Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 14, Heritage Conservation Amendment Act, 2019. In section A, I call the continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — HERITAGE CONSERVATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Hon. D. Donaldson: I move that Bill 14, the Heritage Conservation Amendment Act, be read a second time.

The proposed amendments to the Heritage Conservation Act will do a number of things. It will enhance the protection of areas with heritage and conservation values in the province, and this is vitally important, because our heritage and archaeological values connect us all to the rich cultural history of British Columbia.

The act has not been substantially amended for over 20 years, and the proposed changes make specific improvements to the act to increase its effectiveness.

[2:45 p.m.]

It’s important to say that British Columbia…. I think many people in this province and certainly all MLAs in this chamber know that B.C. has a rich and diverse history. That includes archaeological sites dating back at least 14,000 years that provide physical evidence of how and where people lived in the past, historic places that contributed to the development of the province and some of the most important fossil locations in the world that illustrate the evolution and development of life on earth.

With that background, the proposed amendments will legally require people to report discoveries of specific sites or objects with potential heritage value. This allows my ministry to protect previously unknown heritage property. If its existence is never known, the heritage property could be damaged, fall into disrepair or be lost forever.

As a little background, as well, other Canadian jurisdictions that require discoveries to be reported include Alberta, Yukon, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island. They all have heritage legislation that requires people to report certain discoveries of heritage value. As I said, these changes are long overdue and address the fact that the act has not been amended significantly or substantially since 1994.

What these other jurisdictions have found, and what we anticipate will be found in B.C., is that although it’s difficult to assess how many sites are being reported in these other jurisdictions as a result of the legislative requirement, most provinces have indicated that this requirement increases knowledge of heritage values and promotes the reporting of heritage discoveries, something that the people of B.C. are well suited to do. With this legislation, increased knowledge around heritage values will become more prominent, and the required reporting will lead to that and add to that.

The other proposed amendments in this proposed act in front of us will also involve expanding the ability to refuse, amend, suspend and cancel permits. As well, a person may be required to obtain and pay for a heritage inspection or investigation as a precondition of alteration of a site.

Now, that’s done already on major projects, whether it’s through Crown agencies or major development projects, but these amendments allow that this may be required in other developments as well. In fact, this provides more flexibility and permit management, and allows permits to be managed based on individual circumstances. That, in turn, provides greater opportunity to mitigate potential impacts to heritage property and proponents.

It’s a matter of understanding and having sites that are discovered reported. That’s an education process. Then, in turn, as they’re reported, we’re being proactive. In the long run, it will lead to fewer challenges for people who actually want to develop a site or who have plans to make alterations to a site, because they can mitigate the potential impacts in advance rather than coming along, finding an object and then having to make alternative plans that could be more costly because it’s done ad hoc.

We’re also improving compliance and enforcement tools specifically to authorize officials to enter land for the purposes of administration and enforcement of the act. These are similar tools, as far as the enforcement goes, to those that natural resource officers already have in connection to wildfire under the Wildfire Act and in connection to forestry under the forest, range and protection act.

The proposed amendments also recognize, in this aspect, First Nations’ call for improved protection of heritage property. This is an important part of this government’s efforts toward reconciliation with First Nations and follows on our commitment to the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

[2:50 p.m.]

The proposed amendments to the Heritage Conservation Act also support the delegation of ministers’ powers and duties to any employee of government at the discretion of the minister. Some might wonder: “Well, why is this necessary?” It’s going to result in more responsive decision-making and corrects a significant deficiency in the current act.

An example of that is that currently only the minister may record certain heritage property to their register, which is an administrative function best suited to the B.C. register of historic places and ministry staff. It’s going to significantly streamline and enable more responsive decision-making when it comes to heritage values in the province.

All together, these amendments allow government to take more decisive action to preserve heritage and archaeological sites and objects, protect previously unknown heritage property and respond to First Nations concerns about protecting heritage and archaeological values.

With that, I’m going to wrap up my comments on second reading. I look forward especially to other speakers’ comments on second reading and on these proposed amendments, and I look forward to hearing positive feedback and answering any questions when it comes to committee stage.

J. Rustad: I’m pleased to be able to rise to respond to Bill 14, the Heritage Conservation Amendment Act.

I think it’s safe to say that everyone in this House agrees on the importance of preserving the past, to celebrate it and to learn from it. I’ve had the pleasure and the opportunity to travel to a few other jurisdictions with, of course, history a lot older than ours and to see some of the archaeological values that are in there. There’s no question of the need to protect and to recognize those. For us in British Columbia, although we don’t have, perhaps, the same type of history, we do have a rich history, a very rich history with our First Nations. There is a need to make sure that we recognize, protect and preserve what we can around that.

It’s critical for the entire province and it’s also important, of course, for First Nations, as I said. But we must, as a society, ensure that we are working together to protect these heritage sites and the objectives. For me, this is one, and just the first, reason that this legislation that we’re actually debating falls short of the mark.

When the current government was in opposition, the opposition side of the House, the members of the NDP shared a lot of rigorous indignation and bold ideas about what needed to happen to protect sites and artifacts. They called for the establishment of a First Nations heritage protection program that would fund local governments to help protect sacred sites in their communities. It sounds like an interesting idea, but unfortunately, that idea didn’t make it into this piece of legislation that is before us here today.

Now, back when they sat on the opposition side of the House, the NDP called for a change to the legislation so that First Nations burial sites would be protected in the same way as any cemetery in B.C. — with a ban on any building. But now that they’re in government, the NDP has failed to act or chosen not to act and left this ban out of the bill.

When in opposition, the NDP wanted the government to purchase private property to halt development near First Nations archaeological sites, but the legislation we’re debating today offers no plans or mechanism for the province to step in and compensate the private land property owners if they’re forced to sell their property after the discovery of a heritage site or object.

This failure to deliver on their own demands is merely the first failure of this bill. The bill is also a failure in its erosion of any sense of balance when it comes to protections, all while layering on new costs, potentially steep, on landowners. This legislation further downloads the costs for site investigations and archaeological studies onto unsuspecting property owners. I say “unsuspecting,” as there are many areas around the province where there is designated potential archaeological interest, and you can’t find out where they are, in some cases. You may end up buying a property and have no idea that there are some archaeological values in there.

Let’s say that a local farmer wants to add to her barn. That barn has been there for a long time. It and the land have been in the family for generations. The decision, one assumes, by someone in Victoria, would unilaterally decide that in order to add to the family barn, an expensive and intensive archaeological study is required. That barn or active farmland, worked for generations, just got way more expensive.

[2:55 p.m.]

Sadly, this bill seems to be, like so much of the government legislation, based on the belief that people will just have to have blind faith in anything that this government does. That is because, once again, we have before this House hollow legislation set up for debate. I say it’s hollow because so much of it won’t be revealed until a later date, and it will be developed behind closed doors.

It’s critical to have certainty for dealing with issues like land and possible heritage values, but the bill offers no certainty, except that landowners will be stuck with large bills. Once again, we have a bill that talks about worthy goals — protecting key heritage sites — but offers little in the way of details on how it will be done, except for imposing those costs on the landowners. Too many aspects of this bill, including how to define classes of property, persons, sites, objects, circumstances or areas, classes of heritage property and more, are all left undefined. After the kerfuffle over the definition of a “person” under the agricultural act, I can understand why.

All that we get, quite frankly, are promises of regulations to come at a later date. Only when we get those details will we have a chance to truly see what they’re trying to do with this. Of course, those details are not going to be subject to debate in this legislative chamber, nor will they face any sort of public consultation process. They’ll simply be dumped on unsuspecting landowners. Worse, property owners may not even be aware, as I mentioned earlier, that they may have these sorts of challenges when they buy a piece of land and try to do a development.

Quite frankly, the public deserves better and deserves to know how this government plans to carry out these changes. Bill 14 offers a top-down, Victoria-knows-best approach with its planned expansion of government powers to conduct site searches and intrusive investigations on private property. Well, they’ve managed to squeeze in the details about that, which is quite interesting; they didn’t leave that for regulation.

The bill will allow “authorized officials” — to be defined later, of course — to enter land if there is a reason to believe that these lands or premises have heritage value in an object or in the site itself. They can come onto someone’s property to inspect, to take samples, to request identification of individuals. These officials will be allowed to issue warrants or search a premises and seize evidence if needed. While these sweeping powers are outlined, little about how they will be monitored and used is to be found in the bill. I will definitely be asking for information about this when we get to the committee stage on what seems to be the creation of a heritage police force.

As an opposition, we’re also concerned about the new powers for the minister. Under this bill, landowners and project proponents, who are working away under an approved permit and moving forward in good faith, can be, if the bill becomes law, stopped dead in their tracks. The government has taken on sweeping powers to amend, suspend or even cancel permits already granted to alter a heritage site.

Even with a permit already approved and granted, there is no certainty. This adds to the tremendous amount of uncertainty that is being added all across this province for anybody that wants to move forward with any kind of project, whether it’s something as significant as a major project or whether it’s something as simple as a renovation to a home. That uncertainty is what drives out investment and confidence in this province, and building a province and building a future for working families requires this certainty. This bill is yet another attack.

When you think about what the government is doing with the speculation tax, with the changes on the Agricultural Land Commission, the changes that will declare that farmers are no longer persons who can apply under the ALC for decisions, one wouldn’t be far from the mark to suspect that this government is leading an attack on the very nature of private property itself.

Make no mistake. On this side of the House, we believe in protecting those heritage values, artifacts and sites. They’re critical for our history; they’re also critical for our future. All of us believe in the preservation of B.C.’s cultural values and those of our First Nations in this province, but this legislation fails to establish the balance and the certainty required to ensure that protection happens in a reasonable and responsible way.

[3:00 p.m.]

I look forward to the clarification and the discussion that will happen at committee stage. Obviously, there are some interesting components, and I know that some of my colleagues will have much more to say.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m pleased to speak to Bill 14, amendments to the Heritage Conservation Act, which was introduced in this House on March 6. The Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development is making these changes so that our government can take more decisive action to conserve heritage and archaeology sites and objects.

Now, the Heritage Conservation Act has not been significantly amended since 1994, which is 25 years ago. The act’s original purpose was to encourage and facilitate the protection and conservation of heritage property in B.C., but deficiencies in the act made it difficult to achieve these objectives.

It’s interesting. The member for Nechako Lakes was talking about the deficiencies he sees in the act but in the 16 years the member opposite sat in government — and, actually, I believe sat in this position — did nothing to change this and to ensure that the heritage and the conservation sites were being protected. I would hope that he would take some comfort in knowing that this government is finally, after 25 years, making the amendments that need to be made.

It’s time to make the act more effective by addressing issues that have long been raised about compliance and enforcement and other issues. I know that stakeholders, like First Nations leaders, have raised concerns with the minister about the act’s deficiencies, and I’m glad to see that they are being addressed.

Now, there are going to be four amendments that affect the aspects of the act. These are reporting, permitting, compliance and enforcement, and delegation. I’m going to talk a little bit about each of those.

In reporting, the act is being amended so that anyone who has reason to believe that they have discovered an object or a site that has heritage value must report that to the ministry. I know that big corporations who are out digging and mining companies…. Archaeologists are usually on site so that they can actually do that work. Smaller companies and people that are just out digging in their yard obviously don’t have that. So this is really important. We know now that people need to report to the ministry if they discover something that could be of heritage value.

The government keeps a provincial heritage register so that heritage property can be duly recorded. Recording that heritage property helps mitigate impacts to heritage value. Under the current act, the only findings of potential heritage value that must be reported are those found by persons with a Heritage Conservation Act permit. As a rancher myself, I don’t think that every time we dig in our yard, we’re going to be thinking we need to get a Heritage Conservation Act….

Even in the Kootenays, when you’re digging around, you could find things of value. I know up in the Arrow Lakes, people were digging and found a significant number of arrowheads that were left by the Sinixt, the nation that the federal government declared extinct but obviously have living, breathing people today. Those pieces of property were found, and they didn’t have to be reported.

This act ensures that it has to be reported. It allows the ministry to protect those previously unknown sites and, when appropriate, to publicize it. I think it’s important that we know where those sites are. If its existence is never known, the heritage or archaeological property could be damaged. It could fall into disrepair or forever be lost.

We were walking up the Slocan Valley a few years ago, a walk up the Slocan Valley for a fundraiser for housing for seniors. As we walked — I had four of our grandkids with us — we stopped to visit a site of pit houses that were also left from the Sinixt Nation.

[3:05 p.m.]

The two older grandkids at the time, three years ago, were nine and ten. They were really excited about the opportunity to see this. We talked about the history and what had happened and how these came to be made. It’s so important for kids to know that and to be able to go and see that. This bill will make sure that that’s happening so that kids can actually go and see these archaeological sites, these historical sites.

Also, it is going to change permitting. Right now the Heritage Conservation Act permits are intended to help identify, protect and conserve heritage property. That’s so important. They’re also meant to minimize and mitigate impacts where potential conflicts have been identified between cultural resources and proposed development. However, there are limitations in the legislation that undermine these purposes.

The purpose of these amendments that the minister is bringing in is to expand the ability to refuse, amend or suspend and cancel site alteration permits. These amendments will improve permitting powers by providing greater flexibility in permit management. They allow permits to be managed based on individual circumstances and provide a greater opportunity to mitigate potential impacts to heritage property and proponents. These amendments address some significant deficiencies that hinder the minister’s ability to actually utilize the act.

As well, there is going to be changes to compliance and enforcement. So the effectiveness of the act is hindered by limitations on compliance and enforcement, which will be addressed in these amendments. For example, authorizing officials will be allowed to enter land for the purposes of the administration or enforcement of the act and establishing new offences, allowing for continuing offences and extending the time limit to lay an information from two to three years.

These will significantly improve the ability to enforce the act and reduce the risk of defence and of forfeiting prosecution. The amendments address a known concern from the act, from First Nations. Then, there’s also the delegation where the amendments expand the minister’s ability to delegate their powers and duties under the act. This will allow for a more appropriate level of decision-maker to take on these decisions.

Now, I want to talk a bit about the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous people and the fact that First Nation leaders have been calling for this. First Nations have been meeting with the minister and telling him about their concerns about historical artifacts being lost. The changes being proposed are reflective of those expressed concerns raised by First Nations and calls for greater protection of archaeological and cultural sites, which is in the spirit of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. It’s something that I believe everyone in the House agrees with.

The changes recognize First Nations calls for improved protection of heritage property and support articles 11 and 12 of UNDRIP and uphold direction to review policies and programs and legislation to determine how to bring the principles of UNDRIP into action.

This is a good first step, and it is just a first step. It addresses known issues with the act that, again, have been raised with the minister by First Nations right across the province. The archaeology branch staff continue to engage with First Nations on what more needs to be done to preserve heritage sites in the province.

I think it’s important, just to wrap, that specific amendments are designed to improve the act’s effectiveness. So they’ll require discoveries of potential heritage and archaeological value to be reported. They expand the ability to refuse, amend, suspend and cancel permits, and they provide that a person may be liable to obtain and pay for a heritage inspection or investigation as a precondition of site alteration.

They enable delegation of statutory powers, and they improve compliance and enforcement tools, all of which are things that need to happen. When you think an act that hasn’t had anything done for 25 years…. I think its time has come. I think that probably the members from the Peace country would probably appreciate that part of this act is also dealing with paleontology finds, which is dinosaurs.

Interjections.

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s what we’ve said. That’s what it said. So I think that’s really important. That’s what it says in the bill that I read. I think it’s important to acknowledge that.

[3:10 p.m.]

Okay. We’ll just leave it at that.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s great that this is generating conversation. It’s unfortunate that the members opposite had 16 years and did nothing about this. They let it sit. They did nothing. I mean, the act has remained exactly the way it was since the ’90s, which is 25 years ago.

It’s true that the First Nations have been calling for amendments to this act. It’s really important. These amendments seek to resolve some of the recognized issues with the act, for more focused and meaningful change. I think that’s really important. I think it’s good that the minister is finally…. The ministry has said that we need to bring this act in, that it’s important. It’s critical for archaeological sites across the province, for heritage sites.

I think that I’m very pleased to support this bill, and I hope the House will join me in also supporting the bill, because it is of critical importance.

S. Thomson: I’m pleased to rise to provide some comments on and speak to Bill 14, the Heritage Conservation Amendment Act.

To open my comments, I’d just say — as my colleague from Nechako Lakes did, as well, and I think it’s fair to say all members of the House agree — and recognize that it’s important to preserve our past and to ensure that that past, whether it’s stories or artifacts or implements, is preserved and helps support that history and stories that are so much a part of our history here in the province.

Coming from a family that currently continues to farm our heritage farm…. It’s 127 years we’ve been on the property. My brother owns and operates the farm now for the family and is doing his continued contribution towards heritage preservation by preserving heritage buildings on the property by actually moving — I forget the total count now; I think it’s maybe three or four — heritage barns from other properties, as properties are being sold, onto the property and incorporating them into the farm operation.

It is important that we do this, and we have to do it as a society: ensure that we’re all working together to protect the heritage sites and the objectives of the heritage act. I think, in response to the member opposite, it is not fair to say that nothing has been done. We have worked hard — we did, as government — to preserve a number of sites. In fact, I was involved in a number of those sites, recollecting issues like the Marpole midden and Grace Islet, where government had to come in and, at cost, take steps to ensure that those sites were protected and preserved.

It is interesting to look at the amendments that are being proposed here. I think it’s more important to look at what’s not here, as opposed to what is in in the legislation, in the amendments, because I recall, as minister being responsible for the legislation, that the real call from the members opposite, when they were in opposition, was for the appropriate funding to be put in place to support the preservation of these sites and work.

I recall and have looked at the legislation, the private member’s bill that was introduced, I think at least a couple of times, by the former MLA from Esquimalt, Maurine Karagianis, who proposed amendments to the legislation. She was very passionate about it. A key element of the private member’s bills that she put forward was the establishment of a First Nations protection program.

[3:15 p.m.]

If you look at the bill, it would require the minister to establish a provincial program for preserving and protecting First Nations heritage sites, remains and objects. The program will make funds available to local governments for the protection of the First Nations heritage sites. The Lieutenant-Governor would do a number of different things — procedures for administering the program, requirements for funding applications and funding maximums under the programs.

The approach, and not just in the private member’s legislation that was brought forward but also in other representations that were made, was that there should be the appropriate funding made available in order to support the objectives of the Heritage Conservation Act when those circumstances come into play where those values need to be protected and preserved and that those costs shouldn’t be borne by the private landowner.

What we see in this legislation, in these amendments, is that principle that they advocated so strongly for is not here in these amendments that are before us. I also recall, in representation in the House, the member for Saanich North and the Islands, the Green Party as well, calling for that kind of funding to be put in place as well. Very clearly, it is not included in this legislation.

My colleague for Nechako Lakes also referenced the issue around the call at that time for amendments to the Cemetery Act to prevent building or activity on known cemeteries and sites as well. That’s not in this legislation as well — missing parts to this legislation that I think are really critical. It’s an area that certainly will be explored in the committee stage on the bill.

What we’re really seeing is an approach that adds significant additional powers for the minister, additional powers for officials to authorize officials to enter property, sweeping powers to talk about how permits could be cancelled, changed, altered — amending them, suspending them, cancelling. All of those kinds of steps that are added in these amendments….

So much of this legislation, or proposed amendments, is left to future regulation about how it’s going to be implemented with these new powers and new authorities. I can recall, at many occasions and many times, the members opposite, when they were in opposition, lamenting and really criticizing us at the time for leaving so much in regulation and not in the legislation — leaving it till afterwards when those details and the implementation provisions will be made clearer at that point in the enabling nature of the legislation.

Really, what we have here are increased authorities, powers under the legislation. But we don’t have that balance in the approach. We don’t have the certainty for private property owners. So in many cases, the situations will result in developments that can’t proceed, in renovations that may not be able to proceed for specific buildings or properties. Or outbuildings on the sites may impact negatively the use of the property, that potential. All of this cost is expected to be borne by the individual property owner.

[3:20 p.m.]

I think it’s a bit of a pattern that we’re starting to see from this government when you look at the approach of a speculation tax on cabins, if you look at the ALR provisions where farmers and ranchers are now determined not to be persons for purposes of making applications. It’s a little bit more that all of government knows the best way to do this.

Ultimately, the responsibility and the obligations in these situations are going to fall to the property owners — the duty to report under the legislation. One of the challenges in that is if there isn’t the balance in the process, then in many cases…. Owners, in some cases, will be reluctant to report those provisions because they don’t see the balance in the approach here.

So worthy goals in the legislation, in the amendments, but again, with the powers that are added to it yet to be defined, in many cases, in regulation, it causes a lot of concerns. The balance and the approach in the legislation will cause a lot of very significant concerns for private property owners.

As we have said, we really do believe in and support the preservation of those values, particularly First Nations’ values, in British Columbia. But I think that as we will go through the committee stage, we’ll see that the balance is not here in this legislation and that it really does shift and download those responsibilities and costs onto individual property owners without the balance being provided.

I know that the archaeological branch within the ministry does a great job — 54,000 registered sites. I think they deal with somewhere over 500,000 applications, permits, alterations on an annual basis. They do a great job in the work that they do and play a very, very important role.

But when the balance isn’t there in the legislation…. That balance has been called for previously by the members opposite in private members’ bills, in representation in the House during debate and during question period — approaches by both the members opposite who are now in government and the member for the Green Party at the time, as well, calling for the need to have that protection fund in place that helps those individual property owners in those circumstances. This legislation doesn’t provide for that.

I know there will be questions in the committee stage. I look forward to hearing the responses from the minister during that portion of the debate. I appreciate the opportunity to make these few comments on the legislation that’s before us.

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s my honour to stand and speak to Bill 14, the Heritage Conservation Amendment Act, a long-overdue piece of legislation. I think we all notionally recognize that in order to know who we are and where we come from, and part of shaping where we’re going, we need to know our history. We need to know the history of other people who’ve lived in this place since time immemorial. This act focuses on how we can conserve the aspects of heritage that contribute to that history.

Whether you’re a new Canadian — and I’m a first-generation Canadian — who has just moved to beautiful B.C. or an Indigenous person with roots here for millennia, we all have an interest in protecting and conserving our heritage and important archaeological sites. Strengthening protection for archaeological sites is a key and critical part of reconciliation and a key part of implementing the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

[3:25 p.m.]

If we don’t protect historically significant sites, then we rob from children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and future generations the ability and the tools to learn the story, the unfolding and ongoing story of the land and the place where we live. That’s why I’m proud to stand here today and speak in support of the bill, the first update to the Heritage Conservation Act in 20 years.

I reflect with both interest and some bemusement on the comments from the member for Nechako Lakes and the member for Kelowna-Mission who, on the one hand, recognized the very important aspects contained in this bill — the importance of heritage, the respect the former minister and now MLA for Kelowna-Mission has for the heritage conservation branch and the goals — but say that somehow we haven’t got it right.

At the same time, we’re actually bringing in long-overdue changes to enhance the ability to protect and conserve critical aspects of British Columbia’s history and heritage, particularly those for Indigenous nations. Members opposite have said we’ve made this a responsibility of private landowners and we haven’t done any of the things or put any of the funding in place that they think is important to protecting and conserving heritage.

In listening to that, I reflect on much of what I have heard over the past 20 months, as a minister, from Indigenous people not just here but from around the world when I travel as part of climate discussions. People talk about what the changes that are happening to their homes, that impact their culture — the changes that happen to the traditional ways of life, the artifacts that reflect that traditional way of life and even the language, the loss of the language as the result of changes on the landscape — mean to them and the loss of something that’s irreplaceable.

That’s why our government committed $50 million to restoration of Indigenous languages as an important part of essentially funding important aspects of heritage and conservation that are intrinsically part of the language that reflects the history of Indigenous peoples in British Columbia.

In my ministry, we have worked closely with Indigenous nations around recognizing their interest, their role and their history in provincial parks through naming, though partnership agreements and through ongoing discussions with them about areas of critical importance to them, as well as areas that are currently within provincial parks where we can take measures to protect important historical and cultural values.

I appreciate that the role of opposition is to question and to oppose. That is an important role for opposition, and it’s to be respected. I would also respectfully say that we’ve done more than put words on paper here. We’ve put money in many places to back it up. We’ve put policies in place to respect heritage, particularly for Indigenous peoples, and we’ll continue to do so.

This bill places greater protections in the hands of all of us collectively, of government, and gives the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development enhanced powers around permitting to be used when needed. As the minister pointed out, these are flexible powers of permitting. They can be tailored to the particular circumstances of individual finds, individual landholdings.

But it’s important to be able to ensure that we speak to landholders or tenure holders when there is the potential to restore or destroy something that is irreplaceable and fundamental to the culture of this land and to the history that we all benefit from, because without that history, we can’t shape a viable future.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

We have about 500 permits a year coming to the B.C. archaeological branch, and this oversight is crucial to ensuring that there is government involvement in discovery and reporting of sites that might have heritage value and that we have measures in place that require these reports to be made.

[3:30 p.m.]

I appreciate the comments from the member opposite that there may be a disincentive, but I think during committee stage, those questions can be canvassed thoroughly.

I’m proud that this bill has the support of Indigenous nations in British Columbia, because the measures in it are a significant part of our commitment to implementing the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous people. It’s a first step to addressing some of the known issues that exist with the act, and staff in the archaeology branch will continue to engage on an ongoing basis with Indigenous nations. But it is important to take those steps, because those steps could have been taken in the last 16 years yet weren’t.

Obviously, this bill is about Indigenous heritage, but it’s also about other forms of heritage. When I walk through my own riding, I’m often struck by what has been preserved in the short history of the colonization of that area and the inhabitation of the area which I represent.

In Vancouver, there is a group that conducts what’s called Jane’s Walk to learn about the history of the place in which we live. Many times when I have participated on those walks, I have learned so much about what once was in the area we know as Vancouver, some of which you can still see traces of, much of which has disappeared forever, and a portion of which the city of Vancouver, other governments in other parts of British Columbia and their areas and all of us, as well as the provincial government, can assist in restoring.

It’s critically important that we know something about where we live. Otherwise, we can’t understand what was lost or what steps we can take to rebuild and replace.

I think about families that lived here for generations. I think about my parents, who came to Canada to find a safer place and a prosperous future for them and their children. They were interested in learning about the place that they had chosen to call home. They spent a considerable amount of time with their children, encouraging us to learn the same.

We have a duty to people who were here before us, to remember what they did to live their lives, to live in harmony with the land and the resources around them and also what they did to create a modern province in which we now live and from which, in many respects, we benefit. We have a responsibility to learn from them and their history so that we can create a better future for everyone.

Staff in the ministry will be able to work more effectively with additional compliance and enforcement tools to ensure that our heritage is not interfered with or lost forever. The requirements to report discoveries are critical to this, and the ability of FLNRO staff to apply conditions and permitting to protect important heritage values and the flexibility to adapt those to particular communities is critically important.

Going forward, if any person or group wishes to proceed with alterations or developments to a site where there isn’t sufficient information about the heritage value, they may be required to work to do a heritage investigation before they can receive the site alteration permit. That’s important, because if that isn’t in place, we will far too often, as we do now, discover after the fact and too late that things that can never be replaced have been destroyed and that it needn’t happen.

It’s not necessarily the case, as members opposite have said, that these may involve costs. In fact, they may potentially involve fewer costs by not requiring rehabilitation or remedial action. It’s about applying a principle of knowledge and precaution to ensure that what we value, and what we have a responsibility to protect, we actually value and protect in action and through legislation.

The investigations will lead to better decision-making and better protection of heritage property. We know that Indigenous nations were concerned about the lack of investigation. I’m glad that we have amendments to the act to address this issue, and that is why there is support from Indigenous nations.

[3:35 p.m.]

Under these changes, people will now be legally required to report discoveries of objects that might have heritage value. The only way we’re going to know is if we know enough to take a look. Without this mandatory reporting, an untold number of objects that hold historical significance could disappear forever, as has, in fact, been the case now for decades.

It’s an honour to support this bill. I’m pleased and proud that our government has brought it forward, and I look forward to continued debate.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands. [Applause.]

A. Olsen: Well, thank you to the member for Chilliwack-Kent. That was a robust welcome from the members opposite. I appreciate it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to Bill 14, the Heritage Conservation Amendment Act. This is an issue which is of specific importance to me, to my family and to my people, the WSÁNEĆ people. As many who have been following the news in this province may recognize, my family, my relatives and my extended relatives here on the south coast were involved in a very emotional and, at times, bitter situation on Grace Islet, off Saltspring Island. I think it was 2013-2014.

This is a situation in which gravesites that had been known for a very long time had a house constructed on them. It was deemed to be okay to take those grave middens and encase them in concrete and continue to build a private home, a vacation home directly overtop of the final resting place of our Coast Salish ancestors. I don’t know of a time or a place in which that would be acceptable in this province, elsewhere. I don’t know that you could imagine doing a similar kind of act or a similar kind of thing at a cemetery, say, for example.

It exposed, in this province, something that Indigenous people have known for a very long time: that there are two sets of standards in this province. It’s unfortunate, it’s sad, and it’s incredibly frustrating.

I know that my family members who were on the Tsartlip council at the time…. When the first application for permits came in and they bitterly opposed it, they were told that since there was only one of the dozens of First Nations actually opposing or that had actually submitted a response to the notification, there wasn’t sufficient evidence to show that people cared. So it proceeded. We had a situation in which the government of British Columbia watched over, through their process, a situation in which known gravesites, known sacred places, were desecrated and were built on.

I don’t know who would want to live in a house overtop of a gravesite, but that was the case in this province, and it was one which was incredibly frustrating over the months and months and months that we were told that, simply, the minister could not get a mandate to act. The minister could not get the authority to actually act, to intervene in this desecration.

I ask the members here today to simply imagine a scenario. Just imagine a scenario where one of your ancestors, one of your grandparents’ graves…. It was being proposed that their gravesite was going to have a house built on it, and it was returned that the only thing that needed to happen in order for that to occur would be for those gravesites to be encased in concrete, and then you could go ahead and build right over top of that. Again, I don’t think that there is a situation in which anybody would consider, in any way, this kind of behaviour or activity taking place overtop of a known cemetery.

[3:40 p.m.]

When the member for Kelowna-Mission mentioned that the member for Saanich North and the Islands wanted to see the Cemetery Act changed, he does so with great knowledge. It was a conversation between him and I, that we had, where we talked about the need to provide greater protection for Indigenous heritage sites, for gravesites, for the final resting place of our ancestors and, indeed, for the sacred places and the artifacts — or items of cultural significance, as I prefer to call them.

That is something which has inspired me and propelled me, actually, into this place. It was my involvement in that Grace Islet story where I worked alongside the former member who held this seat, who represented the beautiful riding of Saanich North and the Islands, Gary Holman, who did a phenomenal job of standing up in this place during question period and asking questions of that minister.

It was that work both in this place and outside of this place, which I was able to do, that helped bring attention to this situation. So to see that this bill is coming forward and that aspects of the concern that was raised back then are being addressed in this bill, Bill 14…. For that, I raise my hands. I’m thankful to see the work is starting.

It’s important, I think, to just note that it’s a start, because the work on this bill is not complete. It’s been acknowledged in a briefing that we received that, yes, this is indeed just the first piece of work that can be done.

Going through the bill…. The sections that require the duty to report a discovery. The opportunity for the province to increase heritage protection. The very, very detailed ways that they can protect the heritage and do investigations to ensure that they’re able to take a look at the property much closer, to inspect it. The power to issue and amend permits. And then a whole host of ways for the minister to be able to have authority over those permits. Indeed, these are very important ways that this bill, the Heritage Conservation Act, has been strengthened with this amendment.

Entry and inspection. The fact that the minister can or the minister can ensure that somebody can — not meaning that the minister has go to the place and enter on to the premises and inspect, which I think is the current situation. A pretty busy person to be doing that kind of work. I think that the opportunity to be able to go in, enter the property and see what’s actually on site is important.

This bill, in many respects, does strengthen the current legislation that we have in place. There are some aspects of this which I think it’s important to raise. It’s been noted here that First Nations communities or Indigenous communities have been engaged and that First Nations have been engaged on this. I’ve become aware, though, that there has been some criticism with the process of this. I think that some frustration has been expressed that the First Nations Leadership Council was not engaged more thoroughly and, perhaps, maybe individual First Nations.

I think it’s important that as we proceed, we honour the fact that Indigenous communities have established a leadership structure. It’s not a perfect leadership structure. There are a lot of challenges with it, and I think that would be acknowledged both from the perspective of this place but also from the perspective of an Indigenous person who has tried to navigate First Nations politics. It’s tough. But Indigenous people do have a leadership structure, and it’s important that it be fully engaged in these processes — that not just individual First Nations but the leadership that’s acknowledged and recognized by Indigenous people be honoured and be included in this.

[3:45 p.m.]

It’s my understanding that they’re expressing disappointment and frustration that they have not been, in their terms, adequately consulted on this. I think further to that, though, it’s important to acknowledge that they also express the fact that they don’t necessarily disagree, as I’ve stated, with these amendments. These are needed amendments, and I think that the First Nations communities will look at these amendments and generally, if not wholeheartedly, agree that these are good amendments. But they certainly don’t go far enough, nor do they go far enough fast enough, from my personal perspective.

This is not a new process. This is not a process which has just started in the last 24 months. This is a process that has been underway with the provincial government now for many decades, indeed for more than a century. So 1865 was the first bill; 1867 was an amendment, 1925, 1960, 1977, the 1990s. Now we’re taking a look at it again.

I think back in the 1990s, they instituted section 4. Section 4 of the current act talks about agreements with First Nations. This is where First Nations in the province may enter into a formal agreement with respect to the conservation and protection of their heritage sites. This has been, I believe, in the act since the 1990s, this section 4.

In a 2012 document called the First Nations Heritage Conservation Action Plan…. The Indigenous leadership of the province pulled together the chiefs. They started their own process. They pulled together the First Nations communities, and they wanted to ask them: how is it that we can strengthen heritage conservation in this province? One of the aspects of this was to begin to enter into formal agreements with the province.

The provincial government, over the last 20 years, has disputed this process and has frustrated this process. Indeed, to this day, First Nations and Indigenous communities are still complaining that even though there’s a pilot project underway, we still have yet to achieve any kind of action on section 4, these agreements with First Nations.

I think that it’s important to acknowledge the long history in this province, and that’s perhaps why we have a Heritage Conservation Act. This is, indeed, a long history. Well, it’s a very short long history, but it’s a long history between Indigenous peoples and the newcomers to this province, still relatively new.

I think it’s important that as we start to move towards the United Nation’s declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, as we move towards the implementation of that, we understand within it that the relationship between First Nations, Indigenous people in this province is changing, and I think that we should be embracing that change. Many of the articles within the UNDRIP are articles that protect these very aspects that we’re talking about, the ancestral remains — just as everybody in this place wants to have the ancestral remains from their family lineages to be protected and honoured, to not be built on, to not be unnecessarily dug up and disturbed.

I understand that this province has a much, much longer history. We’re going to find things, but it’s how we respond to the things that we find that I think is most important. It’s the things that we have found, the way that we behave when we have found them, that I think really sends a message to Indigenous people in this province.

If we are going to say, “We acknowledge that place. We acknowledge that it’s sacred to you. We acknowledge that your ancestors are buried there, and we are going to allow you to build on it anyway,” that sends a message that no matter how many times we stand in this place and no matter how many times we stand outside this place, exactly what the relationship with Indigenous peoples means to the people within this place.

I stood in this House, and I acknowledged and was very thankful. I raised my hands to the important investment that was made with respect to Indigenous languages. When we talk about reconciliation, I think that it’s important to understand there are a couple areas in which there was a definitive attempt to detach Indigenous people from their cultures in the past.

[3:50 p.m.]

One of those was through the removal of Indigenous languages. Another was through the removal of sacred objects that were part of that culture or making illegal the sun dance on the prairies and in eastern Canada and the potlatch here on the west coast. By making those illegal and not allowing Indigenous people to openly associate with those important cultural rituals and ceremonies…. Very much the same, by the way, as the ceremony that undertakes the authority of this place — that I am standing here speaking to a speaker, that I’m standing here speaking to this House through a speaker. It’s very similar to the Indigenous culture that I come from with the WSÁNEĆ people — not too different.

I think that it’s important to acknowledge that the second step forward that we could be taking when it comes to reconciliation is through the protection of heritage sites and through the conservation and protection of important items of cultural significance. By returning these items, by making it much simpler for Indigenous people to protect their ancestors, packaging that with the important investments that both this government and the federal government have made to Indigenous languages, we start to make real, remarkable steps forward when it comes to reconciliation.

These are the actions behind reconciliation, so I’m happy to stand today to see that the work that was done at Grace Islet did indeed protect that island. I’m happy to stand today and proud to be the now member for Saanich North and the Islands, where we see one of the first pieces of work done on this important bill, this piece of legislation that is incredibly important for me, my family and my extended family, our relatives across the province.

I look forward to continuing to work with the minister to ensure that some of the criticisms that have been made about the process in this can be repaired, because there still is much work to be done, as was mentioned by the member on the opposite side.

I think that there is an opportunity here, a very positive opportunity, for this government to embrace the action of reconciliation by partnering the substantive investments that it made in reconnecting Indigenous people with their languages with the repatriation and the protection, so that we’re not just going to museums and visiting — visiting — our items of cultural significance, but that they are back in our communities and that they have their rightful place within our ceremony, within our ritual and within our families like they’re always supposed to.

With that, I’m going to take my seat. I thank the minister for the work done so far. I look forward to the work yet to be done, and I’m happy to support Bill 14, this amendment to the Heritage Conservation Act.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

D. Barnett: I rise today to speak to Bill 14, the Heritage Conservation Amendment Act.

It is safe to say that everyone in this House agrees that it is important to preserve the past, to celebrate it and to learn from it. This is critical for the entire province, and it is important for First Nations in British Columbia. We must, as a society, ensure we are all working together protecting heritage sites and objects.

That is one and just the first reason the legislation we are debating today is such a disappointment. When they were on the opposite side of the House, members of the NDP shared a lot of righteous indignation and bold ideas about what needed to happen to protect sites and artifacts. They called for the establishment of a First Nations heritage protection program that would fund local governments to help them protect sacred sites in their communities. The ideas didn’t make it into the legislation in front of us today.

[3:55 p.m.]

Back when they sat on this side of the House, the NDP called for changes in legislation so a First Nations burial site would be protected in the same way as any cemetery in B.C. It’s a protection, with a ban on building. Now that they are in government, the NDP has either failed to act or chosen not to act and left that ban out of this bill.

In opposition, the NDP wanted the government to purchase private property to halt development near a First Nations archaeological site. But the legislation we are debating today offers no plans or mechanisms for the province to step in and compensate private property owners if they are forced to sell their property after the discovery of a heritage site or object.

This failure to deliver on their own demands is merely the first failure of this bill. This bill is also a failure in its erosion of any sense of balance when it comes to protections, all while layering new costs, potentially steep, on private land owners.

This legislation further downloads the costs for site investigations and archaeological studies onto unsuspecting property owners. Let’s say a local farmer wants to add to her barn. That barn has been there for a long time. It and the land have been in the family for generations. A decision, one assumes by someone in Victoria, could unilaterally decide that, in order to add to the family barn, an expensive and intensive archaeological study is required. That barn, on active farmland worked for generations, just got more expensive.

Lately the minister responsible for this legislation has been labelling any challenge to plans as fearmongering. Sadly, this bill seems to be, like so much of this government’s legislation, based on a belief that people will just have to have blind faith in anything this government does. That is because, once again, we have before this House hollow-shell legislation up for debate. I call it hollow shell because so much of it is to be revealed at a later date and, as usual, developed behind closed doors.

It’s critical to have certainty for dealing with issues like land and possible heritage values, but the bill offers no certainty, except that landowners will be stuck with large bills. Once again, we have a bill that talks about worthy goals — protecting key heritage sites — but offers little in the way of details on how it will be done, except for imposing costs on the owners of the private land.

Too many aspects of this bill — including how to define classes of properties, persons, sites, objects, circumstances or areas, classes of heritage properties and more — are left undefined. All that we get is a promise of regulations to come at a later date. Only then, we get the details. Of course, those details will not be subject to debate in this chamber, nor will they face any sort of public consultation process. They will simply be dumped on unexpecting private land owners. The public deserves better and deserves to know how the government plans to carry out these charges.

Bill 14 offers up a top-down, Victoria-knows-best ap­proach with its planned expansion of government’s power to conduct site searches and intrusive investigations on private property. Well, they managed to squeeze in details about that.

Still, the legislation is not just top down. It’s also heavy-handed in its approach. The bill will allow authorized officials, to be defined later, to enter land if there is reason to believe that lands or premises have heritage value in an object or in the site itself. They can come onto someone’s property to inspect, to take samples and to request identification of individuals. These officials will be allowed to issue warrants to search premises and seize evidence, if needed.

While these sweeping powers are outlined, little about how they will be monitored and used is to be found in this bill. I will definitely be asking for information on what seems like a heritage police force during committee stage.

[4:00 p.m.]

As an opposition, we are also concerned about new powers for the minister. Under this bill, landowners and project proponents who are working away under an approved permit and moving forward in good faith can be, if this bill becomes law, stopped dead in their tracks. The government has taken on sweeping powers to amend, suspend or even cancel permits already granted to alter a heritage site. Even with a permit already approved and granted, there is no certainty.

Building a province and building a future for working families requires certainty, and this bill is an attack on certainty. When you think about what this government is doing with the speculation tax and with their changes to the Agricultural Land Commission — the changes that will declare farmers are no longer persons who can apply to the ALC for a decision — one wouldn’t be far from the mark to suspect that government is leading an attack on the nature of private property itself.

Make no mistake. On this side of the House, we believe in the protection of heritage values, of artifacts and sites. All of us believe in the preservation of B.C.’s cultural values and those of First Nations in B.C., but this legislation fails to establish the balance and the certainty required to ensure that protection happens in a reasonable and responsible way. I look forward to asking for clarification about this bill at committee stage.

G. Kyllo: It’s always a pleasure to rise in the House and respond to the current bill that’s before us, on behalf of the hard-working constituents of Shuswap.

Regarding the Heritage Conservation Amendment Act, it was interesting listening to the member opposite — the member from the Green Party, the Third Party, for Saanich North and the Islands — when he referenced some of his concerns around the protection of Grace Islet. That was where there was an actual burial site that was identified.

Although the legislation doesn’t necessarily always fit every instance or occurrence around the province, I’ve got to give thanks, I think, where credit is due. The folks at the heritage branch did an amazing job. It was the previous government that came to the aid of the folks that were concerned, the First Nations that were impacted, and looked at funding the actual purchase of that island. That was under the former Minister of FLNRO, the member for Kelowna-Mission.

Obviously, British Columbians are very concerned about the importance of preserving the heritage and history of our province. I think it’s always an opportunity to celebrate, in that we have an opportunity to learn from our past. It’s important for society and extremely important for First Nations in B.C., who have resided on these lands for thousands of years. As a society, it’s imperative that we work together to understand, acknowledge and work together to pro­tect and preserve heritage sites and objects in our province.

It’s interesting that the NDP, when in opposition, called for a number of bold movements in order to further protect and enhance the heritage protection act, for the legislation that is now before this House. Unfortunately, the current bill seems to be devoid of many of the things that they spoke of in opposition. I think it’d be interesting to hear, from the current government, why those items and issues that were of great concern when they were in opposition somehow are void and neglected from being brought forward in this current legislation.

One of the items they called for — it was actually spoken about previously by the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin — was the establishment of a First Nations heritage protection program that would, among other things, fund local governments to help protect sacred sites in our province. Again, no inclusion in this current bill. In our collective history, the heritage of our province is just extremely important. It’s important for society, and it’s important as an opportunity for us to protect what’s in the public interest. Preserving our past and acknowledging the previous uses of our lands and items of significant heritage value — those are deemed to be in the public interest.

[4:05 p.m.]

I certainly appreciate and, I think, value that need, but what we are seeing here is that the protection of those interests, which is in the public purview, is being undertaken to be protected at the cost of the private landowner. I think that that’s an area that should be canvassed and could be discussed as part of the debate on this current bill.

Obviously, we respect our First Nations communities, their use of the lands, especially where there is significant evidence of previous use of particular areas. Where those are identified and we have a need to provide protection of those lands, why should it be at the expense of the sole property owner? If the need or value, I guess, in the public interest is for the general society, why is it that those costs are borne specifically by the property owner? Those sorts of issues are very concerning to me as a member representing constituents of Shuswap and, I think, should also be something of concern both to government and, of course, to us as opposition.

As we see increased powers being given to the minister responsible, we need to make sure that those additional responsibilities and powers are actually canvassed here in this House and are not left for government to decide behind closed doors and to develop through regulation.

The opportunity for British Columbians to be aware of the changes to the legislation…. Especially when it comes to improved or increased powers for the minister to intervene and make decisions and rulings around potentially rescinding permits or altering permits that are already issued, it’s very important that the details of scenarios and circumstances under which those might be undertaken are canvassed in the House, where the general public have an opportunity to fully understand what it is that the government is intending to do.

We certainly see concerns about what’s been canvassed in the news media about potential erosion of property rights in B.C. We have certainly seen increased concerns about capital investment in our province. When you look at the ability for businesses to have a clear and concise determination around project timelines, anything that builds on additional uncertainty doesn’t help to attract capital to our province. I think this is yet another means where it is not sending the right signal to our business and investment community. If I may, this legislation, I believe, is weak. It leaves far too many definitions to be decided and set by government, devoid of further debate or public scrutiny in this House or in this chamber.

Again, further erosion of property rights. This bill specifically allows for regulation to later define many components of the legislation, including how to define classes of properties, persons, sites, objects, circumstances or areas, along with classes of heritage properties and more.

This bill adds greater powers for authorized officials to enter lands if an authorized official has reason to believe that the lands or premises have heritage value in an object or in the site itself. These authorized officials can inspect, take samples, request identification of individuals and are allowed to issue warrants to search premises and seize evidence, if needed. The bill adds to the minister’s current power to issue a stop-work order by allowing the minister to also consider the likelihood of alterations, current alterations or past alterations of heritage values.

It puts a significant amount of increased power in the hands of the minister and those that are charged with actually ensuring the fulfilment of this legislation. This bill gives the minister more power, as I mentioned earlier, to amend, suspend or cancel permits. I think we need ask the question: what circumstances would allow the minister or staff within the branch to make a determination to amend, suspend or cancel a permit?

A property development may have met all of the regulatory requirements, received a permit to proceed and met all the requirements of the heritage branch. They have their permit in hand. They commence construction, yet there’s no certainty around it because, as identified in this legislation, the minister has the ability to change, alter or amend it, and it doesn’t indicate what conditions would allow them to do that.

[4:10 p.m.]

I think it just calls to the lack, the uncertainty…. Again, it will have an impact on confidence of investors looking to invest in our province and, also, have an ultimate impact on jobs and the economy and, potentially, the ability of actually sterilizing land.

Back to the point that I made earlier where, if there are significant archaeological items that are actually uncovered on a particular site, I fully support the need and the intent of society and the public in general to actually preserve those items. However, it should not be at the expense of the private landowner, the unsuspecting landowner that may purchase a piece of property, if the site has not been identified or previously identified and listed through the heritage branch.

Why should that individual property owner carry the full risks associated with the costs of protecting what is deemed to be in the public interest? That is something that is, I know, of extreme concern to property developers around the province and something that I think should be further canvassed in this bill.

The protection of heritage values, whether it’s in specific objects or artifacts or on specific sites, is very important, obviously, for the preservation of B.C.’s cultural values, particularly those of our First Nations. We recognize that legislation needs to strike that right balance between protecting First Nations interests and archaeological interests and those of property owners.

This bill, however, I think, serves to further download costs for site investigations and archaeological studies onto these unsuspecting property owners. At a time when more certainty is required on the land base, this bill achieves the complete opposite by increasing the minister’s power to amend, suspend or even cancel permits granted to alter the heritage site.

I look forward to hearing further comments from my colleagues as this bill goes through committee stage.

L. Throness: I want to begin my speech to Bill 14, which is the Heritage Conservation Amendment Act, by beginning with a story from a few years ago, in my riding.

There was a couple who bought a piece of land in the Chilliwack River Valley. It was about a half-acre. It was on a mountainside. There were lots of trees on it. It was a beautiful spot. They paid $200,000 for it. They got a mortgage, started making their monthly payments. There was no house on the lot at the time, but they intended to build their retirement home there.

There were several humps. There were several hillocks, or small hills, on this property, with big, tall trees growing out of them. They had been there for a long time. There were even a few in neighbours’ yards adjacent to them. They had simply always been there. Nobody seemed to really notice them. But somebody came by from a First Nation and mentioned that they might be burial mounds.

Well, that put in train a whole process that put a stop to the entire thing. The couple could no longer build on the property, but they had a $200,000 mortgage on which they were paying, month after month.

They came to me, and I asked the government to compensate these people in order to save a possible ancient burial ground that the owners were unaware of and also save the owners from a very unlucky purchase they never would have made, had they known that these humps were there.

The local First Nation hired a contractor to do a study, a person. That person concluded that they probably were burial mounds. The province hired their own expert, a contractor, who did another independent study and concluded the opposite — that they were not burial mounds, that they were natural geological features that occurred as just part of the topography of the area.

There it sits. The land is worthless to sell with this question left unresolved. If it is a burial ground, the owners, of course, can’t build a house there. I would understand that. I don’t think we should build houses on Carman United Cemetery or St. Mary’s Cemetery, which are in my riding. I don’t think it’s proper do that. But those cemeteries are well known. They’re well marked. There are no such markings for these Indigenous burial sites or other archaeological sites. They come as surprises.

Landowners purchased the land in question in good faith, and then the land becomes stranded, and the owners are stranded too. They’re left high and dry. Unfortunately, there’s no compensation from the government for this, although our government did compensate some. In the story that I have cited, the government certainly intended to do so.

[4:15 p.m.]

We can’t fault anyone here. There’s no malicious intent on the part of any of the parties. But there is an injustice, and there is no way in this bill to correct these kinds of injustices in a routine and regular way.

I want to make three points about this bill. The first one is that there is no compensation in this bill, even though while in opposition, the NDP called for the establishment of a First Nations heritage protection program that would fund local governments to help them protect sacred sites in their communities. In fact, a member of this place, who was a former MLA for Esquimalt and Royal Roads, introduced it several times in a private member’s bill. But there’s no such thing in the legislation.

In opposition, the NDP wanted the government to purchase private property to halt development near a First Nations archaeological site, but in this bill, there’s nothing to do the same kind of thing. It’s really kind of hypocritical, in my view.

The legislation we’re debating today offers no plans or mechanisms for the province to step in and compensate pri­vate property owners if they’re forced to stop construction or sell their property or alter it after the discovery of a heri­tage site or object. No one argues that we should not preserve heritage sites or heritage art objects or artifacts. It’s important for us to do that as British Columbians, but we need to be fair to those who own this property.

If we want to preserve artifacts and sites for the use of the public, we should compensate those private landowners for the public use of their land. I would point out that in other situations, say, where the government expropriates land for a highway or some other public use, it pays fair market value to do it, and the principle should hold here too.

The second issue is one of dramatic new powers that the government is taking on with this law, and it tips the balance against landowners. Many of the powers are unknown because there are wide powers to enact regulations attached to this bill, and those will be passed quietly, in secret, by cabinet. So in a sense, we don’t even know what we’re approving here.

We’ve had a heritage conservation act in B.C. for many years. It was a strong law. It created a registry for heritage sites. It allowed the government to take action.

This bill goes further than that, and I would just want to point out one of the ways in which it goes further by reading from the bill itself, section 16. It says this: “If the minister considers that a property (a) has or may have heritage value, and (b) for any reason, is likely to be altered, is being altered or has been altered, the minister may issue, to a person or class of persons, a stop work order that prohibits any alteration of the property for a period of up to 120 days.” It goes on to say that the minister may extend the stop-work order for a time to be described in a regulation, which is another unknown.

While a person, say, is building a house for his or her family, a stop-work order can stop work on the property for 120 days — that’s four months; that’s a long time — and maybe extend it perhaps for another 120 days, or perhaps longer. Well, what’s that person supposed to do in building a house for his or her family? Well, they’re just stuck with this stop-work order. There’s no appeal for the beleaguered landowner.

We understand that we want to preserve the heritage of all the peoples who occupy this land, but there needs to be a balance between the rights of those who are alive today and those who have gone before. We can’t forget to protect today’s British Columbians when we are considering the protection of those of yesterday, but there is no balance in this legislation.

Now, often this has to do with time, as I’ve just said. How do they do it in other countries — in Israel or the U.K., for example, where they’ve had intensive development in a very small area for a millennia? They run into artifacts all the time when they’re building. They ran into the remains of a king in the U.K. in a parking lot recently. What do they do? They stop, they dig, they catalogue, they pay respects, often they remove artifacts, and then they continue. They don’t shut things down.

I have a personal story to recite about that. There’s a church that I attended in Cambridge, in England, for several years. It was called the Round Church at St. Andrew the Great. Why did they call it that? Because the congregation used to be in a round church that was literally shaped round. It was an 800-year-old church, but they moved to a newer church because they got too big. They moved to St. Andrew the Great church. It was only 300 years old. It was Captain Cook’s church, in fact. There was his tombstone on the wall.

[4:20 p.m.]

They wanted to renovate the kitchen because it was a full church, and they were serving a lot of people and meals, and so on. So they dug up the floor in the kitchen, and they found under that floor the remains of 200 people — 200 people who have gone before. Well, what did they do? Did they tear down the church? Did they stop work forever? No, they exhumed those remains. They paid respects, with proper ceremony; they reinterred them; and then they built that kitchen to serve hundreds and thousands of people for the next generation. That, I think, is a good lesson for us. That’s a good way to do it.

Well, my final point is this. There is a greater effect to this bill, added to the many other things the NDP are doing right now, and it’s a chilling effect. The NDP are rather quickly building a wall. It is a wall at the B.C. border that says: “The economy is of secondary concern to us. We mistrust private ownership, we distrust private enterprise, and we’re just going to keep adding bricks to that wall.” People can climb the wall if they want. It gets ever higher. They can come into this province, but it gets more difficult. British Columbians who live here, who want to fulfil their hopes and dreams for their own property — we’re going to make it more difficult for them. We’re building walls within this province as well.

You know, people don’t invest if there are multiple levels of liability, and these archaeological concerns that we’re talking about are completely unknown. There’s no certainty. This bill will help to cast a chill over the idea of property ownership. Let me cite some other examples for you in which the government has done this.

The speculation tax is a wealth tax. It’s an asset tax. It’s an attack on private property owners, those who work hard and save and invest in this province.

The employers health tax is a message to all employers in this province: “If you do well, if you’re too successful, if you grow big enough, we’re going to slap you with a big tax.” For one daycare in Kelowna, I might remind the minister, it amounts to $45,000 this year alone. All the parents are going to get an increase in fees this year that I hope the minister will approve.

The NDP is sending a message to free-enterprisers: “You’re making a mistake if you invest in this province.” The hostile takeover of private contractors in the health care field, assuming 4,000 workers into the public system, making them a part of government and severely harming all sorts of private groups in the province who do great work — often they’re volunteer groups — is another example of the nanny state taking over what is now well done by private enterprise.

A literal example of the nanny state is the government’s policy on child care. During the estimates a couple of weeks ago, I gave the minister yet another opportunity….

Deputy Speaker: Member, please refer to Bill 14.

L. Throness: Okay, thank you, Madam Speaker.

I’ll just continue on to conclude my speech. The government is talking about taxation, about all sorts of different measures. It’s building a wall that will bring a chill over investment in this province. This bill is just another way that it’s going to do this. It’s going to increase uncertainty for property owners. It’s going to discourage investment. Certainly, we support the protection of heritage, but we don’t expect the government’s powers in the way I have described.

I will, with my caucus, vote against this bill.

D. Clovechok: It’s always a pleasure and an honour to stand here and speak on behalf of the hard-working and fun-loving people of Columbia River–Revelstoke. It’s an honour today, too, to rise and speak to the genesis of Bill 14, the Heritage Conservation Amendment Act.

It’s my belief that every person in this House, every person in my riding, agrees that it’s important to preserve the past, to celebrate it and to learn from it. What seems like a lifetime ago, I was a history teacher. I’m a passionate believer in the preservation of our past and our heritage, which helps guarantee our future. I believe that the Minister of Environment had similar thoughts earlier on, this afternoon. It represents a glimpse of who we are and how we got to where we are. As mentioned, I think it gives us a glimpse into what, potentially, could be our future as well.

[4:25 p.m.]

I think it’s incredibly critical for the entire province, for our country and for our communities to support concepts like this bill. At the conceptual level, I stand here supportive of this concept, but the concept has got to get a little more meat on the bone, and I’m going to talk a little bit more about that. As co-critic for Tourism, Arts and Culture, the notion of preserving heritage rings so true with me. When you look at this province and the culture, whether it’s First Nations culture or whether it’s Chinese culture that helped build the railway, so many different cultures make up the mosaic that we call British Columbia.

Today not necessarily in the House but throughout this building, you could see the multitude of tourists walking through this Legislature, enjoying the history, enjoying the pictures, enjoying the culture that this building brings. They’re taking in that history, and I understand that it is our duty to protect it. It’s our duty to protect culture, not only from that perspective but also around First Nations culture. We’re going to talk a little bit about that as well.

One of the things that concerns me about this bill is that it begs the question: at what cost does this come? That seems to be a standard that we’ve seen through other legislation in this House, which tends to increase the control of government — the state, if you will — and reduce private rights. That, for me, is a concern.

I feel it’s, unfortunately, important to point out hypocrisy when I see it, and there’s some here in this bill. When the government was on this side of the House, when they were opposition members, they were very vocal and passionate about what they needed to do in terms of protecting sites and artifacts.

I’ve gone through the Hansard records to look at this. They were on fire. They were passionate about it. They were on fire. They called for the establishment, which I think was a great idea, of a First Nations heritage protection program that would help fund local governments to help them protect sacred sites in their communities. As the Minister of Environment who spoke previously on this issue said: “We have put words on paper.” But I guess the question I would have for that member is: where are the words? Why I say that is that the idea simply didn’t make it into the legislation in front of us today. I’m wondering why that is.

Back when they sat on this side of the House, the members across from me here called for changes in legislation so that First Nations burial sites would be protected in the same way as any cemetery in B.C. — and a ban on building. A solid idea. I so appreciated the thoughts of the member of Saanich North in his dialogue around the disturbances of resting places around Indigenous people and sites associated with our archeology. It’s important that that’s there, but it’s not in this bill, and I’m wondering why that is. Now they’re in government, and they’ve either failed to act or chosen not to act and left the ban out of this bill. That’s another question that I’m going to hopefully find answers to.

In opposition, when they were here, the NDP wanted the government to purchase private property to halt development near a First Nations archaeological site. Good idea, but it’s not here. I’m wondering why that is. The legislation we are debating today offers no plans or mechanisms for the province to step in and compensate private owners, landowners, if they’re forced to sell their property after the discovery of a heritage site or an object on their property. This failure to deliver on their own demands is merely, in my humble opinion, the first failure in this bill.

This bill also fails insofar as it’s the erosion of any sense of balance when it comes to protections, while layering new costs — potentially, steep — onto the private landowners. My colleague that spoke prior to me here had the same notion: it’s not fair for private landowners to incur those costs when they didn’t know the situation was there when they brought the property. The legislation further downloads the cost of site investigations and archeological studies onto unsuspecting property owners, as I mentioned.

[4:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Again — and, unfortunately, not to my surprise — the NDP seemed to say in this bill that private property rights are an afterthought in their policies. First, when you look at the ALR legislation, they’re not people. They cannot advocate for themselves on their land if they choose to make changes to it. I can go on and on about Bill 15, and we will. But lo and behold, here we are with this bill, and I agree that it seems to be the same kind of a concept. The NDP is centralizing decisions to Victoria and reducing the individual’s ability to carry on and create a better life for their families.

Just last weekend I was at a function in my riding, and one of the seniors came up to me. We were talking about the things that are going on in the province — the multitudes of new taxes and all of what he called the draconian approaches to governance. He called it the B.C. people’s republic or republic of British Columbia — the people’s republic of B.C. That seems where this seems to be going with this top-down approach to decision-making.

Most farmers and owners are not in the same game to misuse the land or scoff at the province’s heritage. That’s not what they do. That’s not what they care about. As a matter of fact, the ranchers that I know of in the Kootenays…. When they find artifacts on their property or find something cultural, they certainly let people know that it’s there. But with this bill, they seem to be making it more time-consuming and more costly for private land owners, and that’s a big concern as well.

I think, sadly, this bill seems to be like much of this government’s legislation that we’ve seen over the last few months. It’s based on the belief that people will just have to have this blind faith. “Just trust us” — this blind faith — “in what we’re doing, and we’ll fill in the details afterwards.” But British Columbians are not buying into that. When it comes to this bill, I would ask where the consultation around this would have been. It seems to be edict after edict.

The NDP seem to be the epitome of government that knows best for British Columbians. I think my colleague called it the nanny state, which I think applies very, very well. Or at least they think they do. I ask the same question as I did for Bill 15: how does a bureaucrat in Victoria know more about a family’s small farm than the owners themselves or the surrounding community or what is in that community or what is on that land that they occupy?

On top of this, we see more NDP legislation that is ripe with ideas, but it does seem to lack substance that will help people understand how this is all going to work. So again, concept is good. Delivery, substance — nonexistent. Maybe call it a shell legislation. Well, that’s up for debate, but there doesn’t seem to be a lot in it. So much of it is going to be revealed at a later date and developed behind closed doors. I have a big problem with that. The transparency doesn’t seem to be there.

It’s critical to have certainty in dealing with issues like land and heritage values. It’s incredibly important, but the only thing that’s certain, it seems, about this bill so far is that it’s going to cost landowners money if they find something or someone finds something on their land, and we’ll talk about that a little bit more in a second.

Too many aspects of this bill, including how to define classes of properties, persons, sites, objects, circumstances or areas, classes of heritage properties and more, are left undefined. You would think that in such a critically important piece of legislation those things would be there. But they’re not. So another question: why is that?

All we seem to get is a promise of regulations to come at a later date, or then we’ll get the details. It’s not acceptable to me. It needs to be spelled out. It needs to be transparent. Of course, those details will be subject to debate in this chamber, and we’re looking forward to that debate. But they won’t face any public consultation at all at first, so that in itself is a problem.

The NDP is basically operating on a special heritage police force, as they’d like us to think that it is. The bill will allow authorized officials — to be defined later, of course — to enter the land if there’s reason to believe that the land or premises have heritage value, or an object in itself.

[4:35 p.m.]

Who’s going to give them that power and that jurisdiction? I guess that would be my question. I guess the question I have is: will these officials be allowed to issue warrants? Will they operate under a court-driven warrant, just like the police would have to, to enter onto that property and seize evidence and seize samples? That’s not in there. What gives them the legal right to do that?

The police can’t, themselves. The RCMP can’t come onto my property without a warrant and search my house. They can’t do it. Will that be court ordered? If not, it’s ridiculous. It’s just ridiculous if that’s allowed to happen.

Changes to this legislation are going to be downloaded on to unsuspecting landowners, and that, in itself, is ridiculous as well. I think the public deserves better. It deserves to know how government plans to carry out these changes. Those aren’t big asks. Those are reasonable asks.

It’s a top-down approach, again, and it’s going to have an incredibly intrusive effect on private landowners. Again, I think that when people look at this bill…. You’re a farmer, you’re a landowner and you see the storm trooper police coming in to my property. It’s going to promote the shoot, shovel and shut up concept. That’s not what we need in this province. We want people to step up. We want people to say: “I found something that’s significant and of cultural value here, and I need somebody to come and look at this, but I know that the storm troopers aren’t coming in and confiscating my property and doing that.”

Again, one of the big issues for me is: where will that authority come, and will it be under the auspices of a court-ordered warrant to have them search my property? This whole concept of centralized state, again, I think is a big concern, in which the minister himself will be given additional power. Where will that power be mitigated, or how will that power be judged? Where is the accountability to that power?

Under this bill, landowners and project proponents who are working under an approved permit will be stopped dead in their tracks — immediately stopped. Again, if some­one finds something of cultural value and they know that the heritage police are going to come in and shut them down, that’s going to promote not making the phone call to who they should be making the phone call to. That’s going to promote the shoot, shovel and shut up process, and that’s not what we want. That’s what needs to be ad­dressed still in this bill.

The cost to families in moneys and time can effectively crush the vision that they had for their land, unknowing that there were artifacts or whatever found on that land.

Again, I just really want to underscore the importance that I feel, even around First Nations values and culture. Those things need to be protected at all costs, but it needs to be spelled out. There needs to be a balance, and it seems that this bill right now doesn’t have that balance.

When you think about what the government is doing around the speculation tax, the Agricultural Land Commission and the ALR changes that they’re doing right now, the employers health tax — the list goes on and on and on — one wouldn’t be far from the mark to suspect the government is leading an attack on the nature of private property itself. That is a big concern for me.

I do want to go on the record by saying that this member…. I know I can speak for all of my colleagues, who are passionate as well about the protection of heritage values and sites and culture within this province. It’s incredibly important to us as well. That’s why this bill’s got to be done right. I’m not objecting to the concept, again. It’s just kind of like a shoot from the hip right now. Maybe we can be able to fill in the blanks as we go along, but right now, this dog just doesn’t hunt for me.

All of us believe in the preservation of B.C.’s cultural values and those of First Nations. My colleague before, unfortunately, the member for Kootenay West, said that for 16 years the B.C. Liberals, when we were in government, didn’t do anything. Well, Grace Island is a good example of that. I was disappointed to hear that. I was disappointed to hear that.

Anyways, this legislation fails to keep up with what I believe is the proper and right process in delivering these changes. I really look forward to the committee stage of this bill so that we can dig more into it, so that we can have those conversations with the minister and everyone else involved in this.

[4:40 p.m.]

I sincerely hope that there are some outcomes that can be positive here. But as it stands right now, what’s been put in front of us, it’s certainly something…. As I say, at this very moment in time, as this bill exists, I just can’t support the bill as it stands, but I certainly can support the concept, and I look forward to that moving forward.

E. Ross: It’s a pleasure to get up and speak to Bill 14, the Heritage Conservation Amendment Act, 2019.

It’s amazing how much my previous lives are applicable to what happens down here in Victoria, especially resource development and associated issues like heritage conservation. Not only did it come up in my previous council job; it also came up in previous jobs that had nothing to do with politics or government. It’s always been a concern to me. It’s close to me, not just because it talks about artifacts yet to be found. It also reminds me of the incredible amount of artifacts that are already gone, not just because of exploration or industrial development but also because of looting or intimidation.

I’ll give you an example. In terms of my community, the Haisla community, the largest disposition of artifacts was not taken away by government or industry. It was actually taken away by the church. This is well documented.

The church actually scared our people to death by saying that artifacts were instruments of the devil and that we would not get into heaven unless we got rid of them. The result was a huge bonfire in our village to burn all of our centuries-old regalia, carvings and even our tools. This was, of course, after the minister took the choice pieces for himself. It’s now one of the most popular collections on display. Other pieces got scattered in collections in museums all around the world.

In terms of the artifacts found, bought and stolen, these are just some of the stories that I heard from my father, from the elders. Later on, when I chaired treaty negotiations on behalf of my band, I also discovered a lot of this issue through our archives. But to be clear, I don’t hold a grudge. I don’t think our people hold a grudge. That was history. It’s archived. It’s acknowledged. We’ve got to move on. Moving on in the 21st century, in a new context, means different issues for us. We do value artifacts that are found, without a doubt. We always have.

I also came across this issue when I was skippering a water taxi for 11 years, because we were the local spill response representatives. The instructor who came in for one day gave us a very compressed explanation of the Heritage Conservation Act, the importance of it and the cost. That was the first time I ever heard about a Heritage Conservation Act, because up to then, when artifacts were found, it was more of a curiosity. Things were actually just dropped off at our band council office, even if the artifacts weren’t originating from our people.

As chief and council, like everything else for that matter, it seemed easier to just talk to industry or private landowners about what to do when we find artifacts, especially when you consider that we were one of the many bands across B.C. that signed a forest and range agreement ten years ago that allowed us, as a band council, to start harvesting and selling logs on international markets just like other producers.

When a band like ours gets involved in an economic activity like this, we find that we are actually under the auspices of the legislation ourselves, including the Heritage Conservation Amendment Act. Even ourselves, as loggers and business people…. We find artifacts, but we find them as business people. We never dug into the Heritage Conservation Act, when we found artifacts, to figure out what we should do. It just made more common sense to go back to our council table, talk to our people and say that we found artifacts and that this is the plan forward.

It was here where we really started to realize how much legislation and regulation costs in terms of trying to produce a healthy profit margin. That’s initially what we were trying to do in the logging industry. We were trying to produce funds so we could actually create programs.

[4:45 p.m.]

Because our band fought so hard for environmental stan­dards over the years, we never anticipated those stan­dards being thrown back at us, even if they were just voluntary standards that were in addition to the regulatory scheme that was put in place by B.C. It was here that we had to concede that the amount of conditions that we placed on the forest industry previously had to be lived up to ourselves, regardless of profits or loss.

As a local First Nations government that had no money and was really trying to pursue profits, it was hard going trying to explain to our people why we didn’t make the profits we originally forecast. But we did it. And we did it without legislation. We found it a better vehicle just to talk — talk to industry, talk to our people — and find a solution. Because nobody really is out there to destroy artifacts. Nobody wants to intentionally do that, including industry, including government.

In fact, if anything, when we’re talking about that, we’re talking about, really, a relationship with industry and our people. It’s nice to have the government in the background, just in case, but in a lot of the situations we’ve never needed the legislation or government as a hammer.

We had fallbacks. Just like the provincial government, just like the federal government, we had fallbacks. So if we didn’t make money, we could just list it on the books as a deficit. We didn’t have to recover that money. We didn’t have endless pots of money, but we had safeguards, especially the Canadian government. It’s still a tough learning exercise for us today, in terms of business, that there are no endless pots of money for the business community or even private landowners, for that matter, to rely on.

Now, industry like LNG, Rio Tinto, the forestry industry and other industries that are coming to Kitimat have gone to great lengths to accommodate all of our interests, including employment, including training, including land issues. But heritage conservation is a subject unto its own.

Even our band council is fully aware of what happens when you find something that has heritage value. Even if it’s under Haisla’s projects, it’s a tough topic, because ultimately what you’re talking about is you’re talking about time delays and you’re talking about costs. But governments like the B.C. government, big industry like Rio Tinto, LNG Canada and Chevron, the forestry industry, and even band councils like mine today can absorb that cost, can absorb that time, when we’re talking about finding artifacts.

The citizen, though, or the private landowner, unsuspecting that they purchased a piece of property or even actually lived on a piece of property for years, just doesn’t have that fallback. They don’t have those deep pockets. They don’t have that kind of time, and they definitely don’t have the politics to back them up, not like a First Nation community does.

When you are talking about a private landowner here, who is actually exposing artifacts, they will not be able to afford the expensive, long-drawn-out process it takes to resolve heritage, especially as it’s proposed in this act.

When you’re talking about the act itself, subsection 15.1(2) talks about the ability of the Crown just to go onto a property.

Now, I’m facing an issue in Terrace right now, where the Crown has actually just walked onto a property, had to justify that they could walk onto the property but then found out the justification wasn’t true, so they found a different justification to be there for something not related to finding an artifact. The landowner in question has actually tried to resolve the permitting question the first time around by acknowledging the mistake, by not going through a permit, by not going to specific ministries to get approvals, but is stuck in that limbo jurisdiction between Canada and B.C.

In this case here, I’m surprised to hear that it’s not Canada that is giving this landowner a tough time; it’s actually B.C. Over a fine that’s worth — what? — 250 bucks.

[4:50 p.m.]

Now, this is the problem with government coming down with a heavy hand and saying, “We can walk onto your property at any time” — and just start enforcing an act. Even the definitions here talk about “any reasonable time.” Well, just showing up on a property unannounced is actually quite threatening. It’s intimidating. At the very least, I hope the government considers some type of notification before going on to private property, not just to announce a heritage issue but any type of issue.

Private property owners, just like anybody else, actually take pride in owning property. It’s theirs. I know it’s under the umbrella of B.C., but it’s still theirs. In some cases, it’s been theirs for generation upon generation. So anybody trespassing on their property, even if it’s the Crown, is actually a pretty scary proposition.

Now, it’s a good act. It always has been. But in my case, it’s probably, I’d say, 100 years too late. It can still address a need when we’re talking about future development, but it doesn’t have to be one-sided. We’ve already proved it in Kitimat with the LNG projects. There are two major projects in our territory, and there has been no confrontation. There have been no heavy-handed actions from government.

The First Nation, government and industry have always been able to sit down and talk it out. When the three parties come out with a conclusion to it that, actually, everyone’s afraid of, everybody wins, including B.C. The project gets to proceed.

Now, this is not going to work with a private land owner. By the way, private land owners…. We’re talking about this. We’re also talking about First Nations who are private land owners. My sister owns property in the town of Kitimat. My own daughter owns property. My own band council owns probably half a dozen private properties in Kitimat alone.

This is a new era. Not only are we talking about non–First Nations who are going to have to live with this act; First Nations themselves are going to have to get caught up with this. If it turns into bureaucracy, this is going to make a lot of private land owners angry and resentful. We don’t need this at this point in time. We don’t need this.

Over the years, I’ve actually talked about this subject at the council table. It’s actually a topic in the treaty negotiations. Under the B.C. Treaty Commission, it’s always a topic. The ultimate goal is to get artifacts preserved and reported, but if it penalizes the private land owner, if it actually is not a level playing field for the private land owner, the landowner is not going to report any artifacts.

That is not the solution we want. We want them to report artifacts, but we don’t want to burden them with a lifelong penalty of paying bills, especially if it’s unclear legislation, an unclear process or unclear regulations. That could drag out for years and years and years.

We’ve seen this already. In some cases, some settlements have cost at least $500,000 just in payments alone, not to talk about getting lawyered up. The government can live with this forever. They can do this forever but not the private land owner.

At the very least, I hope the government considers categorizing and making a distinction between the two. Industry and government and band councils can afford the long-drawn-out process and the expensive costs versus the private land owner who just bought a piece of property to start a small business or build a small home or is actually just living in a home that was handed down to them. If we don’t, there’s going to be a lot of resentment.

There are also going to be bankruptcies. People are not going to want to buy those properties. They’re going to be stuck with it, and it’s going to sterilize these lands. If we’re talking about private land owners that want to build houses — I mean, I think we’re trying to address the housing issue — why would we discourage people from building houses? The private citizen, in this respect, has got to be protected, and they’re not being protected if they’re overpowered by legislation and regulation.

[4:55 p.m.]

I’ll close with this. It’s a topic I hear often in this place. I don’t agree with most of what’s said in this House, because I’ve lived and tried to address the topic of reconciliation. Reconciliation is trying to bring two societies back together. It’s not one side winning and the other side continues to lose. That’s not what reconciliation is.

When we’re talking about heavy-handed regulation, there is one part of society that’s going to feel angry. And it’s not promoting reconciliation if we have one party in B.C. that’s angry against another one and if it’s hidden underneath conservation or a regulation coming from the B.C. government.

Ultimately, I think this amendment act could promote reconciliation, one aspect of reconciliation, but not in its current form. Therefore, I cannot support Bill 14, Heritage Conservation Amendment Act, 2019, in its current form.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes the debate.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I thank those who got up to express their views on the second reading of this bill, especially the member for Saanich North and the Islands, who pointed out that these target improvements to administrative and enforcement amendments within the act are needed. As a government, we’re of the opinion that there’s no need to wait for these improvements.

I do recognize the comments he also made in reference to section 4 of the act. We have a pilot project with the Stó:lô that is addressing that section. That’s the kind of work that we need to do more of into the future. As I said, these amendments are targeted improvements — administratively and to enforcement.

A number of comments from the members of the official opposition talked about the importance of preserving the past and protecting First Nation heritage, yet their main criticism seemed to be that we’d be better off not knowing if these sites exist at all.

You can’t speak out of both sides of your mouth, Members. You can’t say: “This is important, but let’s make sure we don’t really know what’s out there.”

There were some other misleading comments around raising false spectres, and that’s typified by the irresponsible, inaccurate and inflammatory language about a heritage police force. I heard that from the member for Nechako Lakes. I heard that from the member from Cariboo. In fact, I heard even worse hyperbole from the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, where he talked about storm trooper police.

Well, words matter, Member. Words matter. Words like that lead to extremism, and we all know where extremism can lead.

I want the member to be sure that he checks his words before he misleads and talks about a special heritage police force and storm trooper police.

Then the comments from the member from Chilliwack giving us a bizarre example of how peaceful things are in the Middle East when it comes to these kinds of situations. What we’re talking about is adopting the same kind of approach that already exists in seven other provinces and in one territory. The sky hasn’t fallen in those jurisdictions, and those are the jurisdictions that have much more relevance to what we’re facing in B.C. than bringing up examples from the Middle East. It’s quite unbelievable.

This is something that hasn’t been addressed in 16 years. We’re catching up, and we’re providing certainty. This legislation, these amendments, if passed, will lead to fewer disruptions. Those disruptions, as we know, lead to increased costs. So this is about providing certainty and decreasing disruptions.

I just want to finish off by talking to people out there who might be listening, for all those concerned about heritage conservation. The member from Chilliwack pointed out, before the members of the official opposition have even had the opportunity to clarify or understand better, that he’s on record as saying the entire caucus will vote against this bill. They haven’t even availed themselves of the opportunity during committee stage for a chance to gather more information and to approach this with open minds.

I want people out there to think about that. That’s the approach of the official opposition. That’s probably why, in 16 years, they never bothered to make these kinds of needed amendments that we’re making in this one.

I look forward to the clause-by-clause section to provide more clarification, even though the members have already said they’re going to vote against this bill, showing a closed mind.

[5:00 p.m.]

With that, I move second reading of this bill.

Second reading of Bill 14 approved on division.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 14, Heritage Conservation Amendment Act, 2019, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 7, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act.

BILL 7 — BUSINESS PRACTICES AND
CONSUMER PROTECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

It is my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 7, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 2019. This bill is intended to strengthen protections and improve affordability for British Columbians who use payday loans and other high-cost credit products and services. It represents additional measures as part of our consumer financial protection action plan.

British Columbians are carrying more household debt than ever before and may be struggling to pay bills or make debt payments. An unexpected expense, such as a broken stove or an emergency car repair or paying for another necessity, can be the financial tipping point for some individuals and families. Some consumers have limited financial options and may turn to alternative credit lenders outside of traditional banks and credit unions to borrow money.

High-cost lenders charge high rates of interest for loans and credit and other fees and charges that could be onerous for consumers trying to make ends meet. Turning to high-cost credit lenders can leave consumers in a financially vulnerable position and put them in an endless cycle of debt payments. We already regulate and license payday lenders. With this bill, we will now regulate and license other alternative high-cost credit grantors.

The high-cost credit-lending industry is continuing to grow and evolve. In addition to payday loans, there are more and more credit products, such as high-cost instalment loans, being offered to consumers by non-traditional lenders. The terms and conditions of some credit agreements can be unfair and even harmful to consumers. Many high-cost credit grantors charge interest rates well above traditional lenders, with some charging rates close to the Criminal Code interest rate.

Under this bill, credit products will be defined as high cost if they exceed a prescribed interest rate threshold. The proposed legislation also provides an ability for the province to set a maximum upper limit on the interest rate that can be charged for a high-cost credit product.

The bill establishes a new regulatory framework with rules and requirements that must be adhered to by high-cost credit lenders. In particular, lenders will be required to be licensed and to disclose and review key terms and conditions in credit agreements with the borrower.

This bill also places restrictions on high-cost credit grantors. Certain business practices will be prohibited, such as enticements to enter a high-credit loan, wage assignment as a condition for a loan, restrictions on the use of borrower personal information. In addition, consumers will have remedies and safeguards available to them, including cancellation rights and the ability to pay back a loan or line of credit early without fee or penalty.

The requirements in this legislation will improve transparency and accountability and provide consumers with complete and clear disclosure about their financial obligations and costs before they sign a credit agreement. Finally, licensed payday lenders and other high-cost credit grantors will be required to help to pay for consumer financial education and enforcement through a new consumer financial education fund and levy.

[5:05 p.m.]

This bill also establishes a range of offences and administrative penalties for any contraventions under the act. Consumer Protection B.C. will be responsible for the licensing and enforcement of the act and will administer the new fund.

The bill also makes amendments to strengthen payday lending rules, including prohibiting the sale of insurance on a payday loan. As well, a small number of housekeeping amendments will clean up and update outdated provisions in the act.

In summary, this bill aims to make life more affordable for British Columbians who turn to alternative, high-cost credit lenders, and it will increase safeguards protecting consumers from potentially harmful and predatory business practices. The framework builds on existing laws that regulate other high-cost financial services, such as payday loans and cheque cashing services, already made under our consumer financial protection plan.

M. Morris: I certainly appreciate the bill that’s been brought forward here. Anything that we can do to help the vulnerable people out there that have taken advantage of this program, the consumer loans or payday loans, over the years that we have seen in the province here — millions of dollars at stake. I’ve seen individuals that get entrenched into the behaviour of taking these payday loans. They pay them back, and the next day they’ll take out another loan. They get stuck in this rut that they can’t seem to get out of.

I know when we were in government, we lowered the rate a little bit to make it a little bit easier for these individuals. I see the balance that the minister is talking about here and wanting to bring back to these stakeholders that take advantage of this. The balance that we’re trying to achieve, or government is trying to achieve here, is pretty susceptible to abuse by some payday lenders that we have out there. So we have to be very careful.

In 2016, when we looked at the legislation, there were about 160,000 people in British Columbia that took advantage of payday loans in the province here. By lowering the rate to 17 percent, we were cognizant of the fact that if we lowered it too much, there was a possibility that it would increase the amount of black market activity in the payday loan market. We wanted to stay away from that. I’m curious to see…. Perhaps we’ll pop the hood open on this during the committee stage to get a closer look at it, but that was one of my concerns when I read this bill.

There are a number of people out there that, like I said, require this — 160,000 people in 2016. Maybe there are more today. By lowering the rate too low, what we have is there’s a significant number of these loans that are never paid back, and the lenders are left incorporating this as a cost of doing their business. So if we lower the percentage rate lower, as we see in this legislation, are we costing the lenders, that business, more money at the end of the day?

I see there’s another added cost to doing business here. The consumer financial education fund is something that this bill brings into being. Again, I agree with the premise of this as brought in, but it’s an added cost to the industry. The industry is going to fund this, so it affects their bottom line as well.

We need to be wary of these added costs that this industry is going to bear and wary of where are these people…. If we see more people retracting from this industry and we see less opportunity available, are we going to see more of the black market folks taking advantage of the vulnerable people that we have out there and providing them money at enormous interest rates and with some consequences added to that as well?

[5:10 p.m.]

I’m glad to see that the minister is adding more things to the bill itself so that we see other…. The minister talked about the loans for vehicles, some of other monthly payments that these individuals will be burdened with by taking out these loans that will be included under this.

I see that the bill also addresses incentives that if somebody might offer somebody a free iPad or some free device for taking a loan out through their particular company, that’ll be prohibited. Another good aspect of this is the fact that all of the people involved in this business will be required to be licensed by the province under consumer protection here. That’ll give us an opportunity to follow through and make sure that these businesses are legitimate, to make sure that they meet the prerequisites that government has put in place for them at the end of the day.

I looked at the rates across Canada. I see Alberta and Ontario are both sitting at about the same level of interest rates that we have here, that are proposed in British Columbia. But I’d like to dig in a little bit deeper to see whether those two jurisdictions have seen an increase in more black-market activity — perhaps a decrease in the amount of payday loans that have been legitimately taken out and an increase in the amount of black-market activity that we see out there that maybe some of the police departments are getting more involved in, from an enforcement perspective, at the end of the day.

That’s what this is all about: making some of these vulnerable folks avail themselves to legitimate markets rather than black-market activities, where they’re susceptible to violence, to intimidation. They’re susceptible to ruining their life as they’re trying to get their life together again and get out of poverty or get out of a situation that they might have found themselves in, and their only opportunity is to borrow money from these high-interest sources. At the end of the day, they’re no further ahead, so that’s something that we really have to be careful for.

Again, like I said, I look forward to getting some more fulsome answers at the committee stage — tally up the added costs to this program through this legislation. I want to hear back on what some of the industry themselves have to say, some of their concerns they might have, over this legislation. I know that when we met with some of them before, when we introduced the changes back in 2016-2017, we did hear some concern from them about the high cost of doing business and the amount of defaults that they had with respect to the loans that were out there. We have to be aware of that.

Again, it’s something I support. I see the balance that the minister and government are trying to bring to this. We’ll pop the hood open during the committee stage and have a real in-depth look at this, but from my perspective here, this is something that we can support.

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise on Bill 7, around the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act. On balance, as my colleague before me said, there’s lots to be supported in this bill in terms of the overall intent and trying to make sure that we are looking out for people as they hit on hard times and start scrambling and trying to figure out how to pull themselves out of an unexpected circumstance.

There’s certainly, I guess, an understanding as to why the current Solicitor General would have wanted to bring this type of legislation forward. Certainly, he was in government back in the ’90s, so he knows full well what it’s like when we start to see our unemployment rates climb higher and higher and people starting to get more and more desperate, looking for ways to try to cling to their house or their cars or their vehicles, or what have you, and have to start seeking out other remedies to try to tread water.

[5:15 p.m.]

With that as a backdrop, I guess it does make sense that we’d be looking at this coming forward today. As we start to see some economic slowdowns and some economic headwinds coming, you certainly don’t wish this on people and you don’t hope for them to start to struggle. But I think most people out there…. We’re seeing economic forecasts downgrading the growth for British Columbia over the next short while and seeing what will be, undoubtedly, an influx of people starting to look for secondary lenders out there. The timeliness of this is probably fitting, I guess, and perhaps speaks volumes to the confidence the current government has on what’s going to happen in the economy in the not too near future.

To that end, I think consumers definitely do need to have that protection when it comes to these secondary lending opportunities. All too often when people are out there and feel that there’s nowhere else to turn, they do go to the higher interest rate lender. It tends to be an easier place to get a loan, but that’s because of the high risk that the loan comes with. It also comes with that high interest rate that’s attached to it. It’s a high risk and reward on the lender’s part and, obviously, a high-interest payment and a high likelihood of never full repayment from the lender himself or herself.

I can sympathize when people are at that stage where they feel that their only recourse left is to try to exhaust that and try to make it to that one next pay period or two or three down the road and get things paid off.

The transparency in this bill that would be required for people to fully understand what it is and the likelihood of them paying off their loan, I think, is valuable. I think back to years ago when the credit card rules were changed and people started to see that when you make your minimum payment on a credit card, it’s going to take you 36½ years at this current pace to pay off your credit card, and you’re not even maxed out yet.

That type of, I think, education for people is valuable for them, as they are in very desperate straits, and they’re not necessarily thinking things all the way through as to what the long-term ramifications are. I’ve likened this before to, I guess, a lot of government promises — where it’s like the five-buck-down deal, where people feel they’ve bought a stereo for their car for $5, and then the payment bill finally comes.

That’s what we’re seeing, I think, across this province right now. People are starting to see, as we hit April 1, all of the litany of the 19 increased taxes. There’s definitely going to be much more awareness about just how much money is now leaving people’s households to try to tread water where they’re currently at. One missed payment and that fear of what to do with the bank, I think, will really start to weigh heavy on people’s minds.

That’s when they do start to seek out the secondary lenders, when they feel that they don’t want to alert their bank, the more traditional charter bank system, that they’re having troubles because they’re fearful that that means that the bank might start to call their mortgage or call their loans and actually not want to work with them to try to restructure and still to be able to move things forward at a much lower interest rate.

As I say, when you see the economic forecast coming, when you see what the unemployment rates in the province were back when there was a different government in place than the B.C. Liberals, there’s certainly no doubt that this may be a bit of foreshadowing legislation coming forward by a former member of that government.

To that end, I think it’s good that we’re seeing some protections being brought into place for consumers to make sure that they’re fully educated and that they do understand the complexity of what they’re getting into — that there aren’t things like those inducement giveaways because it is, after all, not really a giveaway. It’s a way to try to get you to lock into a much longer-term payment.

With provisions like the early payment without penalty, especially on a very high-interest loan, I think that there’s some sound logic around that, especially with the inevitable and unfortunate — and hopefully — spike that we will probably see with people seeking out ways to refinance and restructure and especially when you see what is happening to people and the loss of equity that they’re seeing in their homes right now.

I have no doubt that as a lot of mortgages start to come due over the next year and a half and people need to go in and start to try to refinance their home, the first question the bank will ask is: “What’s your assessed value at right now?” And the second question they’ll ask is: “What do you think it would sell for on the open market?” When what you think it would sell for is less than the assessed value and it’s less than what you originally signed your mortgage paperwork for three, four or five years previous, it’s going to make it that much harder.

[5:20 p.m.]

You’re going to see people starting to try to seek out very high-interest secondary lenders instead so that they don’t run the risk of losing their home or losing their vehicles, as they try to restructure things through the normal course and flow that is the banking world that we all use in terms of making sure that our mortgages and our homes are functioning and affordable.

Certainly, there are not very many people out there, certainly not at my age, that would not have a mortgage. I know myself I do. I’ve had mortgages pretty much all my adult life. You know, you look forward to that day when you can finally get rid of that mortgage, but life does happen, especially when you have kids and you have extended families, and situations come up, and you try to help people out as best you can and move people along, as family does.

As we see these pressures start to mount for households, certainly, the protections in this bill or the next steps in this bill to expand it away from just the payday loan to the other area of lending, I think, are valuable, as I say.

Not to sound like a broken record, but given the slowdowns we are already seeing in construction and given the slowdowns that we’re seeing in cancelled projects and the erosion of people’s equity in their homes that we’re seeing, there is no doubt that we will see people need to start availing themselves of these types of lending opportunities.

To make sure that they have at least some modicum of protection, I think, is the bare minimum that this government could do, given some of the policy and other situations that they are starting to develop to create the situation that would involve people needing to seek these lenders out.

Again, I agree with my colleague from Prince George that we will have many a question at the committee stage, but at first blush, not only can we understand the logic behind the proposed changes in Bill 7, but also we can understand the need for it, given the policy and the fiscal framework that this government has set this province on and the pressures that the working people in this province are about to experience as we clip into a new fiscal year and all those 19 taxes and fee increases start to get full force. Thank you for this time.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers, the minister to close.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The nice thing about being the minister that closes debate is I get to have the last word and respond to comments.

I know the Lieutenant-Governor is in the House, so in order to ensure ample time to respond to comments made, I think it would be appropriate at this point that we adjourn the debate so that the Lieutenant-Governor may come in and give royal assent to a number of bills, which is anticipated to take place at 5:30. But I know she’s in the precinct now. So with that, I would move adjournment of the debate.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, I’ve been advised that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct, so please remain in your seats.

[5:25 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Acting Clerk:

Protection of Public Participation Act

Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 2019

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2019

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Supply Act, 2018-2019 (Supplementary Estimates)

Supply Act (No. 1), 2019

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty’s loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to these acts.

Hon. J. Austin (Lieutenant-Governor): ÍY SC̸ÁĆEL. ÍY, C̸NES QENOṈE ṮÁ.

I’ve been making an effort to learn a little bit of SENĆOŦEN. I’m sure some of the members can correct me there, but what I attempted to say was: “Good day. It’s good to see you — all of you.” I mean that most sincerely. It gives me such pleasure to have the privilege of coming and thanking you for the exemplary work that you conduct together, all of you, on an ongoing basis. It’s something that I look forward to and enjoy very much.

I want to wish you all the very, very best for the remainder of the session, and I will look forward to seeing you all again very soon indeed. Thank you all so much for your splendid work.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[5:35 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading, Bill 7, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. In section A, it is the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — BUSINESS PRACTICES AND
CONSUMER PROTECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to close debate on Bill 7. I had, in listening to my colleague from Prince George–​Mackenzie, thought that it would be a relatively short closure statement on the bill, because I know his comments, and he clearly had read the bill and understands the intent of the bill.

[5:40 p.m.]

I know, in previous estimates, he and I have discussed many of the problems of people who use alternative financing arrangements — why they do and the challenges they face. Then the member for Kamloops–North Thompson offered some thoughts too, and I appreciate his remarks. But I really, really find it a bit rich — some of the commentary that he espouses as to why this bill was coming forward at this particular point in time.

I need to respond, and I need to respond in a way that shows him the error of his commentary. The reality is that in the province of British Columbia, we have the strongest economy in the country, the lowest unemployment of any province in the country. The economic forecast from every reputable forecaster continues that going out into the foreseeable future.

What’s really interesting, particularly that member who just spoke…. It reminds me of the need, of why we need this legislation. I know the member for Prince George–Mac­kenzie understands the need for this legislation, in his comments, and I look forward to those comments and the questions that he has during committee stage.

Let’s be clear. The people who were reliant on these alternative payday lending arrangements did so because they found themselves in circumstances…. In many cases, they had been put there by that government, by that member when he sat on this side the House for 16 years — when 30,000 forestry employees lost their jobs, when 100 mills were shut down, and they didn’t do a thing. When they did not….

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Tell that to the 30,000 forestry people who lost their jobs. Tell that to the 100 mills that shut down, that were shipped overseas.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The nice thing is, as the minister closing debate, I get last word.

It was really nice listening to the member across the way, but I just want to remind him of some of his record and as to why it’s so important that we have these changes in place.

For more than a decade, social assistance rates were not raised one dollar. The most vulnerable in this province, who did not see an increase in their social assistance rates but saw bus passes clawed back; who saw that, in many cases, they lived in the most expensive city in Canada to try and make ends meet, with a minimum wage that did not rise until literally the very end of their tenure — those are the people who couldn’t go to the banks, who couldn’t go to the credit unions, who found, in many cases, that even the payday loans…. They got themselves trapped into a cycle of debt and more debt and more debt. There were efforts that were in place to address that. That was done by legislation that both sides supported.

The industry managed to figure ways around it, evolved new products, and that’s why this legislation is here. It’s because we want to make sure, as a government, that in terms of good public policy, we are always one step ahead of those who would seek to prey and predate on the most vulnerable in society, whether it is by enticing them into taking out additional loans when a loan is paid off, which is being outlawed; if someone is able or in a position to pay off a loan early that there is no penalty; that people aren’t talked into buying insurance that they do not need; and otherwise getting themselves into that endless and continuing cycle of debt. That’s why this is being done.

[5:45 p.m.]

I know some members on that side of the House get that. It’s unfortunate that others don’t get that, and it’s unfortunate still that others, when they had the chance on this side of the House, didn’t do things like raise the minimum wage, didn’t do things like give an increase in social assistance rates to the most vulnerable in this province, didn’t do one thing to address the highest child poverty rate in this country and failed to put in an anti-poverty plan.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I hear the howls, because truth hurts.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I know that I could go on for quite some time, but I don’t want to, because I have more good news after this piece of legislation, which I look forward to members on the other side supporting.

I think I’ve made my points, and with that, I will now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 7, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 2019, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 11 inti­tuled the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2019.

BILL 11 — CIVIL FORFEITURE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Deputy Speaker: Do you have an opening statement, Minister?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, I do.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I move that the bill be now read a second time.

It is my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 11, the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2019. The proposed legislation strengthens the civil forfeiture office’s ability to identify, target and ultimately forfeit the tools and proceeds of unlawful activity. Drug trafficking, gang activity and the violence that accompanies these illegal activities is fueled by greed and the desire for unearned wealth. Law enforcement agencies work tirelessly to arrest and hold the individuals behind these unlawful acts responsible for the negative impact they have on communities.

Civil forfeiture provides another avenue to assist law enforcement by targeting the tools and profits of organized crime and drug trafficking. It works to disrupt illegal activities and to remove the incentive to commit illegal acts by forfeiting the profits. These ill-gotten gains can then be reinvested in community crime prevention projects across the province. I know that is something that the member for Prince George–Mackenzie and myself have discussed in the past and that we think is a good thing.

To date, over $40 million has been invested in programs to keep youth out of gangs, combat domestic violence and human trafficking, support restorative justice and countless other locally driven efforts to make British Columbians safer in their communities. This bill aims to make the civil forfeiture process more efficient and cost-effective and, in turn, maximize the funds available to invest in community safety programs and initiatives across the province.

This will be accomplished by establishing rebuttal evidentiary presumptions in situations that are clearly associated with organized crime, gang activity or drug trafficking. If the civil forfeiture office provides sufficient evidence to prove the factual situation, the asset in question will be presumed to be an instrument or proceed of unlawful activity. The onus then shifts to the defendant to prove otherwise.

For example, if the civil forfeiture office provides evidence that, let’s say, $100,000 was seized by police from a safe which also contained a kilogram of fentanyl, for example, the cash would be presumed to be proceeds of a crime. The onus would then shift to the defendant to provide evidence to prove that the money was sourced legitimately and not from the sale of dangerous drugs. The whole process is controlled and decided by a judge in order to ensure a fair process.

[5:50 p.m.]

A number of these presumptions have been adopted from other provincial civil forfeiture laws. Others are innovative, made-in-B.C. approaches to deal with dial-a-dope operations and organized crime activity which breeds gang and gun violence in British Columbia.

These presumptions will streamline the forfeiture process involving the following types of assets: $10,000 or more in cash in proximity to illegal drugs or packaged in a manner not consistent with the manner in which banks package funds and a vehicle containing any of the following — illegal drugs for the purposes of sale or equipment used to sell illegal drugs, such as scales or packaging, or a restricted or prohibited firearm or an illegal after-market compartment used to conceal drugs and guns.

These changes also directly target property belonging to members of organized crime groups. Property over $10,000 that belongs to an individual who is a member of an organized crime group will be presumed to be proceeds of crime unless they can provide evidence to the contrary.

Increasingly, police officers’ lives and safety are put at risk by individuals who use their vehicles to dangerously flee when lawfully commanded to stop. Vehicles used in such a reckless manner pose a grave danger to officers and the general public. We are changing the law to make it easier to forfeit these vehicles and improve public safety.

These presumptions are clear examples of the types of unlawful activities the Civil Forfeiture Act is intended to combat. This bill sends a strong message that property that is used to deal illegal drugs, fuel gang violence or endanger the lives of police officers and innocent British Columbians will be forfeited to make B.C. communities safer. The bill also includes measures to ensure that crime does not pay in British Columbia. These changes represent substantial steps to making British Columbia a leader within Canada in the tracing and forfeiture of the proceeds of crime.

International organized crime groups and domestic gangs operating in B.C. generate millions of dollars in illicit wealth from criminal activities that prey on innocent citizens. Human trafficking, prostitution, extortion, fraud and, the most lucrative of these, the illicit drug trade fuel an underground economy based entirely on unlawful activity. The criminals who profit from these enterprises pad their bank accounts and purchase luxury real estate and high-end vehicles.

When the heat from law enforcement goes up, they will often attempt to liquidate their assets and move the money offshore. With today’s modern technology, they can instantaneously transfer their illicit wealth anywhere in the world and out of reach of provincial authorities. This bill provides tools to pre-empt that from happening, ensuring that we can take steps to capture those proceeds and reinvest them in programs to assist those who have been affected by crime. It does so by introducing provisions that will make it easier to identify, trace and forfeit the proceeds of unlawful activity before they disappear.

Prior to commencing a forfeiture application against an account containing suspected proceeds of crime, it is vital for the civil forfeiture office to obtain the following information: basic information about the account, such as the account number and type of account; the names and addresses of the individuals registered on the account so all persons can be properly notified; and whether the account is active or not.

This bill proposes changes that empower the director of civil forfeiture to issue a notice to produce information to financial institutions to obtain this basic information. It also provides the director the authority to send a similar notice to registered interest holders of assets believed to be instruments or proceeds of crime. For example, the director will be able to obtain information regarding a drug dealer’s luxury automobile directly from the company who financed the purchase.

[5:55 p.m.]

It is inevitable that if an individual who had an interest in the suspected proceeds of crime learned that the civil forfeiture office had issued such a notice, they would act quickly to hide the funds. For that reason, the bill provides that reci­pients of the notice are required to keep it confidential.

In order to ensure accountability, the bill provides that having issued the notice, the director of civil forfeiture must either commence a civil forfeiture action against the account or provide written notice to all account holders that the notice was issued.

The bill also contains new provisions that will allow the civil forfeiture office to apply to the B.C. Supreme Court for two types of without-notice orders prior to commencing proceedings: an order for disclosure of documents associated with a suspected proceeds account and an order preserving the account for a period of up to 60 days. If the court issues a document disclosure order, those bank records will allow the civil forfeiture office to analyze the account to determine the extent to which it contains suspected proceeds of crime or where they may have been transferred to.

In order to prevent suspected proceeds from being removed from accounts prior to the filing of a civil forfeiture application, the bill provides the court the authority to issue a limited order for the purpose of preserving the account while the civil forfeiture office takes steps to initiate a forfeiture claim.

Finally, a small number of housekeeping amendments make minor changes to provisions in the act, based on over ten years of operations of the civil forfeiture program.

In summary, the bill aims to strengthen the role civil forfeiture plays in the effort to combat organized crime and gang activity. With these new tools, the civil forfeiture office will be better able to take the profit out of unlawful activity and reinvest it into making B.C. communities safer.

With that, that concludes my opening remarks, and I look forward to further comments from members on this important piece of legislation.

M. Morris: We support the bill. This is music to my ears. I think anything that we can do to take every single nickel that is collected through proceeds of crime, that is initiated through criminal activity…. We have to do everything that we can in order do that.

Now, the good part about this is this was a process that was initiated under the previous government back in 2006. We’ll take full credit for that and initiating that. Of course, this is the first significant amendment to this legislation, and I see a lot of input from the stakeholders, from law enforcement and the other folks out there that have been involved in this process over the years as this legislation has matured. That’s great to see.

In my experience in law enforcement over the years, nothing has changed. Crooks are becoming more devious as we move forward and technology comes about. Criminals will take every opportunity to subvert any kind of a system that government puts in or that law enforcement puts in or that anybody puts in to try and slow them down and stop them. They don’t have a budget like government has, and if they need more money, they just go out and get it from some person or some individual through any kind of a devious means.

The amount of money that we’ve brought in since we initiated this in 2006 is about close to $90 million now, I believe. It might be even higher now, but my calculation when we were in was about $90 million. We’ve given close to $40 million back through crime prevention initiatives and whatnot. We’ve also provided, I believe, about $2 million for victims compensation. As we know, victims suffer immensely as a result of organized crime or criminal activity in the province here.

I like to see the initiatives that we see here. Some of the initiatives, where if the CFO provides evidence that police find $10,000 or more of cash or negotiable instruments in proximity to a controlled substance….

[6:00 p.m.]

I have seen so many times as a police officer where you find a bundle of $10 bills or $20 bills in a vehicle, and people say: “I don’t know where that came from.” They might be involved in drug trafficking. They might be involved in other kinds of criminal activity, but we just can’t pin that bundle of $20 bills to them.

A lot of times, particularly through the old system before we came into the civil forfeiture program, a lot of that money was returned. It used to just drive police officers nuts when they would see things like this happen. And things like this still occur because of the devious nature of criminals taking advantage of a criminal justice system that’s probably not as nimble as it needs to be to keep up with technology, to keep up with the changing environments that we have. We can tie things up for years through a criminal justice prosecution.

Civil forfeiture operates on a different premise, and I like that. We have police officers this day and every day stopping vehicles in British Columbia where there are prohibited or restricted weapons in that vehicle. They seize them because it’s unlawful to have those in your possession at that particular time and place, but there’s nothing further that occurs as a result of that. The fact that now, perhaps we can seize that vehicle that these prohibited firearms are found in I think is an excellent step forward. It gives law enforcement an additional tool, but it also protects a lot of the public. I’ve said this in the House before.

The police, when they’re conducting their undercover operations and they run part 6 wiretaps on telephones and cell phones and they get information that one gang is going to make a hit on another gang member…. There’s that duty to notify the individual that there might be a contract or a hit that’s ordered on the individual. The police will stop a vehicle, and it’s got a handgun, it’s got a sawn-off shotgun, or it’s got some other prohibited weapon in that vehicle. They can seize the car and the weapons and any other cash they might find in that particular vehicle. I think this is an excellent step forward here.

The other part of it is…. I think this legislation ad­dresses it, and we’ll examine it a little bit further at the committee stage.

I’ve seen criminal organizations and criminals that perhaps run an organization in our communities like Prince George or other areas where they understand how the civil procedure works. They will rent a house, and it will be rented from a numbered company, or it will be rented from people that aren’t even in British Columbia. But when you peel back the layers of the onion, you’ll find out that the house is most likely owned by the criminal, but he put it in somebody else’s name, or he arranged to rent it through a numbered company to try and avoid civil forfeiture on properties like this. So I think this will move us in the direction where we can just go and take that house.

A lot of the times, as well, criminals will rent vehicles in order to conduct their criminal activities. We have seen instances where they have formed a vehicle rental company. They will rent from that company, and when the police stop the vehicle, it’s a rental. They return it right back to that company, and nobody is out a nickel. The criminal still proceeds with their criminal activities with their fleet of rental vehicles that they have available to them. Again, this hopefully will move them in the direction where we can start taking some of these vehicles.

Another one, and it’s a very dangerous one that this act, or this bill, provides coverage for, as well, is vehicles that don’t stop for police. The police have a policy. It’s morphed over time into the policy that we have today where we see most police chases stop the minute the police officer suspects there could be a danger to the public. That’s just about every police chase that they initiate.

Now we have criminals that leave the scene of a crime or will flee a police officer because they know the police won’t chase them anymore because of safety reasons. So we’ve got a licence number. Perhaps there’s a helicopter in the sky that’s monitoring the vehicle. We can go and seize that vehicle now as a result of this bill. Again, it’s a step in the right direction.

[6:05 p.m.]

The other part of this…. You know, we hear a lot of rhetoric from opponents to civil forfeiture, civil liberties organizations. I know our Attorney General has made comments in the past that may surface during part of this debate. But we have a very rigorous oversight in the civil forfeiture process. The Supreme Court justice sitting there, hearing the evidence presented…. If anybody has any issue with the way the civil forfeiture officer does his job, they can ask for a judicial review. They can ask that it be brought before a Supreme Court judge.

The law is taken into consideration here. It’s not just merely somebody following through, and they’re going to see something. Everything is premised upon sound legislation like this, at the end of the day, but it’s also premised upon the jurisprudence that’s out there and the oversight provided by many of the judges that we have that hear these kinds of things.

I think the public can take a lot of solace in the fact that there is a rigorous review process for this and oversight for these kinds of programs. I think the criminals better start…. Well, no, don’t worry about it, because we’re going to take every nickel that the criminals have, and we’re going to give it back to the victims. We’re going to give it back to our crime prevention organizations that we have out there, at the end of the day.

Hopefully, we’re going to be able to fund them to a significantly greater degree than we have over the last 16, 17…. When did we bring this in? In 2006, we brought this in. We, being the B.C. Liberal government, brought this in, in 2006, and we brought in close to $90 million.

I think this is good, and we support this legislation. I look forward to some of the commentary from the other members.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill 11, Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2019.

This bill aims to target the proceeds of crime by enhancing the civil forfeiture office’s ability to seize property and assets, and the rationale, of course, for doing this is so that the criminal assets can be seized before they can be actually liquidated or transferred out of province.

This bill is, I would suggest, somewhat controversial. The idea here is that some of the time taken to actually move forward with other civil forfeiture applications meant that some criminals were able to liquidate their assets or move them out of province before they were targeted.

The bill allows the civil forfeiture office to make preliminary orders to preserve the value of property or proceeds linked to unlawful activity; i.e., it’s intended to freeze accounts from being transferred or sold before a court proceeding starts to ensure that the source of any claim actually remains in place before court proceedings have concluded.

Second, this bill also shifts the onus to the defendant to prove that an asset is not an instrument or proceed of unlawful activity. Herein lies some of the controversy. For example, vehicles with a hidden compartment, say a drug hatch, or large amounts of cash near a prescribed substance, say opioids, are now considered proof of unlawful activity.

The civil forfeiture office would still have to provide the court with sufficient evidence to link the asset or proceeds to crime. However, the fact that the burden of proof is now moving to the defendant suggests some concerns from my part, as well as other NGOs and third-party organizations — in particular, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, which we’ll come to shortly.

Third, the bill allows the civil forfeiture office to apply for a court order to compel financial institutions to give limited financial information of a suspect — e.g., a suspect’s bank account number.

The first part of the bill is the most controversial of all of these; the second and third parts, to a lesser extent.

My notes have this initially being brought in, in 2005. It may have actually received royal assent in 2006. The bill was not actually new. It followed other examples that were built and put in place in places like the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia. In fact, British Columbia, in 2005, was the fifth province — following Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta — to bring in a civil forfeiture office.

[6:10 p.m.]

The idea was a way for the province to combat organized crime separate from the criminal law by using civil law processes to go after property or assets that were purchased as a result of unlawful activity. It was a way to increase the province’s jurisdiction into preventing crime. Civil law, crime prevention and public safety all fall within the provincial jurisdiction. Under the Civil Forfeiture Act, cash or property acquired from an unlawful activity was now subject to forfeiture by a civil court order.

Now, herein lies the problem. If we go back in time, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association saw the use of the civil forfeiture proceedings as an abuse of legislation that circumvented due process. To quote the now Attorney General, he said this back in, I believe, 2011: “It is very concerning that they would pursue forfeiture in a situation where they were unable to get a criminal conviction.”

He further said: “It means that even if you win your criminal trial now, you are still not out of the woods. To defend yourself on a civil forfeiture application can cost thousands of dollars.”

He further said, and I believe these words are very salient: “Civil forfeiture was sold to the public as going after gang members, but we are increasingly seeing it go down a slippery slope where it is being used for everything from speeding offences to situations where people haven’t been convicted of any crime at all.”

Those are the sage words of our now Attorney General back in 2011, when he was representing the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. The key words in that were the following: “Civil forfeiture was sold to the public as going after gang members.” That is precisely the way it is being sold now as well. Let us hope that, indeed, it is used wisely to do just that, rather than becoming a means and ways to generate revenue through somewhat untempered application in all sorts of odd conditions.

In 2014, the Globe and Mail published a lengthy report raising questions about the fairness, public interest and transparency of B.C.’s civil forfeiture law. At the time, media reports highlighted problems where innocent people or people with minor criminal activities — speeding offences, for example — got caught up in what appeared to, at times, be an overzealous civil forfeiture office. This is what was being referred to by the B.C.’s Civil Liberties Association.

At this time, the B.C. NDP opposition started to call for a review of the civil forfeiture office. Now, in fact, they have the power do so, but they have chosen not to do so and, instead, brought forward legislation in the absence of such a formal review.

Here are some quotes from former B.C. NDP MLAs while serving in opposition. This is Kathy Corrigan, who’s no longer with us, who served until the last election. In 2014, she said the following: “I think the government has to answer some serious questions about….” She’s still with us, but no longer with us in this chamber here today. This is what she had to say: “I think the government has to answer some serious questions about the scope of the office…. She referred to the office as a ‘cash cow’ and said assigning a budget target it must meet creates a real danger that cases that don’t meet a high standard will be accepted.”

In February of 2014, Robin Austin, the former member from the Skeena area, said this: “I think what we’re concerned about in some instances where people are not charged and convicted — we’re concerned there’s not enough transparency and oversight.”

Wally Oppal, in 2014, the province’s former Attorney General, agreed and suggested that a review of the existing 2005-06 civil forfeiture law was warranted.

At the time — we’re now in 2014 — both the official opposition as well as Mr. Oppal, the province’s former Attorney General, are agreeing that a review was necessary, as was also articulated by the official opposition critic, who suggested that it had been some time since this bill has had some check over from its initial implementation.

In 2016, a B.C. judge ruled that the civil forfeiture office could not seize assets unless they are tied to unlawful activity. Previously the office had been targeting assets purchased with legitimate income if the suspect had engaged in unlawful activity.

[6:15 p.m.]

That ruling was pretty important. Again, it would have suggested that we might have had a reflection upon and a review of what was done prior to introducing this new legislation. This was seen, at the time, as precedent-setting on what the civil forfeiture office could go after. And as I’ve said, there have been no reviews of if the civil forfeiture office is doing its job and if it’s doing so in a manner consistent with its mandate.

I’m quite surprised, in light of the fact that the present government has done so many reviews. In fact, it seems like every time you open the newspaper, the NDP have issued another two or three reviews of something. Yet here we have a piece of legislation which has been in place since 2006 — an important piece of legislation — where the NDP, when in opposition, as well as the former Attorney General called specifically for a review. We’re getting legislation in the absence of said review.

In 2019, we see that new changes are being enhanced in this, but also we’re seeing this legislation being brought in when money laundering is clearly a huge problem in our province. The civil forfeiture office is now actively targeting money-laundering suspects as we speak.

Here are some of the problems with the civil forfeiture legislation as it stands. It incentivizes oddities: 50 to 60 percent of the proceeds of the civil forfeiture office go towards the funding of the office. This creates an incentive. The more successful the civil forfeiture office is, the more money they get and the more money they have to spend on their operations, the more people they hire, the bigger bonuses they can get. The question I have there is: are there targets that the office should be meeting? What determines whether a case is brought forward or not?

Of the $87 million that’s been recovered since 2006, less than $2 million has actually been given to victims of crime, while $37½ million has gone to crime prevention initiatives, whatever they might be. The rest has gone to legal counsel and office operations.

The NDP, for many, many years, called the civil forfeiture office a cash cow, so I’m wondering how they’re viewing this differently now. Hopefully, during committee stage, we’ll get some insight into that. We’d like to look at changing the incentive structure in the future or at least doing a review to make sure that the incentive structure isn’t creating a situation of unfairness, of incentivizing the application of civil forfeiture to cases that may be not so clear-cut.

A second problem is there appears to be very little oversight in the civil forfeiture office. The checks and balances simply are not clear. It’s not clear that the civil forfeiture office is actually deterring crime. We’ve not taken the time to see if the office is meeting its goals or deterring illegal acts and compensating victims accordingly.

This is precisely why we would have expected government to initiate a review, to determine whether the civil forfeiture office is actually doing what it’s supposed to do, meeting targets that it’s supposed to meet and by what metrics it is being judged. We don’t have the benefit of that. We have legislation before us — somewhat controversial legislation — taking the civil forfeiture to a whole new level.

The Globe and Mail has recently raised the issue of civil forfeiture and innocent people being targeted by the offices across Canada and here in B.C. Here are a couple of examples.

Example 1. In 2012, a 74-year-old woman named Ellen New had the charges against her stayed. The charge was for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. Her home was ordered forfeited in 2013. Think about that. In 2012, her charges were stayed, but her home was ordered forfeited in 2013. There’s a problem with the application there.

The second example was in 2007. Police showed up at David Lloydsmith’s house. They entered without a warrant, found a couple of pot plants, and despite no charges being laid, the civil forfeiture office sued to seize his home in 2011, four years after the initial RCMP raid. In 2015, eight years after the initial raid, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that his rights were violated. Again, I can only imagine the undue hardship that poor Mr. Lloydsmith faced over the years of uncertainty as the civil forfeiture office went after his home.

[6:20 p.m.]

In example 3, in 2015, Mumtaz Ladha sued the provincial civil forfeiture office and the RCMP for pushing a false narrative and relentlessly trying to take her home. In this case, the police allegedly ignored witness testimony problems and pushed a false narrative of Ms. Ladha being linked to human trafficking. The CFO — that is, the civil forfeiture office — then tried to take her multi-million-dollar home. The RCMP has since issued an apology, and the claim has been settled.

These examples are important because they demonstrate about the potential problematic nature of the application of the Civil Forfeiture Act. Many of these examples are but needles in a haystack.

The minister has said that some of these problems can be attributed to growing pains and that it’s important that civil forfeiture is used in the spirit it was intended, which is organized crime and gang crime. Again, I come right back to what I outlined early on in this brief speech. According to, in 2011, the now Attorney General: “Civil forfeiture was sold to the public as going after gang members, but we are increasingly seeing it go down a slippery slope where it is being used for everything from speeding offences to situations where people haven’t been convicted of any crime.”

I fear that perhaps while the intentions may be good, we have no control, and there’s no oversight provided us here as to how we might see this forward.

I do note the time, and I move adjournment of the debate and reserve my right to continue the debate at the next sitting of the House that this debate occurs.

A. Weaver moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Tuesday morning.

The House adjourned at 6:22 p.m.