline

Joseph.

[2:35 p.m.]

Born on April 15, 1953, he grew up in Eslhá7an, which is also

known as Mission Indigenous Reserve No. 1 in North Vancouver. A proud

Indigenous man, he served on the Squamish Nation council for 36 years

and was the longest standing member with the Indian Residential School

Survivors Society board at over 25 years.

He married his love, Brenda Gail Joseph. He had many children —

Sandra, Kono, Breanna, Bianca and Kaiya; and many more grandchildren and

great grandchildren.

I would like the House to know him as I know him: kind, loving,

with a great sense of humour. He was generous with his teachings and

held about him an unwavering positivity that was often accompanied by

hearty laughter. He drew strength from his ancestors and joins us now in

spirit as one of those ancestors that future generations will draw on

for strength in return.

Byron passed this week on April 2, 2023. I will miss seeing him at

powwows and community events. I will miss his smiles and his

teachings.

Would the House please join me in offering our condolences to his

family and community during this time of mourning.

Debate Continued

The Chair: All right, Members. We’ll get the committee

underway.

We’re here for Bill 11, the Election Amendment Act, 2023. The

last day we finished up we were on clause 39.

Member for Abbotsford West on clause 39.

On clause 39 (continued) .

M. de Jong: Thanks, hon. Chair. As you may recall, we were perilously close to

finishing. Kindly, I had an opportunity, over the break, to review some

of my notes, which would give us a chance to go back to clause 1 to

revisit. We won’t go back to clause 1.

The Chair: I don’t think we will, no.

M. de Jong: We will go to clause 42.

Clauses 39 to 41 inclusive approved.

On clause 42.

M. de Jong: Can the Attorney provide a

summary? We can all read the addition,

the “Prohibition against collusion.” But maybe in plain language advise

the committee of the kind of conduct this new

section is intended to

prohibit and prevent from happening.

Hon. N. Sharma: This provision is meant to ensure the independence of the

third-party advertising from the candidate. So any third-party

sponsor.

For example, if the candidate was seen to be doing things like

providing photos to the third party, which were advertising or direct

communications, or supplying content for the advertising, then that

would be seen as breaking this rule under this amendment.

[2:40 p.m.]

M. de Jong: That’s a good place to start.

We’ve got a situation in which we are in a pre-election period or

an election period. We have candidates, and we have the parties that

they are affiliated with, and they are governed by a certain set of

requirements around the raising of moneys, the expenditure of moneys,

advertising, some further restrictions in this material about the

content and its accuracy. Then we have this other group of third parties

that are entitled under the rules of the legislation to present views

and ideas and thoughts on issues relevant to that electoral contest. But

there are restrictions here, including the sharing of

information.

The term “collusion” I think is very purposeful and very

deliberate. What it suggests to me is that a third party that may bring

a particular perspective to an election contest, may have a preferred

candidate or political party whose interests they are interested in

advancing. But even a conversation, any communication between that third

party and a candidate or political organization hinting at their desire

to highlight a particular issue, the timing around that…. It strikes me

that under the rubric of collusion, any conversation, any exchange of

information, any discussion between that third-party sponsor and a

contestant or political party would be in violation of this

provision.

Am I overstating that, or is that essentially accurate?

Hon. N. Sharma: This provision is related — as the member, I think, was suggesting

— to any type of collusion, including of sharing information, with

respect to that election advertising that has been conducted by the

third party. So yes, it is a very strong provision related to making

sure that there’s no sharing of information, no communi­cation

related to that election advertising.

M. de Jong: Let’s take an example of a group that might want to draw attention

to certain land use decisions or pending land use decisions that may

have some pronounced views on them — it might relate to resource-related

activities — and seeks to advance those views through some properly

documented and accounted-for third-party advertising. It wants to ensure

the accuracy of its information and contacts maybe their local MLA —

maybe their local MLA is a minister — or a minister’s office and says:

“I just want to confirm that the amount of acreage or hectarage of the

area involved here is X number of thousands of hectares.”

That presumably would happen now in violation of this and would be

captured by the rules against obtaining information, exchanging

information or in any way colluding. Again my question is: is that

correct? Have I characterized that correctly?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: As we talked about, I think, at length last time, the CEO would

have the conduct of implementing and interpreting the legislation. This

particular provision, like many, is a recommendation from the CEO. What

it seeks to do is to provide more clarity.

We already know that third-party advertising is meant to be

independent, and it provides a prohibition and more clarity of what the

actions are, in terms of the definition of how that shows up. So in

situations where there’s sharing of information that is related to

election advertising that’s conducted by the third-party sponsor, then

that would be prohibited. So it could potentially be that scenario, like

the member suggests, but it would be up to the Chief Electoral Officer

to determine.

M. de Jong: I don’t take issue with the description from the Attorney about

who the initial adjudicator is. I think on a provision like this,

providing some guidance through our discussion in this committee is

important. It may be the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer,

but it is ultimately the government’s legislation, and having the

government, via the Attorney, explain what this actually means from a

practical point of view and what it is intended to capture is

important.

I’ll give another example. A third-party sponsor is a defined term

under the act and is known to the act, and it’s used in various places

in the act. A third-party sponsor is entitled, as long as they are

reporting and registering appropriately, for example, to endorse a

candidate, to endorse a political party.

[2:50 p.m.]

They may wish to draw attention to a part of the platform of a

candidate — it could be an independent candidate; it could be a

candidate with a political party — and say: “On this issue that we care

about, candidate X and party X have said the following. Now, we have

verified with them that it means the following, and we urge people to

take that into account and possibly lend their support to

that.”

It strikes me that that risks running afoul now of these

provisions, that contact between these third-party sponsors and a

candidate or a political party becomes very problematic and certainly

exposes both parties to the allegation that they have colluded in a way

that the act purports to prohibit.

Hon. N. Sharma: In that scenario, it would be unlikely, in my view, that that

would classify as collusion. Collusion implies underlying some kind of

intent in order to work together or share information with respect to an

election advertising conducted by the party.

M. de Jong: Well, I’ll try to refine this a little bit. It seems to me that a

third-party sponsor who contacts a political party and says: “We want to

run an ad in a particular area of public policy. Your platform says X.

What additional information do you have that we can use to highlight

your approach to this issue, which may, or may not, lead to an

endorsement in our ad?”

That may be the intent, but it strikes me that that is prohibited.

That kind of conversation is prohibited.

Hon. N. Sharma: The goal of this provision, again, is about transparency and, I

guess, assuring that there’s independence between the two

parties.

[2:55 p.m.]

I would say to the member’s hypothetical situation…. I will start

by saying, of course, it’s the Chief Electoral Officer’s decision on the

discretion that we grant to them under this legislation. But the word

“collusion,” I think, is a clear word in this provision that sets a high

bar when it comes to working together for an election campaign. In the

member’s scenario, where it’s somebody receiving information, I think it

would be up to the Chief Electoral Officer to decide, but it doesn’t

sound like collusion in that scenario.

M. de Jong: When does the prohibition against collusion kick in? Is it outside

of pre-election periods and the election campaign period? Does the

prohibition exist then? I’m thinking not, because people have to

register as third party.

The registration of a third-party sponsor is relevant to those

election periods. But can a party that knows it is going to be a

third-party sponsor avoid the application of these provisions by having

whatever kinds of discussion — well, in the language of the act — by

colluding with a candidate or political party in advance of the

pre-election period?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: We’ll start with the general overview of the Election Act. Really,

the purpose of it is to regulate elections in B.C. during elections

time. The way this provision would work is once you’re a third-party

sponsor and you’re registered as one, this is an obligation that is upon

you — not to collude with respect to election advertising. That’s the

kind of trigger point. The election advertising, obviously, is

associated with the election.

M. de Jong: Theoretically, for an organization that knew it was intending to

become a third-party sponsor and to register under the provisions of the

act for a forthcoming election, one of the ways to avoid the limitations

imposed by this new prohibition would be to simply have whatever

conversations that it wished to have and to engage in whatever collusion

it wished to engage in, prior to registering as a third-party sponsor

and conducting any advertising.

Hon. N. Sharma: We’ve been having a very interesting discussion over here on that

question. In the scenario that the member raised, you could imagine,

eventually, a third-party sponsor that is, under the example, colluding,

under this definition, for election advertising conducted during an

election, right? I think that was the kind of…. But the conversation to

lead to that collusion might have happened in the pre–election

period.

[3:05 p.m.]

It may be open to the CEO in that scenario — in a sense, it’s

ongoing, because the election advertising is going on during the

campaign — to look at evidence of that collusion that may have occurred

prior, to inform the decision of whether collusion existed, by that

third-party sponsor, for that election advertisement.

M. de Jong: Once again, the best way to analyze how this might work, or where

there might be gaps, is through an example. Let’s refine that a bit

further.

Some months in advance of the elections — outside of the writ and

pre-writ period, as defined by the act — a local downtown business

association comes and says, “Okay, you’re a candidate. We want to

support you. We’re going to eventually register as a third-party

sponsor, and we’re going to take out some advertising that we hope will

reflect positively on you and influence people to vote for you,” and

then says: “Well, let’s talk about timing, so we can maximize the

impact. We’re thinking that we’ll take out some full-page ads in the

first, third and fourth week.”

Anyway, that kind of conversation takes place. It takes place six

months in advance of the pre-writ period in an election year, when we

supposedly know when the election is going to be. I’ve given a fairly

low-level example of that kind of conversation. It could be more

elaborate than that, in terms of television or online presence for that

organization.

My reading of the act is that as long as that agency doesn’t

engage in any further discussion following their registration as a

third-party sponsor, they have done nothing to violate the provision of

this clause. That’s my reading. If I’m right, the impact of the clause

might be to say to interested third parties: “Get all your coordination

and collusion out of the way well in advance of the pre-writ

period.”

Hon. N. Sharma: I just want to say clearly that the intent of the legislation is

to capture collusion with respect to election advertising.

It’s not that we’re trying to say, “Just do it before,” like the

member suggests. I would trust the CEO to examine the election

advertising and the third-party sponsor in the conduct of the election

to determine whether scenarios — there are various ones we’ve talked

about — reach the level of collusion with respect to that election

advertising.

M. de Jong: I’m not going to belabour this much further. I do think there’s an

important point here for us to interpret at the time of birth of

this.

The act says, “A third party sponsor must not…,” and then

everything flows from that, but if you’re not yet a third-party sponsor,

then I don’t see how the provisions can apply. The member can say,

“Well, the CEO might want to look back,” but the CEO cannot apply

provisions that do not exist, if the response from the third-party

sponsor to the CEO is: “Well, sure, we had talks, but I wasn’t a

third-party sponsor then.”

[3:10 p.m.]

There’s nothing in this act that I see, or in this part of the

act, that says…. By the way, I’m not sure that offends me. I just think

it’s important that we be upfront about how potential third-party

advertisers can avoid the provisions of this clause.

Hon. N. Sharma: I think we’ve established in this discussion that the idea of

collusion is something that implies a standard of coordination, working

together and sharing your information, like polling data, for example.

There’s nothing that’s restricting the CEO in terms of which evidence he

may use to determine whether that collusion is going on and,

specifically, when it’s related to election advertising by the

third-party sponsor that’s ongoing during a campaign. So I think that a

simple conversation may not do it in the view of the CEO, but the

ongoing collaboration or collusion or sharing of information for that

election advertising may do it, and I would leave it to the CEO to do

that.

M. de Jong: Okay. I’ll merely say this and then move on and ask a different

question.

I don’t think this is fanciful or speculative on our collective

parts here. I think third-party sponsors are eventually going to become

alive to this. In a moment, I’m going to ask about political parties and

candidates and how they might need to be alive to this. They are going

to want to know whether they can have conversations and exchanges with

potential candidates and political parties in advance of having

registered as a third-party sponsor.

My reading of the act says they can — that they can’t be held to

have violated the provisions of the act if, at the time those

conversations or exchanges take place, they are not captured by the

act.

[3:15 p.m.]

The Attorney says: “Well, the CEO will figure it out.” I’m sure he

will, but for the people who will have a direct interest in this,

that’ll be pretty thin gruel. They’re going to want to know at some

point. At maximum, I guess, we’re — what? — 18 months or 16 months away

from an election.

Third parties are going to start getting interested and want to

know what they can do and what they can’t do. Hopefully, the question

they ask is: what can they do legally? What can they do that now becomes

illegal?

Can I ask the Attorney: what triggers an investigation and

possible finding and imposition of sanction here? We had this

conversation in the context of other provisions. Is it exclusively

initiated by the Chief Electoral Officer, or is this also a

complaints-driven process, where information is provided to the Chief

Electoral Officer that he or she chooses to act upon and commence an

investigation?

Hon. N. Sharma: The clear message that we’re sending with this legislation, and I

will send again today, is: don’t collude with third-party advertising

for election campaigns.

With respect to how it’s going to be monitored, it’s…. The

oversight is complaint-driven and monitored by the Chief Electoral

Officer, like the previous discussion we had.

M. de Jong: It’s not this section. It might be the next clause, but I will ask

it, and then I won’t ask it again.

There are sanctions associated…. If the Chief Electoral Officer

finds there has been collusion, in contravention of this provision, the

Chief Electoral Officer is empowered to impose sanction.

Do the provisions restrict the imposition of sanction to the

third-party sponsor, or can the Chief Electoral Officer impose sanction

on both the third-party sponsor and a political candidate or political

party or political constituency association?

Hon. N. Sharma: I think we’re on

section 43 now. The provision is specifically on

third-party sponsors.

M. de Jong: I will ask it in a blanket way, then. Aside from the third-party

sponsor, are there any provisions in this package of amendments that

would seek to impose sanction on the political party, the political

candidate or a registered constituency association for participating in

the collusion that is prohibited here?

Hon. N. Sharma: If they were colluding to evade spending limits, then that’s how

you would capture some of the organizations brought up by the

member.

M. de Jong: The Attorney has offered lots of helpful answers and information.

That’s, unfortunately, not one of them.

I get that. I understand that. There are other provisions of the

act that relate to spending limits. This is a new provision that

prohibits collusion between two entities. I see where there is sanction

provided against one of those entities for colluding for any…. It

doesn’t have to just be about spending limits. This is a blanket

prohibition on collusion.

[3:20 p.m.]

My question is…. We know the Chief Electoral Officer can impose

sanction on the third-party sponsor. Does the act or the amendment allow

the Chief Electoral Officer to impose sanction on the politician or the

political party?

Hon. N. Sharma: In the context of these sections, this is specifically related to

the conduct of third-party sponsors and ensuring that if you’re

registered as a third-party sponsor, you understand your obligations of

independence. The policy reasons for landing where we did…. As the

member pointed out, the penalties associated with the lack of

independence are for the third-party sponsor.

Now, there are many other, as I mentioned briefly before, ways

that the Chief Electoral Officer can ensure that political parties,

constituency assistants, all of those things, are spending their money

appropriately, are advertising appropriately — all those things

associated with their own conduct. This was specifically about ensuring

that third-party sponsors understand their role to be independent and

face consequences if they act contrary to that.

M. de Jong: But surely that is an obligation that should also accrue to the

political organization.

I mean, practically, there are certainly very sophisticated

third-party sponsors. I’ll grant you that. But there are a lot of

unsophisticated third-party sponsors who want, at election time, to have

a message heard, a view expressed. They go to the trouble of registering

and do this properly, but they’re not experts at the Election

Act.

What the Attorney, the regime, seems to contemplate is that in

circumstances where two parties are colluding contrary to the law, only

one of those parties can have penalties imposed on them. That, quite

frankly, seems a little convenient for the politicians in town, who will

be fully…. If anyone should know what’s in the act, it should be…. There

are some candidates who are new, and it’s hard enough for them, but

surely political parties will need to know what is in the

act.

[3:25 p.m.]

It seems what the Attorney is seeking to create here is a

circumstance in which a political party and a third-party sponsor are

caught colluding contrary to these provisions, and the only party that

suffers any sanction is the third-party sponsor. The political party,

the politician, walks away scot-free. That doesn’t seem fair.

Hon. N. Sharma: As I said earlier, there are other parts of the act that could

attach sanction against the parties that the member mentioned, like

overspending, for example, because the collusion reads to that, or not

using authorization statements, things like that. The member is correct

in the analysis of where this sanction is attached to, but there are

other provisions where I’m sure the CEO would take a look at the

political party or the other party that may attract

sanctions.

M. de Jong: Well, what I can say is this. The exchange has been useful. I did

not come into this conversation knowing or thinking that that’s where it

would take us.

I think that’s unfair. I think that politicians and political

parties should be asked to live by the same set of rules and exposed to

the same penalties as others when it comes to rules around elections and

election advertising, because by and large, it’ll be political parties

and politicians that have the better knowledge of what is in the law,

which tends to evolve from time to time.

Anyway, I think it has been a useful exchange to illuminate what I

think is a gap. I would say in this…. For me, the gap is serious enough

to, on this particular section, register some reservations, and I’ll do

that in the traditional way momentarily.

Clause 42 approved on division.

Clauses 43 to 48 inclusive approved.

The Chair: I believe there’s an amendment coming to add a

48.1.

Hon. N. Sharma: I move the amendment to Bill 11 to add clause 48.1 standing in my

name in the orders of the day.

[ CLAUSE 48.1, by adding the following

clause:

48.1

Section 278 (1) is amended by adding

the following paragraphs:

(j.2) 231.03 (8);

(j.3) 234.6 (2);

(s.1) 250.071 (2); .]

Amendment approved.

Clause 48.1 approved.

Clauses 49 to 52 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:30 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 11 — ELECTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 11, Election Amendment Act, 2023, reported complete with

amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. N. Sharma: At the next sitting.

Mr. Speaker: So ordered.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 21, intituled Civil Forfeiture

Amendment Act, 2023.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — CIVIL FORFEITURE

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 21, the Civil

Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2023. The Civil Forfeiture Act allows

government to seek the forfeiture of property that is proceeds of or

tools of unlawful activity. B.C.’s civil forfeiture office undermines

the profit motive behind unlawful activity by targeting houses, cars,

cash and luxury goods connected to organized crime.

The civil forfeiture office uses forfeiture proceeds to cover its

own operating costs and distributes the balance to community grants

across this province. Over $70 million in forfeited funds have gone to

crime prevention and victim services programs since 2006.

Civil forfeiture depends on information provided by public bodies

and organizations like credit agencies. The director of civil forfeiture

is entitled to information that is reasonably required to carry out

their mandate. The director is currently able to access information from

public bodies that are prescribed under the act.

In this legislation, to improve the efficiency, the director’s

ability to access information held by other public bodies, as well as

certain organizations, would be set out in the act rather than in

regulation. Limits on the scope of disclosure will be in place. These

changes would align the director’s information collection powers with

those of other statutory decision-makers in British Columbia and other

forfeiture offices in this country.

Law enforcement often refers property that was used in illegal

cannabis grow ops to the civil forfeiture office. Even if there are

hundreds of unauthorized plants growing at one location, the civil

forfeiture office must bring in expert evidence to establish that the

property was used for unlawful activity. This is costly and consumes

valuable court time. This bill would allow the court to presume that

property was used for unlawful activity if the police discover an

illicit number of cannabis plants growing on the premises. Defendants

would have the opportunity to show the court that the presumption is

unfounded.

[3:35 p.m.]

Organized crime members often drive financed vehicles as a way to

insulate themselves against asset forfeiture. They have little equity in

the vehicle, so they carry little risk if it is forfeited. Currently,

the director must seek forfeiture of financed vehicles in court, even if

the defendant has only modest equity. This is a lengthy and costly

process, but an alternative forfeiture process is available.

Administrative forfeiture is currently used for property that is

worth less than $75,000 and that has no liens on title. If the defendant

does not challenge administrative forfeiture, then no court order is

required to forfeit the property. This bill would enable the director to

use the more cost-effective and efficient process of administrative

forfeiture against financed vehicles.

Next, this bill would allow the director’s interest in forfeited

property to take priority over claims subsequently made by other public

bodies in British Columbia. This is intended to avoid the director

having to spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees to pursue

forfeiture, only to have another public body come forward and assert

priority later on in the process because their legislation gives them a

super-priority.

There would be some exceptions to the civil forfeiture office’s

priority. For example, liens that exist when the director commences

forfeiture would, of course, take priority. Liens for unpaid wages, as

well as liens arising from British Columbia’s Income Tax Act and the

Public Guardian and Trustee Act, would also continue to take priority —

as, obviously, would anything arising under federal powers.

Property seized in criminal investigations is often

re­ferred for civil forfeiture by police. Defendants may apply to

the court to have property that was seized in a criminal investigation

returned to them before civil forfeiture proceedings are officially

commenced. In that situation, the director must oppose the return of

property that is believed to be connected to unlawful activity. This

bill would help alleviate this issue by allowing the director to claim a

temporary possessory interest in property believed to be proceeds or

tools of crime, for up to 120 days before civil forfeiture proceedings

have started.

Complex money-laundering schemes, such as we have seen in this

province, can take many years to properly investigate. By the time the

property is identified in these schemes, the director sometimes cannot

pursue it because of the current ten-year limitation period on civil

forfeiture proceedings. This bill would eliminate the limitation period.

This approach is consistent with that taken by forfeiture statutes in

other provinces.

As we are all aware, money-laundering schemes have become

increasingly sophisticated, and unexplained wealth orders are expected

to be a key tool in our toolbox to address organized crime. Unexplained

wealth orders are an evidence-gathering tool that requires the

respondent to provide information about how they acquired the property

and how they can afford to maintain it. These court orders are based on

the idea that the person who holds the property is in the best position

to explain how they got it.

Last June, the Cullen commission recommended that British Columbia

adopt unexplained wealth orders as an anti-money-laundering tool. The

director would be able to apply to court for an unexplained wealth order

against a person if there is reason to suspect that they are involved in

an unlawful activity and have acquired property as a result of that

involvement. The court oversees and issues the order if the director’s

evidence supports the making of one.

Unexplained wealth orders could be served on individ­uals,

trusts, corporations or partnerships, depending on who holds the

property in question. The breadth of possible respondents and connected

persons is broad, because it is critical to create legislation that

captures the complex money-laundering techniques used by high-level

criminals. It is important to note that unexplained wealth orders would

not immediately result in the seizure or forfeiture. The director would

still need to satisfy the court, on a balance of probabilities, that all

conditions for forfeiture have been met. Only then could the court order

forfeiture of the property.

[3:40 p.m.]

Several other jurisdictions, including Manitoba, have adopted

unexplained wealth orders. British Columbia’s proposed framework is

similar to the model already in use in the U.K. It is anticipated that

unexplained wealth orders will be a valuable tool to combat money

laundering here in British Columbia.

In closing, this bill is urgently required to respond to

recommendation No. 101 in the Cullen commission final report and to

enhance this province’s ability to combat money laundering, drug

trafficking and organized crime. With that, I look forward to comments

from members.

M. Morris: Looking forward to discussion on this bill at the committee stage

for sure. It’s got a lot of interesting aspects to it.

The criminals across this country, across the world, take

advantage of the existing laws and realize that governments in most

places are not nimble enough to adjust to a lot of the imagination that

the criminals use to sidestep a lot of the legislation that’s in place,

a lot of the laws that are in place, as they go about their

business.

We’ve got criminals today…. I watched, back in the days when I was

on the road as a police officer, and I know my associates that I have

today within the police forces talk about it all the time, how the

criminals are using various methods to avoid detection, to acquire their

wealth and try and hide that wealth. Some of them flaunt it, quite

frankly. It’s not a surprise, because we don’t have adequate measures in

place to deal with it.

We look at criminals who use companies that conduct a lot of their

business in cash. They will use those as a shell for their criminal

activities. I’ve seen them use barbershops. I’ve seen them use

contracting companies, where they’ll provide, or they claim they will

provide, various contracting services, but they really don’t. That

covers, you know, them driving a brand-new $100,000 vehicle and might

have a sign on the door, perhaps, but other than that, there’s nothing

even closely associated to a legitimate business.

They gamble a lot of their cash through casinos, as we’ve seen

through the Cullen commission and other areas and whatnot. There are a

number of practices that they use to avoid detection, to maintain their

wealth, to attract some of these younger members that get involved in

street crime and provide them with fancy cars and trips and other

opportunities to enjoy the wealth that they’re going to accumulate by

selling these deadly drugs on the street and some of the other things

that they do.

They’re getting more aggressive in today’s world. The civil

forfeitures procedures that we’ve used in the implementation of the

unexplained wealth order, I think, is good news. We’ll see how it rolls

out at the end of the day. Because we need tools.

Our criminal justice system doesn’t seem to be providing the level

of deterrence…. There’s nothing that has really slowed the process down.

We see more criminals out on the street today. We see more people that

are selling these dangerous drugs in our communities everywhere — that

come in and sell the drugs — and there’s no real consequences. They

don’t fear the criminal justice system today like perhaps they did at

one particular time, so they’re going to continue on in their

proliferation of selling drugs and thievery and cheating and lying and

everything that common criminals do in order to acquire their

wealth.

The smart criminals, the heads of the organized crime groups that

we have operating in British Columbia and across Canada have got

lawyers. They’ve got experts that watch what we do. They watch the kinds

of laws that are put in place in British Columbia. They look at the

procedures that governments are using in order to detect crime, to

combat crime in the various communities. And they offer solutions to

these groups. These folks will go out and continue to operate, knowing

that they’ve got…. You know, they might have to sidestep some new piece

of legislation that comes in order to operate effectively, but they do.

And we see that every day.

[3:45 p.m.]

I’ve also seen, over the years, where criminals will take

advantage of advocacy groups or media or…. You know, the old saying that

“the best defence is an offence,” where somebody will get picked up and,

the next thing you know, the defendant is out in front of the media,

blaming the police for a certain action or blaming government for a

certain action. In those kinds of situations, they’re dealing with a

police who can’t respond. They can’t speak about an ongoing

investigation. They can’t reveal whether any people are involved in that

particular case. But by getting it out in front of the public and

throwing a whole bunch of various allegations out in front of the

public, it puts the whole prosecution of that case in jeopardy as that

whole prosecution moves forward. We’ve seen that across the province

here.

I’ve noticed…. We talk about civil forfeiture. We talk about money

laundering, and I know that the Premier has repeatedly claimed that the

failure to prosecute money-laundering cases in British Columbia was due

to a lack of political will with the previous government. I just want to

comment on that. And, you know, I’ve heard these comments

before.

It was the political will that brought in the Civil Forfeiture Act

and the legislation back in 2005. It was the political will of

government that brought that in, because they saw what was taking place

at that time. It was the political will of the previous government that

brought in the joint illegal gaming task force that looked at a lot of

the illegal gaming situations that were taking place in the province

that led to money laundering.

It was the political will that had my office, when I was sitting

in the minister’s chair as the Solicitor General, put in $25 million

into the guns and gang activity across British Columbia to combat these

kinds of things and to provide a dedicated prosecutor to gang activity

to try and combat that. It was political will that addressed a number of

those different factors while we were still in government and made

various changes to how the Combined Forces integrated team operated

right across British Columbia. So there was no lack of political will —

no lack of trying to combat the various opportunities that criminals

observed right across the province here.

It was the joint illegal gaming task force and CFSEU that

initiated those investigations — E-Pirate was one of them, in 2015 —

that led to a lot of intelligence coming in. A lot of the videos that we

saw on TV, talking about bags of money being traded in at the casinos,

were the result of those investigations that were taking place at the

time. And, of course, we’ve seen now….

The Premier, again, has initiated, when he was Attorney General,

some investigations into E-Pirate and the other investigation that was

taking place, so whywere there no charges laid? And even reducing the

charge approval standard still didn’t meet the threshold requirements

that Crown counsel needed in order to go ahead with those charges. So

there’s a massive deficiency in the criminal law that needs to be

addressed in that respect. And I’m sure that this Bill 21 and the

unexplained wealth order is going to go a long way to providing some

form of punitive measures, I guess, or penalties for criminals that are

involved in this, because they know that there are just no criminal

proceedings that we can bring about.

[3:50 p.m.]

The legislation providing these amendments to seek forfeiture of

goods I think is a step in the right direction, and I hope it’s going to

be implemented fairly quickly once we get through the process here. I’m

curious to see what happens in Manitoba. They’ve got similar legislation

in place. I’m curious to see whether the amendments they’ve made in the

U.K., with the legislation there, are going to provide them the access

to move ahead with a lot of the civil forfeiture action that they’ve

talked about there as well.

When we look at a lot of the things that these organized crime

groups are doing, they’re…. We just saw a recent case in Prince George

where a gang member came all the way from Manitoba and was trafficking

drugs in the Prince George, Fort St. John, Dawson Creek area and back to

Manitoba again.

There are some provisions in this particular legislation that…. We

have to focus on British Columbia assets, so I want to explore some

possibilities there on what we can do to these gangsters that are coming

in from outside of British Columbia from other jurisdictions.

I’m also looking at the young people that are being taken

advantage of by organized crime groups out of the Lower Mainland and

from other areas within British Columbia where they will come up and

entice some of our younger folks in our smaller communities to get

involved in peddling street-level drugs into our communities and

encouraging theft of property, which leads to collection of debts,

assaults, intimidation, blackmail. There are a number of things that

transcend from that.

These folks will come up. They will perhaps help them buy a new

truck. These trucks nowadays are $100,000, so the $75,000 threshold

that’s stated in this particular bill probably fits the types of crime

that we have here.

A lot of the individuals that we see…. The police see them every

day in our smaller communities where these street-level dealers are

driving these $100,000 trucks. They’re driving a $100,000 riverboat.

They’re driving these fancy boats on the lakes. They’ve got the party

boats. They’ve got the ATVs. They’ve got the snowmobiles. They’ve got

all the toys that a lot of these young men crave when they’re

young.

It’s drug money that’s buying this. So if they lose those assets,

that will have a bigger bite on them than any of the punishments that

they seem to be getting in court these days. I think that’s going to

have an effect on the level of crime that we have in our communities.

But it’ll be interesting to see how long it takes to get there. If we

implement this legislation and we can pass this legislation, at the end

of the day, it will be interesting to see how long it takes to go

through a court process where the property is finally forfeited and

taken from those individuals. That’s where the impact is going to

come.

The removal of the limitation period the minister spoke about in

his opening remarks, I think, is another opportunity that we have,

because I know that there are a number of files out there that will come

to a more successful conclusion if we’re able to expand that limitation

period.

The other issue…. I remember when I was sitting in his chair, and

I went and had a look at the warehouse of goods that had been seized

under the Civil Forfeitures Act back when I was the Solicitor General.

There were dozens of vehicles and other goods. A lot of it pertained to

the vehicles. But there was no way to get rid of them because of the

requirement to go back to court and follow through on that

administrative forfeiture.

So I think that’s a step in the right direction, where the

director of the civil seizures process here, once the claim has not been

contested, can just turn the vehicle over and sell it again and get rid

of them as quickly as possible and recapture some of that

money.

[3:55 p.m.]

As the minster said, $70 million has been spent, to date, for

victim services for a number of different programs that we have out

there, in addition to covering the costs of the civil forfeitures

office, to begin with. I think that can be expanded. And I think,

particularly with this unexplained wealth order, there’s going to be a

lot more work required in there. But I think the benefits, at the end of

the day, will probably be significant.

It’s everything that we can do in British Columbia to dissuade

people from getting into organized crime and selling drugs and becoming

part of that gang crowd out there — you know, in the fancy vehicles.

I’ve often said, and I’ve said to a few folks back in the day, that all

these brand-new, shiny black Suburbans and SUVs and BMWs these gangsters

are buying, or that are being bought for other people, should also come

with a toe tag. Because that’s exactly what’s been happening in our

province here.

A lot of the homicides that we see…. Just in the city of Prince

George this year, we’ve had four homicides so far, and they’re all

drug-related, they’re all gang-related. So if we can start having a

deterrent on crime and the sale of drugs and the proliferation of all of

these things throughout our small communities around the province here,

I think we’ll see a reduction in our homicide rates as well.

We’ve got to fine-tune the Criminal Code and a lot of provisions

that go with that. We have to fine-tune our catch-and-release system so

that that no longer functions.

But I think this will take a big bite out of the wallets of these

people that are profiting from the proceeds of crime. And you know, I

think we’ll see some significant returns on investment — I guess I’ll

put it that way — in a very short order here across British

Columbia.

I look forward to popping the hood open on this at the committee

stage and getting into all the little details there. But I applaud the

minister for bringing this bill forward.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the opportunity to stand and speak today to the Civil

Forfeiture Amendment Act. These amendments came as a result of the

Cullen commission’s investigation and subsequent recommendations to

combat money laundering in the province.

Proposed amendments make it easier for authorities to seize

property they suspect helps facilitate illegal activity. It also makes

it easier for authorities to bust illegal cannabis operations and to

seize financed vehicles. Finally, it creates unexplained wealth orders,

which can force organizations with large amounts of unaccounted-for

wealth to explain themselves to government or face seizure of property.

This last point, unexplained wealth orders, would make this the first

legislation of its kind in Canada. But unexplained wealth orders only

apply to property stored in British Columbia.

The Cullen commission into the money laundering in June 2022

recommended that unexplained wealth orders be implemented in B.C. to

“remove the profit incentive for organized crime.” Unexplained wealth

orders do not require a clear link to crime, unlike criminal forfeiture,

which typically comes after a conviction, and a civil and administrative

forfeiture, which do not require criminal charges or a

conviction.

It’s important to note that there are some concerns with

unexplained wealth orders that have been recorded. B.C. Civil Liberties

Association has been very clear that they are staunchly against these

changes, saying that “they’re an unnecessary expansion of government

power and an unacceptable infringement of Canadians’ rights to the

presumption of innocence and due process and privacy.” The director of

litigation for the BCCLA said that the legislation would “create a

situation where British Columbians were going to have to go to court to

prove that they are not criminals, and that’s

unconstitutional.”

[4:00 p.m.]

These are serious concerns that are raised by the B.C. Civil

Liberties Association. And if these amendments are passed, they’re

raising the concerns that they will violate the Canadian Charter of

Rights and Freedoms and the presumption of innocence, which is a

fundamental pillar of our judicial system.

It would be interesting to hear from the minister. I know that the

Premier has said that he has “no doubt” that this legislation will be

challenged in court but that he believes that he “will be successful”

and that we “need to address these issues for British Columbians.” A

point, the last point there, which I absolutely agree with.

It will be interesting to see the discussion that unfolds here at

the committee stage and how the government is balancing, of course, the

recognition that there has been an extreme amount of wealth that has

been generated from illegal activity: lots of expensive vehicles and

houses and other items purchased in that glorification of crime — you

know, the fast cars and the big houses. So there is a balance,

absolutely, that needs to be struck here, and it will be interesting to

hear the discussion.

Also, I want to just raise the issue around the potential use of

the funds and where the seized assets may end up. Civil forfeitures in

our province go through the B.C. civil forfeiture office, which is

entirely self-funded. This means that the proceeds of forfeitures go

back to that office, not into government revenue.

This was actually part of the Cullen commission’s recommendations,

where the commissioner suggested that the provincial government

transition the civil forfeiture office from a self-funded agency to a

government-funded agency so that the revenue flows back to government.

Otherwise, it exists as a punitive arm but offers no economic benefit to

the average British Columbian. It also creates an incentive for the

office to go after high-value assets, not necessarily the cases that

would impact the greatest amount of organized crime.

If unexplained wealth orders flow through the civil forfeiture

office, it appears that proceeds of that wealth won’t end up in

government revenue, meaning no new services. Those resources won’t be

available for British Columbians. We’ll be interested, of course, at the

further stages of these debates, to understand how these unexplained

wealth orders will operate within the context of everything that I just

said.

Unexplained wealth orders are already in place in the United

Kingdom. Since 2018, four unexplained wealth orders have been issued in

the U.K., with a value of £143 million. In October 2020, property worth

an estimated £10 million was recovered following the use of an

unexplained wealth order. Those are not insignificant sums, but I do

wonder how those recovered funds compare to the administrative costs of

going to trial.

It should be noted that there are already different mechanisms

under which the province can seize assets believed to be related to a

crime — criminal forfeiture, civil forfeiture and administrative

forfeiture — as I’ve said. Virtually all forfeiture cases in British

Columbia settle in the province’s favour. The legal costs are often

higher than the value of the property being seized, so people don’t

fight it. While B.C. has a civil forfeiture regime intended to ensure

that proceeds of crime are intercepted, unfortunately, the value of the

assets seized through the regime does not amount to the volume of

illicit funds generated each year.

It’s true that B.C. needs to do…. That’s going to make No Context

BC for sure, guaranteed. I’m spiralling. It’s true that B.C. needs to do

more to address money laundering and to ensure that our province is a

fair and a just place to live and thrive.

I appreciate the opportunity to read these concerns into the

record. I appreciate the minister bringing this forward and giving me an

opportunity to make it to No Context BC. I look forward to canvassing

these issues as they come up in the next stages of the

debate.

HÍSW̱ḴE

SIÁM .

J. Sims: It is a pleasure today to rise and speak on this motion. Whenever

I get up and have an opportunity to speak on behalf of the constituents

of Surrey-Panorama, I’m always reminded of the responsibility that they

have endowed onto me to make sure that their voices are

heard.

I can tell you that when our Premier had a different position in

government, as an Attorney General, when he tackled the gambling that

was going on…. I would say horrific.

[4:05 p.m.]

People right across British Columbia turned on their TV set, and

what they saw were bags full of money being taken in and taken out. I

don’t think there was any person, no matter what their political stripe,

who sits in this House, who was feeling good about that

sight.

We also know that went on for far too long. However, the work done

by the Premier has been extraordinary. As a matter of fact, when I talk

to people in Surrey, and when I used to travel around the province a

fair bit as well, that’s the work they remember: the work he did on, I

would say, addressing the gambling issue, and also the work that he did

on ICBC.

Specifically, let’s get back to the proceeds of crime. If we’re

looking at what we saw with the bag loads of money, we also know, as a

result of the Cullen commission — and even before that, many of us had

seen evidence of that — that B.C. had become known as the

money-laundering capital on the west coast. Or centre, whichever way you

want to look at it.

It wasn’t a very good title to be holding. People in British

Columbia saw that not only was all this money that resulted from crime

circulating, but that it also impacted the price of housing right here

in British Columbia. We’ve all seen the impact of that.

Today I am so pleased that this government had taken action on the

Cullen report on a number of issues. And now we are taking action on

this recommendation that sat there and that said that we do have to

target and we do have to address organized crime by providing a suite of

tools so that authorities, specifically the civil forfeiture office,

could seize proceeds of crime.

What are we talking about? We’re talking about fast cars and fancy

cars. We’re not talking about the Toyota Corolla that I’ve driven for

years and years. We’re talking about glamorous homes, luxury goods. We

need these tools because we want to make sure that we’re sending a

message — that if you do the crime, you’re going to pay.

Yes, doing criminal prosecutions may take a long time. Yes, doing

criminal prosecutions may not end up in sentencing. But if there is a

very high, very probable relationship between the wealth and links to

crime, or having got that wealth through nefarious means, then this

legislation would allow that forfeiture to take place.

It’s not as high a test as if it was a criminal case. That will

make it easier. Some people would say, “but you have that right now,”

because, as we all read in the papers, there were those properties that

were seized from the Hell’s Angels, and that went through the court

system. But at the end, that seizure was upheld.

This legislation will make it easier. We need to make it easier

for authorities to be able to step in and stop the spread of crime. One

of the ways you do that is you make sure that people cannot be

benefiting from crime, either directly themselves or through family

members or through directors of this or other.

All of that is very, very important. And as I said, these

recommendations…. This legislation comes directly out of the Cullen

commission report on money laundering in B.C.

[4:10 p.m.]

I’m so delighted that so far I have seen the opposition and the

Third Party all in agreement that this legislation is a good thing, and

will be a benefit to British Columbians. None of us want to see crime

spread. We have seen violent crime as well as property crime on the

increase. We know that those who do money laundering have become far

more sophisticated, so we have to have a variety of tools to be able to

address their nefarious gains or wealth that they gain.

As the Solicitor General pointed out, there are going to be some

very…. There are steps in there. There’s a variety of tools that can be

used. But really, we have to send a message, and our message has to go

right across B.C., across Canada, across North America and around the

world, that B.C. has legislation that will not allow free movement of

illicit funds that result from crime or any other way.

Let me give you an example. For example, if you have a relatively

low income as you’re filing your income taxes, yet you’re living in a $5

million home…. I’m not talking about a home that’s gone up in price due

to the rising home prices that we have seen. I’m talking about: you

purchased a house for $3 million or $5 million. I think it’s perfectly

logical to want to know how that house was bought, and when there are

links to crime, probable links, then for steps to be taken.

It’s not as if we politicians are going to be handling this, by

the way. This is going to be handled by professionals, by the civil

forfeiture office. Also, they still have to go into court to prove that

there is a probable link there — not a 100 percent, iron-cast case, but

a probable link — in order to be able to proceed. That is very, very

important. The B.C. civil forfeiture office, their main task is to

undermine the profit motive behind the crimes that we see.

As you know, we have legalized, right across Canada — not we, the

federal government did that — cannabis. Yet we know there are still

illegal cannabis operations. So if gangs and those who commit crime are

making money off that, then this sends a signal that you’re not going to

get away with it.

Now, just to be sure, this only applies to properties that you

have right here in B.C. Another example that is very clear is if you’ve

got very expensive houses being bought by somebody who lives overseas —

could be a political person, from many different countries, and they

have many reasons for moving the money out — and their income might only

be around $35,000 a year. So it begs the question, if they bought a

property for $5 million, where did that money come from?

Civil forfeiture is an important tool in combatting organized

crime. And we’re talking about organized crime that we know is right

here in B.C., from drug trafficking, from money laundering and from

other offences.

[4:15 p.m.]

As I said previously, all of these efforts — money laundering,

drug trafficking — have become more sophisticated with new technologies

that have made life, some would say, easier and faster. I would say more

complex. What we are finding is that whether it’s gangs dealing with

drug trafficking or other activities, whether it’s the movement of very

luxurious cars, they are hiding their money in homes. For example, if

you are a trafficker of drugs and you’ve gained money, all of the

property may not only be in your own name. It may be in your family

members’ names. This would capture everybody.

Now let me assure the public, for the hard-working British

Columbians who work hard to be able to pay their rent, or those who have

been lucky enough to save up enough money and buy a house, this is not

targeting those people. This is not targeting those who buy a home. This

is targeting those who end up with very expensive properties, luxurious

properties, who cannot prove where their income came from. It is linked

to crime of one sort or another.

The creation of unexplained wealth orders, an important

evidence-gathering tool, could have a powerful impact on money

laundering right here in British Columbia. We know that some of the

steps taken previously by the government…. We’re beginning to see a

change. But I would say this is the next step that was very much

needed.

These amendments will allow the civil forfeiture office to access

information and avoid situations where they’re spending hundreds and

thousands and thousands of dollars without any material outcomes. We

know how frustrating that is because we’ve heard. During the Cullen

commission, we heard from people how difficult it was to get a

conviction. Mind you, at the same time, we also heard how the very

agency that was created to monitor and to make sure these things did not

happen was also disbanded during this time. That didn’t make sense

either.

There are certain areas that I think have been identified. Let me

just go over those again.

One of those was the illegal cannabis market.

Very luxurious vehicles. I don’t know about you, Ma­dam

Speaker, but I’m certainly seeing more and more of them on the street.

And not everybody who drives a nice car, luxurious car, has…. I think we

have to make that very clear. Not everyone has bought that vehicle

because of the illicit funds through organized crime or ill means. Many

people have worked very, very hard to have their very nice, luxurious

cars. Once again, this is not aimed at them. This is aimed at those

where there are criminal links and criminal leads, that these vehicles

would be then forfeited.

Also, as said previously, this will allow the process to take

place a lot quicker than the current process. It can take years and

years and years to get a court date, to have it going through the trial

base. By that time, you passed the timelines.

As you know, our government is very, very committed to the safer

communities action plan and our focus to target organized criminals for

the toxic drug supply that leads to repeat offenders and a huge growth

in mental health and addiction issues.

[4:20 p.m.]

Once again, I would say there aren’t going to be too many people,

except maybe those who do bad things, who are going to be very upset

that these amendments, this legislation, is in the House today. Every

hard-working British Columbian wants what is fair, and it is not fair

for hard-working British Columbians when criminals and those who gain

their wealth through ill means can then impact in an incredible way the

cost of living right here in British Columbia, can affect the cost of

housing and many other things.

Most people will agree with us in this House that, yes, if you do

crime, if you do wrong things, if you do illegal activities and you’ve

profited from that, you should not get to keep that profit. You should

not get to keep those moneys.

Once again, a reminder that this is only…. We’re talking about

forfeiture for vehicles, for assets, for houses, only for people who

cannot prove where their funds came from. If you’ve got a clear idea —

“Well, I worked hard for this; this was an inheritance from my

grandfather” — and there is a linkage back there, then you’ve got a

perfectly good out, and the linkages to criminal activities won’t be

proven.

But I can tell you that as a mother, as a grandmother and now, as

you know, a very proud great-grandmother, I want our government to take

every step possible to get gangs off the streets, to get the drug

traffickers off the streets, and to make sure that we build safe

communities for our kids.

The unexplained wealth orders… It doesn’t mean immediately

somebody can just sort of say: “Oh, we’ve got this idea. Let’s go and

seek people’s assets.” The courts will still be involved, and they will

be ruling on a balance of probabilities. How likely is this? Has this

person earned this money? Where has this money come from? Their bar for

getting this passed will not be as high as the criminal court cases.

That’s why this legislation is needed, because the court is still going

to look at the evidence that has to be provided to them and then they’re

going to say: “What are the probabilities here?” Based on those

probabilities, they will proceed.

The information gathered from unexplained wealth orders will only

apply to civil forfeiture proceedings, and that information cannot be

used in criminal proceedings. Just wanted to make that clear. The whole

idea behind this was to presume that property or funds are proceeds of

crime, and that assumption will be relied upon during court proceedings.

We’re talking about the prior ones.

They do have to meet certain tests. The court must be satisfied,

and there is a three-part test. I want to go over that. For the first

part, the court must be satisfied there is reason to suspect one of the

following: that a person or a company is involved in unlawful activity,

that a person or a company is connected to a person or company who is

suspected of involvement in unlawful activity or that there are

questions raised about assets that a person from a foreign country who

is politically exposed has in B.C.

Now, politically exposed persons are high-ranking foreign public

officials that may be exposed to opportunities for crime or corruption,

and they may be looking for that investment overseas.

[4:25 p.m.]

An example. I gave one earlier, but I can tell you that an example

would be if, in your home country, your income is very, very limited yet

you’re able to buy very luxurious cars or property over here, then I

think some eyebrows would be raised, and there could be a probability

link proved.

Test 2 would look at control and value of the assets. The court

has to be satisfied that the personal company holds assets in B.C. and

that those assets are worth more than $75,000. In the case of a company,

any person connected to the company who is engaged in unlawful activity

has effective control, not just overt control.

Test 3, the third part of the test, explores whether there is a

case against the property. There must be a serious question about how

the person or company acquired the property or funds based off lawfully

reported income.

There are checks and balances built into the changes that are

proposed here. It’s not just somebody getting an idea. “Oh, yes. They’ve

got a $5 million house. Must be due to crime.” No. There is a three-part

test that they have to meet before the courts will proceed.

We are not here just talking about homes. We’re also talking about

other assets. The other assets could be, as I said, fancy cars, but I’m

sure there are lots of other assets that would be looked at as

well.

The amendment would also allow the civil forfeiture office to take

priority over claims subsequently made by other public bodies, which

seems to make sense to me. Otherwise, you would have done all that work,

and then at the end of it, it is not there.

Let me say that we have seen the impact of money laundering right

here in British Columbia in the Lower Mainland, its impact on the price

of housing. Also, we have seen lots of properties being owned, sitting

empty, that are now occupied thanks to the speculation tax. Once again,

those properties are now available.

There are often questions asked about some of the properties that

are bought and the links to crime. This legislation will allow the civil

forfeiture office to proceed and to go to court, meet the three-part

test and then be able to seize those assets. I think every one of us

wants to see, I would like to say, an end. We all want to see an end to

the drug trafficking that is going on, especially in the current climate

of our opioid crisis and with the corrupted drugs.

We want to see the illegal activities in the hands of gangs around

cannabis and the impact that is having on our youth. We want to make

sure that others are not using British Columbia as a safe haven for

their ill-gotten funds.

When I look at this, I am pleased to be able to support this piece

of legislation. I’m pleased that our government, led by a Premier who

did, I would say, amazing work on this file when he was Premier, and now

the Solicitor General is carrying on with that work, because tackling

crime and gangs is not a linear effort. Crime has become complex. Money

laundering has become complex. For that, we need a variety of

tools.

This is not, by itself, a solution to either money laundering, nor

is it a solution to ending drug trafficking or the gang activities that

go on. But it is one of the tools, and it is a tool that can be

used.

[4:30 p.m.]

It can be a tool that