Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 11, continued debate on the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act. In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. When that is finished, we will be calling the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Trade and Technology.

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: I always think of him from Williams Lake. He’s not from Williams Lake any longer, but he’s one of British Columbia’s remarkable ambulance paramedics, a leader in CUPE 873 for a long time, from there. Our friend Richard Vollo is in the gallery, and I ask everyone to make him welcome.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — CIVIL FORFEITURE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place and continue my second reading speech on Bill 11, Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act.

When I left off last week, I’d just completed articulating three specific examples wherein the application of civil forfeiture in the province of British Columbia had led to some issues that require some critical oversight as to how civil forfeiture operates. The first example I raised, just to bring some continuity to the speech, was with respect to a 74-year-old, Ellen New, who had the charges against her stayed. Those were charges for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. But nevertheless, her home was ordered forfeited in 2013.

Another example of inadvertent consequences with respect to the application of civil forfeiture in British Columbia was the example of David Lloydsmith’s house. There, police showed up at his house and entered without a warrant. They found a couple of pot plants, and despite no charges being laid, the civil forfeiture office sued to seize his home in 2011, four years after the initial RCMP raid. In 2015, eight years after the initial raid, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that the rights of Mr. Lloydsmith were, in fact, violated.

The third example I outlined was in the case of Mumtaz Ladha, who sued the provincial civil forfeiture office and the RCMP for pushing a false narrative and relentlessly trying to take her home. In this case, the police allegedly ignored witness testimony problems and pushed a false narrative of Ms. Ladha being linked to human trafficking in British Columbia, so the civil forfeiture office then tried to take her multi-million-dollar home. The RCMP issued an apology, and the claim has been settled.

[2:45 p.m.]

The reason why I outlined these three examples is to provide a cautionary tale as to the application of civil forfeiture in British Columbia. As it stands today, we have some of the strongest laws in the country, and before us, Bill 11 purports to bring forward even stronger laws. While much of this bill is not controversial, certainly aspects of it are, with respect to putting the onus of proof onto the defendant as well as some of the timeliness issues with respect to how fast civil forfeiture can move.

The examples were deeply problematic, because they showed that the scope of the civil forfeiture office is sometimes overreaching in its powers. We don’t know for sure, but I suspect that there are other examples than what we’re hearing about. It may be but a needle in a haystack.

The minister has said that some of these problems can be attributed to growing pains and that it’s important that the civil forfeiture office is used in the spirit it was intended, which is organized crime and gang crime. You’ll get no argument from us here that it is important to ensure that civil forfeiture is used for the purposes that it was introduced for, in particular for organized crime and gang crime.

However, this bill does not seem to do anything to ensure that civil forfeiture is used for organized and gang crimes specifically and not applied in broader cases. In that case, I raise again the issue of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, and the Canadian Constitution Foundation as well. They raised some concerns, I would suggest valid concerns, and the Attorney General, obviously, has spent some time working in the former organization and would recognize that he, too, raised similar concerns when he was there.

I bring these forward not in speaking in opposition against the bill but purely as a cautionary note. We already know we have one of the most aggressive forms of civil forfeiture in the country, and we’re proposing to make it stronger, with increasing powers. Again, I put that in the context of British Columbia has an outrageous money laundering problem, and frankly, we have not yet got to the bottom of it. So I bring these concerns, and I raise them mainly as a cautionary note.

The B.C. Green caucus is supportive of the province taking measures to go after those responsible for money laundering and organized crime. But we need, at the same time, to ensure that innocent British Columbians are not also targeted. We’d recommend that the Auditor General review how the office is operating and if it is achieving its objectives, particularly in light of these increased powers.

I articulated in the previous speech last week a number of calls for review by members in government caucus, as well as external agencies, as to how civil forfeiture is operating. I would hope we’d have an ongoing assessment as to the effectiveness of that office, not with any punitive goal in mind but more to ensure that it’s targeting that which should be targeted, which is organized crime and gang activities.

As I’ve said, we have a couple of concerns in the bill. We look forward to hearing government’s explanations. The most notable will be section 14, where the burden of proof changes. In section 14, if a suspect has an after-market compartment in their vehicle, for example, certain equipment or cash over $10,000, this is now considered to be proof of being an instrument or a proceed of illegal activity.

Heaven forbid that you be a type of person who likes to buy things in cash, and there frankly are people who do that — people from my father’s, my mother’s, my in-law’s generation, where cash is king. The notion of paying with cash is king. It would not be uncommon with some people who hold that belief to actually pay for things in cash, and having $10,000 is not all that much these days, in cash. Certainly, in many cases, it would not be indicative of it being proof that a crime has been committed and this is an instrument of crime. So we express some caution there.

While I personally have never carried around $10,000, I do know people who have carried around $10,000, specifically to pay for cars, where they paid cash for cars, and the car was over $10,000. You might ask the question: “Why are you paying cash?” That’s a legitimate question to ask, but it does happen. Certainly, it was not money that comes from proceeds of crime.

Not only does the burden of proof change. In what was already a regime that simply needed the balance of probability, it also means that the defendant might have to implicate themselves to produce evidence to counter the evidence of the civil forfeiture office. For example, an after-market compartment in a vehicle — that’s like a hidden compartment in a vehicle — might have nothing to do with trafficking drugs. You might have bought a car from somebody who had the compartment. You may not be aware of it. You probably are, but you may not. You may just ignore it — whatever.

[2:50 p.m.]

The reality is that can now be considered as proof of illicit activities, and it’s not clear that, in fact, the burden should have to go onto the owner of the vehicle to prove that the existence of that after-market compartment is proof of illicit activity.

Maybe, for example, there’s somebody who lives in their car. We know this is more and more common. We have students living in their cars. We have senior citizens living in their cars. Maybe in their cars they might want to have a space where they protect their valuables. They have a locked or secret compartment where they put their credit cards, their birth certificate, their driver’s licence, maybe some other valuable goods, some jewelry. That might be out of necessity.

That’s certainly not evidence that the car or anything in the car has been acquired as an instrument or proceed of illegal activity. So I would suggest that we must be cautious in putting the onus of proof on the individual as opposed to the actual accuser. It’s potentially problematic.

We look forward…. I’m sure members opposite will also be exploring this further at committee stage. I would suggest that that is probably the most controversial aspect of this bill.

Of course, there’s also the regulation-making authority. Quite a number of items in this bill…. As is common in all bills that government brings forward, a lot of what will be done is left up to regulation. One, for example, is the ability to prescribe what would be considered a piece of equipment relating to trafficking. What does that mean? Who’s going to make the determination? Cabinet, based on advice, I suppose.

I would have thought that we would have thought this through a little more before bringing it to the floor. Nevertheless, this bill, we believe, is something that is worthy of support, and we look forward to exploring this at committee stage.

To summarize my remarks on this. Clearly, as you will know from question period, we have been raising this issue. We are profoundly troubled about what’s been going on in the issue of money laundering. We are now being labelled a nation of money laundering by U.S. officials. This is not a terribly flattering label to be given. Our caucus is profoundly troubled by this, so we are supportive of the inclusion and addition of more tools to prosecute criminals in British Columbia. We hope that this bill is used accordingly.

While no one should benefit from the proceeds of crime, it’s also important that we are vigilant in protecting the rights of Canadians and the freedoms of Canadians as well. In particular, we must be very wary of the potential abuse of power that this legislation instills upon the civil forfeiture office. You know, they’ve sought to obtain property from innocent British Columbians in the past. We need to ensure that this does not happen moving forward and that British Columbians are protected in the case that inappropriate civil forfeiture attempts are moved forward.

Our caucus has heard from civil rights organizations. We’ve heard from constituents about the concerns with regard to the issues that I’ve raised here in the legislation. The government, when they were in official opposition, also had similar and strong concerns about the civil forfeiture office. Ironically, one might say, we’re now moving to increase its powers.

With that said, though, I suspect the government — now moved from a position of opposition to a position of government — opened the books on the money laundering and realized just how serious this issue is. From the answers we’ve been getting from the Attorney General over the last couple of weeks, we are convinced he’s taking this issue very seriously. We’re convinced that he finds this to be a very troubling issue and that he’s hoping to ensure that more and more tools are brought forward to allow his office and the province of British Columbia to get to the bottom of what’s been going on in money laundering.

It is inappropriate. It is not right. It is something that British Columbians do not support — people using the proceeds of crime to build monster homes, leave that money there and have there be no accountability. So we recognize that, in fact, this bill does potentially give police and others more power to actually go after those who’ve committed criminal activities.

We’ve also heard, as I mentioned, from others about this legislation. We’ve recognized that there is some concern. But we are supportive. We’re going to look forward to exploring this in committee phase, and I look forward to the questions and continued debate from members opposite. We believe that, right as it stands, there is reasonable justification for the changes being made, but we hope to canvass this further at committee stage. I look forward to listening to the further speeches at second reading.

[2:55 p.m.]

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

I’ve reflected over the last couple days about the importance that our constituents have instilled in us to come here and take our roles very seriously. Part of that is the robust debate. Part of that is also to be here for the vote on Bill 11, so I look forward to this vote and other votes to make sure that I’m fulfilling my duty as an elected official for my constituents, to make sure that my vote is counted and registered and not find another reason to not be in the House when Bill 11 comes forward for a vote, because it is an important piece of legislation.

I think it’s incumbent on all of us, on any important piece of legislation, to make sure that you stand by the courage of your convictions, to make sure that you question, absolutely, through committee stage. But then you have to follow through on behalf of your constituents and make sure that you really are standing, literally, in this House and having your voice registered so that your constituents know where you stand on a particular topic.

I do look forward to the continuing debate on this. I look forward to committee stage. More importantly, I know that I — and I think I can safely speak for the rest of my caucus — look forward to the opportunity to actually be able to vote on a piece of legislation and make sure that we are taking that role very seriously.

In terms of the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, it is a piece of legislation that in principle, I think, that many of us can get behind. Certainly, I understand the concept and the principle and have been supportive of the previous legislation, as well, in my former role as a mayor, because it was a tool that, at a local level, you could work on with agencies to try to effect change, to try to bring some resolution to issues going on within your community.

I can totally understand, though, the concerns about the potential of an over reach. As we’ve heard — again, reflecting back on Bill 10, around LNG…. It’s astounding, in this place, how many times one person’s former words and actions can come back to be in totally different form when they’re in government. It was not that long ago, really, that the now Attorney General was the head of the B.C. Civil Liberties union.

My understanding was that the minister at the time when he was the head of the B.C. Civil Liberties union had serious concerns about the existing civil forfeiture legislation. What we see here is the 2.0 version, which actually, as we’ve heard from previous speakers, adds to the powers and the abilities for seizure and action to be taken under civil forfeiture. So it is interesting how people’s opinions and views of the world suddenly change when they have the title “minister,” versus not.

Certainly with this bill, though…. I think communities are screaming out right now — we see that daily on the news, unfortunately — for police to have the ability, for locally elected officials to have that ability to try to manage the problems that they see being created within their communities.

Civil forfeiture is one of those tools where, as long as it’s being implemented properly…. I would note that a great many of these provisions do, thankfully, line up with provisions that we see across the country in other jurisdictions, other provinces, and that’s a good thing. Although none of them have lost in a constitutional challenge at this point, my understanding is that none of them have actually been challenged to that degree yet either. So the jury — pardon the pun — is still maybe out on whether or not these would withstand that ultimate scrutiny.

I think we’ve hit a point with what we see in our streets where we need to take that step. We need to, within a level of reasonableness, take that next step to try to bring other tools to bear, to try to expedite the seizure and to try say to people that do not have the best of intentions in our communities that that’s not acceptable.

In this day and age, when you look at the bar that we as a society set for what we deem to be acceptable societal behaviour — to not put people at risk, to not put your friends and neighbours at risk — it’s a very low bar, frankly. We are, as a collective within this province, saying to people: “If you can meet this standard, we’re pretty easygoing.”

With the civil forfeiture, with these updates, we’re essentially saying that if you can’t even meet that bare minimum of a bar, of a threshold, where you’re not filling secret compartments in your cars with goods and trying to cling to the excuse that you didn’t know the compartment was there because you bought a used car, perhaps you do need to have a little more explaining to the authorities as to how it came to be that you came into possession of that car and how it exactly unfolds.

[3:00 p.m.]

I’m not going to stand here and try to try trials or run off a litany of examples, because there’s a lot of great detail and nuance to all of these in terms what police did or didn’t know in the background, how people maybe were being targeted and looked into.

We heard a concern about people living in their cars. I would suggest that if a person is truly homeless and unfortunately forced to be living in their car, they’re probably not high on the civil forfeiture list for our police agencies to be targeting and going after.

I think with years of experience behind the police agencies, I would trust them enough to see when somebody is truly unfortunately immersed in homelessness and living in their car with a secure compartment with their birth certificate and whatnot locked up in there versus somebody that has a secret compartment that may be full of drugs or illicit cash.

I would trust, and I think most people in this House would trust, that our police agencies would have that basic level of common sense to them as they’re looking into these types of situations and would not really see the value in needing to seize a homeless person’s car that’s doubling as their home. I think that’s a bit of a red herring that we heard from the previous speaker, from Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

Really, when I look at the provisions in this act, you know, I can, again, get behind the concept and get behind why it’s being brought in. We have to continually be looking at ways to be modernizing, especially when it comes to things around policing, especially when it comes to things around tracking or trying to inhibit criminal behaviour, especially around the drug trade. Make no mistake about it.

Those that partake in that side of the world and that side of life certainly are ever changing and ever trying to stay ahead of police agencies and always trying to stay ahead, one step ahead, of not just their own on-the-street-level drug competitors, but they’re always trying to make sure they’re ahead of what agencies are trying to do to restrict their ability to make our neighbourhoods and our communities unsafe.

That’s really at the core of this. I think that’s the spirit and the intent that the Solicitor General has brought this forward in. It’s an attempt on his part to try to modernize and take a next step to revamp rules that people have started to find workarounds on.

The original legislation came in at a time that it was needed, and it worked for a time. It still to some degree works, but it definitely does need to have an update to it and a refresh look to account for things like, when this was first brought in, the idea of an after-market locked hidden compartment for a car that you could easily and readily access.

It was probably not really high on the radar screen. But nowadays it’s much simpler and much easier to access that. So of course we have to start making sure that our legislation keeps up with that.

It’s not much different than when we think of our privacy issues and our privacy concerns and records management or any of that, with the newer devices and the way things flow back and forth. There’s always a look and an updating of those types of procedures and rules and laws, if needed, to make sure that things are operating in a modern fashion as a government.

That makes perfect sense, and it’s totally logical, just like this bill needs to do that. And that’s what it’s doing. Now, again, the Attorney General back in his former life as the Civil Liberties head had serious concerns about the previous legislation, which didn’t reach as far as this legislation. So it’ll be interesting to see how that gets shepherded forward and moved forward, recognizing that this is the Solicitor General’s bill and not the Attorney General’s bill.

But it’s still an underlying piece that I think is a concern out there for some in the community. I think, really, what will put some of those fears at ease is as people see this bill enacted or moving forward and actually actioned and see what circumstances they’re being actioned under and what actually holds up to judicial review, what seizures actually result in an improvement to what’s going on in our communities.

Will we see a reduction in some of this activity? That is certainly the hope and the goal, I think, of this legislation. That’s something I think most members in this House can get behind. Because ultimately, that’s what we’re here to do. We are here to make sure that we are continually looking at ways to modernize and improve public safety within our communities.

[3:05 p.m.]

I can think of no topic that comes up more than public safety when you’re talking with people. First and foremost, people want to feel safe in their community and where they live.

I can tell you, again from personal experience, if this legislation does nothing more than instil confidence in people that they feel like there are some other measures and actions that are making their communities safer, then that’s a step in the right direction. People, ultimately, if they start to feel safer in their community, if they feel like there’s tangible action being taken, if they feel like there’s the proper protections in place for them and that there’s the proper resourcing of agencies in place, frankly, whether one more person has been arrested or taken off the street at that point or not, people actually do feel safer.

It’s no different than feeling safer when you drive by and you see a fire hall somewhat near to your home. It doesn’t mean that they’re coming to your house every week or every day or anywhere in your neighbourhood, but you just feel a little bit safer going to sleep at night, with your kids in the house, that there’s a fire hall down the street.

It’s much the same way with these pieces of legislation. There’s the perception of safety, and there’s the actual enactment of safety. This piece here, I think, does lead us down that road where we actually could see some tangible benefit to our communities in terms of people feeling like people that have found loopholes and ways to work around the rules will now be back under tighter scrutiny, closer scrutiny.

You know, you often hear from people: “Oh, there’s a drug house down my street. Why don’t the police ever do anything about that drug house down my street? How can they not know there’s a drug house down my street? Everyone in the neighbourhood knows there’s a drug house down the street.”

Well, ten times out of ten, the police do know there’s a drug house down the street. Nine times out of ten, in my experience, when you talk with the police…. Although they don’t share operational things with you, again in my former role, they would indicate that they actually had operations going on. Sure enough, usually a lot of the people you saw coming and going would be undercover officers. So they were taking action, but it takes a long time in our legal system to enact and to be able to build the evidentiary proof that you need to be able to shut something down, as that house, which can be a big burden to a neighbourhood.

You jump that forward to that neighbourhood, watching cars come in or out or a house being built, where they’re scratching their heads and wondering how that person that never seems to ever work is suddenly affording not just the fancy car but the fancy house and everything else. They see zero action being taken by the authorities. It starts to lend to that community belief that anything goes, and the government turns a blind eye to it.

With civil forfeiture, that definitely does send a very tangible message to the broader community that government does take these types of situations seriously, that they do recognize that some processes take a very long time and have a very high evidentiary bar to go after. But if we can inflict a little bit of discomfort and unease on the community that is doing these illegal acts, and if we can target and go after some of the illicit money they have made and the illicit investments that they’ve pushed that money into, the community says: “Okay. We’re willing to keep working with you, because we see that you’re tangibly doing something to continue to try to make us a safer neighbourhood, a safer community and a safer province.”

Again, on balance, I think we have to weigh off that there is, unfortunately, always going to be the occasional case of something gone a bit awry with the application of some rules of law. But that happens right now. That happens on all sorts of areas of law that have nothing to do with civil forfeiture.

We don’t turn around and say that we will never investigate or charge people with other crimes because somebody had a mistaken situation happen or there was a massive misunderstanding happen. We try to rectify that. You have the legal system try to learn from that. That’s why we have the judges and the system we have in place, to try to catch those. As unfortunate as it is for that person that goes through that process, fortunately we live in a part of the world where that’s an occasional occurrence, a very rare occurrence, versus the norm.

That’s why I say that with this legislation, although we have lots of questions for committee stage and we still have a few concerns we want to better understand…. Again, it doesn’t mean you’re always opposed to everything in this House when you’re asking questions. To have, sometimes, the pushback when we have the temerity to dare to stand up on behalf of our constituents and the broader community to ask questions…. Sometimes the pushback seems to be: “How dare you even think that that would happen.”

[3:10 p.m.]

The reality is that we need to make sure, when it’s going to become law…. There are certain roads that have been paved with the best of intentions out there, and we need to make sure that this isn’t just a document that’s full of best of intentions.

We need to question and make sure that all of the possible angles and all of the consequences have been thought out, for each section and each clause, so that we, as an opposition, can feel comfortable that the possibility of somebody wrongfully going through this process and seeing a seizure and needing to go through all of those other processes after the fact is as nonexistent as possible. That’s really our role as opposition here.

Again, on principle, certainly I can support the concept of this. I’ve long supported civil forfeiture as a process, a way and a means to move forward, to try to provide that community safety piece. It’s but one aspect of it that we need. But frankly, I’ve talked about how our community needs to see those actions being taken. Our law enforcement officials need to see that this House is taking these issues very seriously as well, because they’re on the front lines day in and day out.

It has to be a little demoralising, sometimes, when they see people walking scot-free when they know in their hearts what that person is doing. They’re not able to actually get it to that level of proof, but they’re able to prove it at another level. It’s not unlike, I guess, when we look at our legal system and burden of proof — if it’s a criminal charge versus if you’re going through a civil process. There’s a much lower bar when you’re going through a civil process already. We already have a tiered approach, even within our legal framework, to make sure that people can advance things in a way that makes sense given the situation.

I think the law enforcement community out there — be it the RCMP or the independent police agencies out there, like the VPD, Delta, Nelson and others — will look at this as a way of this Legislature saying to them: “Yes, we want to keep trying to support you in your fight to keep our streets safe and your fight to make sure that our kids can walk to school and not feel threatened by what may or may not be rolling down the road in a vehicle, in terms of hidden compartments and hidden weapons and the like.” It all, ultimately, stems from the drug trade, and it stems from that flow of money and moving it around.

We need to make sure that we’re taking every action possible. I would prefer to do things like this bill, where we’re pushing the limits of what may be allowable or not, and move forward. I think it’s a calculated pushing of the limits, in this case, in terms of making sure that many, if not all, of the provisions line up with what we’ve seen in other provinces, what other provinces have been using to try to instigate civil forfeiture proceedings. Those seem to have held up to this point, to the degree that someone’s not willing to challenge it on the constitutionality of the seizure.

It doesn’t mean it won’t happen in the future. But it means, at this point…. That would indicate to me that even for people who have been impacted by these changes to legislation in other provinces, their best legal advice has been: “I don’t know that we’d win on a constitutional challenge.” That’s my guess as to what the advice probably is. That’s good to know — that at least, to this point, it’s holding up to a little bit of rigour. It hasn’t been just instantly challenged on day one, like we saw with the recent changes to ICBC.

That was challenged on day one. As soon as those came into effect, the lawyers were in court and filing to try to get a ruling on whether or not those changes are, in fact, allowable under Canadian law. I’m not offering an opinion whether they are or they aren’t. I’m just saying that that just shows you the difference, sometimes, of when a piece of legislation is deemed to be way too much of a reach. You let the courts decide, or people go to the courts instantly to start trying to decide, whether or not it’s too much of a reach.

Another good example would be the proportional representation referendum. That went to an instant challenge as well, and was working its way through the courts while we were in the referendum. That’s another example.

I apologize, I guess, if it sounds like all I’m coming up with are Attorney General overreaches that the community doesn’t seem to be happy with, but maybe that’s why I have a little bit more comfort with this bill, because I’m confident that it won’t see an instant challenge.

[3:15 p.m.]

If this had been brought forward by the Attorney General, based on the track record of his 18 months to this point, I would suspect we might see an instant challenge to the constitutionality of provisions within the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act. But it has, thankfully, not been brought forward by the Attorney General. It’s been brought forward by the Solicitor General, and I’m not aware of any of his work in the last 18 months that was instantly challenged in court, let alone several pieces that have been challenged in court basically the day they get enacted.

With that, I can safely say at this point that I offer support in principle to Bill 11. I definitely do want to listen to the committee stage and hear the explanation, the answering and the logic and making sure that those forward-thinking problems and what-ifs were truly thought through and explored fully with the legal minds within government to make sure that this holds up to the most amount of scrutiny and is the most fair to somebody that really shouldn’t have something like this apply to them but is still strong enough that it will actually capture the people that it’s intending to capture and not have that law of unintended consequence of capturing people that it’s not intended to.

Again, based on the fact that it’s the Solicitor General bringing this forward, and his legislation has not been instantly challenged in the courts the way the Attorney General’s legislation has been getting challenged continually in courts in the last 18 months, I think I can safely say at this point that I can support Bill 11 heading into committee stage. We’ll see what the answers are in committee stage. I thank you for this time on Bill 11.

Hon. J. Sims: It’s my pleasure today to rise in full support of the amendments to the Civil Forfeiture Act, Bill 11, introduced by the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

First of all, I want to start off by commending the minister for the work he has done to address gangs, violence and the drug trade. I think he understands the issues. He knows that if we’re going to get a handle on the prevalence of gun violence and look at the drug trade and gangs, we’ve got to have a multifaceted approach. We’ve got to start with education. We have to have early intervention. We have to have rehabilitation. We have to have enforcement, and then we have to have reintegration and readjustment back into the community.

There is no simple, sweet pill that anybody in this House or outside this House can come up with that will address the issue of gangs and the killings in our streets, as well as the opioid crisis. Yet it’s one that I think both sides of the House can be 100 percent committed to.

We have to address this because it is about our kids. It is about our communities and the focus to build safe communities that are inclusive but, at the same time, to make sure that we have systems in place to support those who are struggling with addictions, to help those who are attracted into gang life to get out. Also, as I said earlier, it’s to provide education that moves into a certain kind of a life. Being enamoured of big cars, big houses and big pieces of jewelry may look attractive at the beginning, but once you’re into that life, getting out isn’t that easy.

Doing some of that work and coming from Surrey-Panorama, one of the best constituencies, as we all will acknowledge…. I’m sure everybody in this room will with me. It’s one of the best constituencies in British Columbia. I am always proud to be their representative here in this House and thank them for their support.

I know that constituents in Surrey-Panorama and Surrey are very, very concerned about the crime in our streets, about the gangs, about the drug wars that go on. Of course, being a mother and a grandmother, I, like many other parents and grandparents, want our streets to be safe.

[3:20 p.m.]

We want them to be safe because all of us, every one of us living in Surrey, North Vancouver, as we heard the other day…. Whether we live in Burnaby, Abbotsford or Vancouver, wherever we live, we want to make sure that our children, our young people, are safe when they go out. Because of that, we as a government are very, very committed to taking a multifaceted approach that takes a look at tackling this social enigma that many agencies are struggling with.

Many parents are saying: “Why is this happening?” We as a government have looked at early intervention, prevention and rehabilitation. As a government, we know that the technologies and the systems we have change constantly. We have to be aware, also, that those engaged in crime, in doing bad things in our communities — whether it’s through drug trade gangs, gun violence or gangs and organized crime — are also changing the way they do business and the way they conduct themselves in our communities. So we have to do everything in our power and use the myriad of tools available to us to stop these networks from forming and to protect our communities.

The civil forfeiture program is just one aspect, one of the tools that we have. I was looking at the figures. Since the civil forfeiture program has been in place, since 2006, $87 million in forfeitures have been confiscated from people. Out of that, $37.5 million went to crime prevention and community safety programs, and $1.63 million has gone to victims compensation. So when we’re looking at, say, civil forfeiture of cars, houses, jewelry and other items that have been gained through crime, what we’re looking at is to make sure that those do not benefit and those are not ignored.

The changes in this legislation, the amendments, are very, very telling. We know that often, when we go through the legislative process, you actually have to prove that these items were gained through illegal activities. Well, the changes to the Civil Forfeiture Act, when passed…. I’m sure, listening to my colleagues across the way and their support, that this legislation will come into effect — these amendments.

This will shift to the defendant, to the person who owns, or is in possession of, a luxury car, a mega-mansion, a luxury home or any of the assets that they have — that that asset is not an instrument or proceed of unlawful activity. That’s an important amendment, because it’s a question I often hear asked. I know we’ve been hearing a lot about money laundering.

I want to take a second now, maybe more than a second, to thank our Attorney General for the amazing work he has done on this file to shine a light on money laundering and on bagfuls of money going into casinos, and being ignored by people who are now sitting on the other side of the House, and the need for us to address these issues: people owning homes, mega-mansions, and maybe not having much of an income.

All of that raises the question: well, where did that money come from? By the way, this is not an attack against people who’ve worked very hard, who add a lot to our economy and who can then make enough money that they can afford to buy a fancy car and live in a big house. We’re not talking about people, British Columbians, who are hard-working and who enjoy those items. We’re talking about people who are using the proceeds of crime or things they’ve got as the result of doing crime.

[3:25 p.m.]

As a result, I am really in full support of this legislation. Any tool that we as a government can put into place that will protect our children, our young people in our communities, is a tool that we need to make sure exists.

I’ve heard from many, many people and even talking to law enforcement at times: “You know what? This young man driving a Hummer works 20 hours a week. Where did that money come from?” Most of us don’t have to think for too long. Yes, in some cases, it might be parents who’ve been very successful in their business and can afford to buy that Hummer for their child. I’m not talking about that particular instance. I’m talking about the kind of assets that are the result of crime and for those to be….

With this piece of legislation, one of the amend­ments will address the impact of instantaneous wealth transfer beyond B.C. borders. This will give the office of the civil forfeiture the ability to dive in and to stop the transfer of mega amounts of money in one way or another. Or the taking of cars, buying of cars, and then transferring them over the border just to escape getting them captured.

This is one thing that I believe: we will have agreement from both sides of the House, even though my colleagues on the other side ignored this issue when they were on this side of the House. I’m talking about the need for us to track money, whether it is through gambling or whether it is through crime, and to make sure that we are using all of the tools that we as a government can provide.

I know my colleagues get upset sometimes when we bring up the fact that for years…. I’m not saying it; independent reports have shone the light, and the media have carried pictures of duffle bags full of money being dumped into casinos. We know that an RCMP warning and a warning from those engaged in the business said, “Don’t increase the limits,” but the limits were increased for reasons that I won’t get into here.

Really, at the end of the day, my colleagues across the way do have to acknowledge that they did drop the ball when it came to addressing moneys that were appearing by bagfuls and by suitcases, whether it was to buy houses or whether it was to clean the money through our casinos.

Also, at this time, I’m so proud of the legislation brought forward by, I would say, one of the best Finance Ministers in the country. She has us in the black and is putting checks and balances in place to make sure that ill-gotten money — whether it is from money laundering through housing or through our casinos, whether it’s money through drug trade, through the gangs…. Our Finance Minister has introduced legislation and put legislation…. We’ll have legislation in place so that we can start tracking the money.

Even through the speculation tax, which…. I know that the other side was worried about the hundreds of hours it was going to take, and, for most people, it only took a few minutes. The importance of us being able to get a handle of the role that money laundering has played in our real estate market as well as in our luxury car market.

Once again, for me, this is about our community. This is where we are in total agreement, on both sides of the House, that we do want to have safe communities. We want to raise our children so that they are safe from engagement in gang activity and safe from the drug trade and the drug wars that exist. It’s because of this that we do have to have a multifaceted approach and have to make sure that those who are the front line….

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

A huge shout-out to our front-line workers in the RCMP as well as those that are not part of…. The rest of our police force, the municipal police forces across this province. A big shout-out to them, because they put their lives in danger almost every single day trying to keep us safe, and they do such an amazing job.

[3:30 p.m.]

It’s because they are doing the very best they can with the tools they have. The more tools we can come up with, the more assistance we can provide to them, the better it gets. One of those assistances….

Our young people and those who are not so young, because we can’t always assume it’s young people that are engaged in things that are bad in our communities…. They don’t benefit from having a luxury car or a bigger house or huge amounts of money in their bank accounts and enjoy a lifestyle that is based on, that is a result of, crime.

It’s because of that I am so, so proud of the work that is being done, not just in one ministry, as I have pointed out — right across ministries. This is the kind of collaboration we need to make sure that our streets are safe. I’m going to invite my colleagues across the way…. So far, in a couple of speeches I’ve heard, they are in favour and in support of this legislation, and I’m hoping they will rise and make sure that we’re providing the tools back into our communities to build safe communities, inclusive communities, and to keep our children, our grandchildren, safe.

I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker. No matter where you live in British Columbia — whether it’s Surrey, Vancouver, Burnaby, Campbell River, Quadra Island, Gabriola Island, Nanaimo, Mission, Maple Ridge — every one of us wants a safe community. Every one of us appreciates the work that is done by our front-line enforcement agencies, by the mental health workers, by those who are working to root out the drug trade, by those who are working to get our kids out of gangs, by those who are working to keep our kids out of gangs and out of criminal activities.

We all, everywhere, right across British Columbia, want to make sure that our communities are safe, and I don’t think any of us, anywhere in B.C., should be thinking: “It can’t happen here.” My experience is, as I’m looking at some of the news from the last week, it can happen anywhere.

Let us, from this House, the people’s House, make sure that we have legislation in place, make sure that we give the tools that are necessary for education, early intervention, rehabilitation, and for enforcement and then rehabilitation back into our communities. Let us all support this legislation and build safer communities for all our children.

D. Clovechok: I certainly appreciate the opportunity, and I will try to keep my comments a little more focused on the actual amendment act itself, rather than the shameless partisan speech that I just heard. Nonetheless, as always, it’s an honour to stand in this House representing the hard-working and life-loving people of Columbia River–Revelstoke.

I also am very pleased to rise today to speak in terms of Bill 11, the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2019. Last week my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie, who had a long and distinguished career as an officer in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, spoke to this act and said it was “music to my ears.” I totally agree.

I’m going to take it another step on behalf of my four RCMP detachments and the incredibly hard-working RCMP members that I find in Kimberley, Invermere, Golden and Revelstoke. This amendment is music to their ears. It’s actually an orchestra, when it comes to putting another tool in their toolbox to fight crime and keep drugs out of the hands of people that shouldn’t have them and take them away from those who wish to sell them.

[3:35 p.m.]

The changes proposed in the legislation aim to strengthen the civil forfeiture program, which has been an effective tool to punish criminals by removing unlawful proceeds of crime. These changes reinforce what I call the teeth of the CFO, which came into law under the leadership of the previous government, brought in, in 2006. Contrary to the last speaker, who said that the previous government did absolutely nothing on any of these files, well, this is true, right here, that in 2006, we brought this to account.

You know, it’s a darn shame it’s always got to go that way with those folks over there. But public safety was done in 2006 at the forefront of the thinking of that, and we’re very pleased that the NDP today have followed our suit after 12 years of this program being in place and are moving this forward. I commend the Solicitor General on that.

We understood the necessity of the program, which is anti-gang, anti-violence and anti–drug trade while also being financially supportive of remediation programs. Where I live, in the Columbia Valley, which is a tiny little place, you’d think that there isn’t a lot of drug activity. Well, if you talk to the RCMP in Kimberley or in Invermere or in Golden or in Revelstoke, it’s unfortunate that the drug trade is alive and well. So this will have a measurable impact in terms of those members’ toolboxes in order to deal with those people who choose to break the law.

What this does is take money out of the hands of criminals and put it back into communities. And it fits into a public safety and crime reduction framework that we all agree with, which is something all members of this House can get behind. That’s why I’m excited for the Solicitor General at this point. The act gives law enforcement another tool, another angle to seek justice. When you think of that and the support it will get for RCMP members not only in my communities but the Vancouver police department, the Nelson police department or Abbotsford, wherever you go, this is another tool that will effectively help them prevent crime and gang proceeds.

The bill contains several proposed amendments that will allow the CFO to expand the ability to target unlawful proceeds. One of those proposed amendments that I support fully is the shift of the burden of proof. In this country, if you’re a law-abiding citizen, you’re innocent before you’re proven guilty, but if you’re going to play on the fields that some of these people play on, you get to be guilty, and you need to prove yourself innocent. The proposed amendment requires the defendant to prove that questionable assets in circumstances are not the proceeds of crime, unlike the program’s current law, which puts the onus on the civil forfeiture office to prove that the assets are the proceeds of crime.

Imagine you’re a young member with the RCMP in the Columbia Valley, and you make a road stop. In the back seat of a rental car, which gangs use more frequently than not — they actually even own the rental companies — you find $20,000 rolled up in a wad in an envelope. The answer that you get from the individual, who is known to police, is: “I don’t know where it came from. It’s somebody else’s money.”

Basically, what this does now is the CFO…. The incum­bency on the individual who has the money now shifts. Instead of the legal system having to prove that they actually own the money, now it’s the defendants who are going to have to prove that they do not own the money. That’s a shift that I think is incredibly important — to prove that it’s not from illegal processes.

This closes certain weak and ineffective legal loopholes like: “I don’t know where that money came from,” “This isn’t my car,” “I didn’t know there was cash in it.” The list of all those excuses goes on and on. How frustrating that must be, and is, when you’re a member and you do a stop and you encounter these kinds of issues. This is, again, really important for police in giving them another tool in their toolbox. So now, as I mentioned, the owner of that car has to prove the legality of the cash, rather than just play dumb and then, eventually, if you can imagine, end up getting it back.

Making criminals prove they are innocent in the light of objectively criminal behaviour is a compelling angle for the CFO to employ. It sends this dark sector of our society the clear message that you will no longer and you can no longer hide behind the law. We’re not only coming for you, but we’re coming for what you own.

In the effort to reduce the common behaviour of criminals off-loading illegal funds, the proposed changes will allow the CFO to access the banking records of potential defendants. It’s inside those banking records that you’ll find the evidence. It’s always, “Follow the evidence,” and most times it leads to those banking records.

[3:40 p.m.]

This is a very good change, especially in light of the large-scale money laundering here in British Columbia. Stopping the potential to transfer the proceeds of crime out of B.C. is a very, very good change. There is no question that there are potential challenges, one being that the government could overstep their power. We heard the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head talk about that. We have a country where we pride ourselves in the rule of law in our court system. So although I’m always supportive of measures that take crime off the streets and put bad guys in jail, we also have to protect our rights.

I’m confident in our court systems. The new provisions actually mirror other jurisdictions in Canada, jurisdictions that have provisions that have not yet been struck down by the constitution and in violation of that constitution. So it’s definitely heading in the right direction as far as that goes, I can say. However, I still worry about those Charter challenges. If deemed that the proposed changes are overreaching and infringe on the personal rights of law-abiding British Columbians, then that needs to be addressed. But again, the courts will take care of that, and it’s yet to be seen.

These concerns, for me, however, are really mitigated by the visible success of the program. To date, it’s my understanding that the forfeitures, since its inception in 2006 by this side of House, have returned around $40 million of money back into the good side of society. These funds, collected through the proceeds of crime, have been given to the hands of victims — returned to the victims of fraud — funded several successful anti-gang campaigns and supported numerous programs aimed at reducing domestic violence.

That’s a good thing, and we’ve got to applaud that. This is a true positive of this program. How do you punish criminals when jail or a criminal charge is not an option? You take away the proceeds of their illegal activities.

We all ask ourselves how fair it is that a drug dealer can bypass a criminal conviction and still keep their ill-gotten gains. Time after time after time, I have sat in those courtrooms with my members, in my detachments, and I have watched those people walk away from those charges and have those things returned to them. How frustrating that must feel. I know how frustrating that is to those members. The answer is: it’s not fair.

People get away with crimes all the time. They skip jail time. They skip — period — and do not face the judgment that they deserve by running to other provinces or to the United States. So if you remove the profit motive of their criminal behaviour, whether it be cash, jewelry, cars, or a house that they have built with the proceeds of crime…. Anything that has been amassed illegally through the pain and suffering of others should not be the property of a criminal, plain and simple.

I want it to be clear that I’m an ardent supporter of personal liberties and the rights bestowed on private citizens, their land and their possessions. All of which, of course, are ingrained in the Canadian constitution. I can also tell you that I feel very different about those individuals that work outside of the constitution and the laws, gathering money, rewards or physical properties that have been obtained illegally. So I applaud the program and the work that’s been done since 2006 and the work that will continue, ongoing.

I really like the new direction; I really do. Bill 11 sends a clear message to the criminal predators who live in the light and the dark of our society. Sometimes when you think of those who break the law and sell drugs, you think of guys with motorcycles and gang patches on. But in many, many cases, they’re in suits and ties in downtown Vancouver or downtown Victoria. Wherever that downtown is, these guys hide behind the light of the day. We’re sending a message through this bill that says: “We’re coming from you in ways you’ve never seen before.”

As such, I support this bill and look forward to more discussion of this bill at committee stage. Overall, I support this in principle. I look forward to the committee stage discussion. I do commend the Solicitor General on bringing this forward and look forward to some healthy discussions and, once it’s hopefully passed, seeing the great effects it will have on our society here in B.C.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s my pleasure and honour to take my place in this debate on Bill 11. It’s an important debate. I can’t say that I can add a lot of new commentary or perspective beyond that offered by members who have spoken, on both sides of this House.

Of course, it’s gratifying to see that there is support for this bill. It is very important, in looking at this bill, to just reflect back a little bit on the changes we’ve seen in British Columbia over the last three or four years, over the last five years, over the last decade, and for many of us, over the lives we knew in British Columbia when we were growing up and when we were young adults to what we’ve seen today.

There was a time when the notion of people being concerned about walking down the street in their communities for fear of being caught in the crossfire of a criminal gun fight just really wasn’t a factor. It was a rare occurrence if it ever happened. It was something we associated with other countries, with other jurisdictions. When it first started to happen in Metro Vancouver, I think, and in other parts of Canada, it seemed to many of us and was treated by the media as a rare occurrence. Now, unfortunately, it’s far from a rare occurrence. It’s far from a rare occurrence at all.

There are many reasons for this. But of course, criminal activity focused on turf wars or vengeance or matters related to crime really is a driver of this indiscriminate violent activity associated with crime. We’ve seen an increase in crime. We’ve seen the devastating impacts of the drug trade in British Columbia, in the Lower Mainland, but in communities all around the province, from the far northeast to the northwest to the southeast to Vancouver Island to Metro Vancouver. We’ve seen young lives devastated. We’ve seen not-so-young lives devastated. We’ve seen families broken apart because criminal activity makes deadly drugs available.

We’ve seen people profit from this. We’ve seen it far too often, whether it’s the ability to launder money without adequate restrictions in place or the ability to hide the profits of crime in property that was beyond the reach of law enforcement authorities or the government. It’s simply an encouragement to people. It’s an incentive. It’s one of the rewards of criminal activity.

The impacts of the ability to money launder has not only impacted families who’ve been devastated by victims of the opioid crisis or other impacts of the drug trade that break up families, that create unsafe communities, that in many ways make our province and our communities less safe places to live. The impacts go beyond that, because when people have been able to launder money or otherwise hide the proceeds of crime, they’ve impacted property prices.

We know that now, and this government has taken long-overdue steps to address that incrementally, along with a number of other measures that are trying to curb the very negative impacts on this province for individuals, for families and also for businesses, when people can’t find or afford places to live.

This amendment to the Civil Forfeiture Act, therefore, takes its place in the toolbox, if you will, of things that are available to us to ensure, not only as the member opposite has said, that people don’t profit from crime, but also to remove one of the incentives that make it easier for people to profit from crime and have negative impacts on the community. We want to do everything we can to undermine the profit motive of that unlawful activity, and one of the ways to do that is to go after the tools and proceeds of that activity.

[3:50 p.m.]

The vast majority of cases are linked to drugs, gangs and organized crime. Civil forfeiture does allow, during a criminal investigation, law enforcement to seize property — whether it’s a vehicle, a sum of cash — using their criminal investigative powers.

It’s also important to note that police can’t begin an investigation with the sole goal of civil forfeiture, but they may also refer assets seized as part of a criminal case to the civil forfeiture office for consideration. The fact that it flows from a criminal investigation is one of the safeguards that answers the concerns of people who are worried about property rights or civil rights. It targets the civil forfeiture proceedings and powers on real criminals and real proceeds of crime.

There are a number of tests that exist before the civil forfeiture offices assess whether to proceed with an action. It’s based on four major criteria: the public interest, the interests of justice, the strength and adequacy of the evidence, and fiscal considerations.

These proposed amendments are timely. They’re timely amendments to a 13-year-old program, a 13-year-old program that can and should be improved to better address the current realities, the changing realities, of gang and organized crime.

There are a number of important features that we should celebrate in this legislation and that bring us all to support it: shifting the onus to the defendant to prove that an asset isn’t a tool or a proceed of crime; addressing the impact of instantaneous wealth transfer beyond B.C. borders; and allowing a director of civil forfeiture to go to court and seek a pre-emptive hold on property before filing a claim, thereby tipping someone off that the office might go after an asset, which then gives the person the opportunity to try to hide the asset.

If these amendments are passed, they, as I said, will shift the onus to the defendant to prove that an asset is not an instrument or a proceed of unlawful activity in cases where the civil forfeiture office provides the court with sufficient evidence that clearly links the asset to organized crime, gang activity or drug trafficking.

Let me just offer a clear and straightforward example. If the civil forfeiture office provides evidence that the police seized $100,000 from a safe that also contained a kilogram of fentanyl, the cash will be presumed to be proceeds of crime. I think most British Columbians would think that’s a pretty reasonable assumption. The onus will then be on the defendant to show that the money came from legitimate sources.

If it came from legitimate sources, it should not be difficult to show that link, because people have records and trails and road maps that show where their money came from. But it is often difficult — even though it seems patently obvious that the money or an investment, whether it be in a vehicle or a house, is a proceed of crime, especially when they’re as closely linked as the example I just gave — to actually demonstrate a causal relationship. However, if the proceeds or the money came from honest activity, it should be possible for the defendant to prove that.

Similar presumptions will apply in cases involving drug traffickers’ vehicles and the property of members of organized crime groups.

Modern technology has changed the ability of all of us to transfer money. It’s no less so — in fact, I would say they’re very skilled at it — for international organized crime groups and domestic gangs that amass wealth from criminal activities. They can easily attempt to liquidate these assets or transfer wealth out of reach of provincial authorities.

Therefore, the amendments will make it easier for the civil forfeiture office to identify, trace and obtain forfeiture of these crime proceeds before they disappear. Of course, when they disappear, the benefit accrues to the perpetrators of the criminal activity. And as I said, we want to provide disincentives to engage in criminal activity, as well as not allowing people to profit from it.

It empowers the office to obtain more basic information from banks and others about those who may possess proceeds of unlawful activity.

These amendments also allow the civil forfeiture office to apply to the B.C. Supreme Court for limited preservation orders before the office commences formal proceedings.

[3:55 p.m.]

This pre-emptive ability is yet another new tool that will help prevent criminals from transferring suspected proceeds of crime out of the reach of the civil forfeiture office before it files an application in court. The proceedings that ultimately will resolve the matter will still proceed, but they’ll proceed with meaning, because the assets have not been transferred out of reach.

Finally, the civil forfeiture process will be more efficient and cost-effective with these measures, in turn maximizing the forfeited funds that will be available to invest in community safety programs, which is where these proceeds are designated.

When people ask about fairness and they question why these amendments would be brought in or liken it to turning away from the presumption of innocence, there are a number of checks and balances in place to ensure fairness. For instance, the program will only accept referrals from law enforcement that are in accordance with its file acceptance policy, which includes the public interest that I previously outlined.

The program will be continuously reviewed, and every contested case goes before the court, which must be satisfied that forfeiture is in the interests of justice. Individuals involved in a civil forfeiture claim have the right to appear before the court and tell their side of the story.

In 2016, a civil forfeiture advisory committee was formed. It’s comprised of senior officials from the two justice ministries, the Solicitor General and the Attorney General, and the mandate includes reviewing and suggesting improvements to civil forfeiture office policies and processes.

In summary, we’re making timely updates to our law in order to better address the current realities of gangs and organized crime that have placed a pall, frankly, over British Columbian communities. We want to curb their ability to hide assets beyond the reach of civil forfeiture. It’s one more tool in the toolbox, as I said, to make British Columbian communities safer in many ways and to do everything we can to curb what has been a rising tide of crime and violence.

The changes are about shifting the onus to the defendant to prove that their asset isn’t a tool or proceed of crime, to address the impact of instantaneous wealth transfer beyond our borders, to allow the director to go to court to seek a pre-emptive hold on property so it can’t be transferred before it can be forfeited and before we file a claim and tip someone off that we’re going after a particular asset that they might otherwise try to hide.

We’ve considered constitutional legal advice in crafting the amendments, what other provinces are doing, plus input from police, the judiciary and other experts in the field. By maintaining the fairness of the process but enhancing its efficiency and its cost-effectiveness in order to achieve its goals and purposes, we’ll maximize the proceeds available to support community safety programs through our annual grants and provide one additional disincentive to crime and one additional ability to make our communities safer.

M. Hunt: You know, the years that I’ve been in this House, I am constantly amazed at how certain members of this House can politicize absolutely anything. I have no intention of doing that on this piece of legislation. This piece of legislation, Bill 11, which is the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2019, has been brought in by the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, and I commend him for doing that.

I know we’re theoretically not supposed to use those kinds of words from this side of the House, but I think it’s appropriate. We need to give credit where credit’s due. The reality is that, obviously, the Minister of Public Safety has been listening to the community.

Certainly, coming from Surrey…. We have some challenges in Surrey, and we’ve been facing those challenges and working on those. This legislation is, again, going to streng­then the whole program that we currently have, here in this province, of civil forfeiture. Hopefully, we see that it has been an effective tool for punishing criminals by removing their unlawful proceeds of crime.

[4:00 p.m.]

As has been mentioned in the House so far, back in 2006, the previous government created the civil forfeiture office to be able to take these proceeds, and this is continuing that by giving more opportunities to that office. I commend, again, the minister for doing this.

We have to look at the challenges in our communities. I remember back last year when a group of people got together in the civic plaza, and it was called Wake Up Surrey. It was people just being fed up with the alleged gang violence that has been going on in our good city. For that matter, it’s actually been over the whole Lower Mainland. Often, Surrey gets unfairly pointed with this one, but it’s throughout the Lower Mainland.

Quite frankly, criminals don’t care where they are. You know, our civil boundaries mean nothing to them, but we have this challenge. We have this challenge going on in community right now. We have this challenge going on in our province right now, and this House needs to be united, working together to see it stop.

This is where the civil forfeiture office has been great, working at anti-gang, anti-violence, anti-drug programs and taking those resources from that criminal element and bringing those into programs within community so that, in fact, we’re taking the money away from the criminals, bringing it back into community.

There are two programs that I just want to highlight while I have the floor today, and that is…. I want to talk about the program that the school district, the city of Surrey, the RCMP have been involved with. It is called…. The short form is the Wrap program or the Wraparound program where we work with young people who are facing challenges or are susceptible to facing those challenges and, in this case, bringing positive male role models into the lives of these young men.

I just want to read the objective of the program into the record. It is to positively attach youth in school to their community and to their home “by building a trusting and positive relationship. Parents, caregivers and/or guardians are included in goal-setting while assisting the program’s objectives in building a positive lifestyle and self-worth for youth.”

This is, ultimately, what we want to build in our community. When we look at those who are susceptible to the gang lifestyle, it’s usually those who are challenged in these areas. I think that that’s one of the great strengths of what we’re trying to do in my city, within the school district, as I said, within parks and rec, with the city, as well as with the RCMP: build those positive supports around those young people who, for various reasons, may be susceptible to being enlisted into criminal activity. But we want to have those supportive programs for them.

It’s not only for those that might have great skill and ability and whatever. But it’s also those who are challenged, for example, with work experience. Those sorts of things. All wrapping around those young people and helping them.

Now, the Wrap program tends to have more young men in it than women. There’s a whole other program that’s called the Girls Group, which is, again, a girls empowerment program that does a similar thing with young women in order to give them positive networks and help them to build positive networks around themselves so that they are not the targets of illegal activity.

Ultimately, that’s the goal of the civil forfeiture office. It’s to be taking those proceeds of crime, putting them back into the community, which again brings me to the proposed amendments that we have before us today. I think it’s a tremendous piece that the minister has done here in shifting the burden of proof on questionable activities in certain circumstances. And, yes, there is a whole list of safeguards there to make sure that this isn’t just happening to anybody willy-nilly, but we’re focused on this, turning it around and saying: “No, they have to prove it didn’t come from crime.”

[4:05 p.m.]

I think that is great. Right now the onus is on the civil forfeiture office to prove that this came from the proceeds of crime. I think this is a tremendous amendment that is before us. We’ve seen this has worked in other jurisdictions and in other situations. I hope that we can see that continue on here, where, ultimately, the criminals have to prove their innocence in light of their objectively criminal behaviour. I think it is great.

Also involved here are proposed changes that allow the civil forfeiture officer to access banking records for potential defendants, instead of having to wait until after the fact and give them the opportunity to get their proceeds of crime out and away so they look like they’re the poor homeless person. Also, to be able to track and freeze assets of potential defendants before the proceeds….

I think this is great, because there’s a very good chance, as we’ve seen…. We’ve certainly seen it talked about here in this House. When we talk about money laundering, we talk about the potential transferring of these out of the jurisdiction of British Columbia, or even out of Canada, for that matter, to be able to get those resources away so that they’re not penalized in the midst of the legal process. I commend, once again, the minister for this.

Now, obviously, we’ve seen success in the program so far. We’ve seen success in the anti-gang programs and campaigns that we’ve seen work in my city. We’ve seen the young people come forward and the lives changed by this, so I am very supportive of what is here. I’m also supportive that in the programs we’re not just focusing on youth, but we’re also focusing, for example, on domestic violence.

There are some ills within our society that need to be addressed. This is one way of being able to finance and support them. I want to add my support to Bill 11 and the amendments that it’s proposing.

N. Simons: I just have a few comments in support of this legislation. Originally, when it was introduced in 2005, I remember giving a speech that questioned some of the powers being given to the authorities to seize property prior to a conviction, and I expressed some concerns around the due process.

There are still concerns, but I think, overall, we’ve seen that this office and the civil forfeiture process has been tested by the courts and has been found to be not only a source of revenue for the province to pay for some very important projects, but that it has, in fact, probably been a deterrent in many cases.

I think the changes that we’re making now strengthen the act. I do note that it is always necessary to have checks and balances and to ensure that there is a fairness associated with the acts of the civil forfeiture office. I support this legislation in particular…. I support in this legislation the provisions that require review of the office of civil forfeiture. I think that’s fundamentally the important part of it — that the program is continuously reviewed and every case actually goes before the court, and the court has to be satisfied that the forfeiture is in the interest of justice.

As long as the provisions that protect civil liberties are there, I think that this can be justified legislation. I’m pleased to see that members from, it seems, all sides of the House are in support of these amendments. I simply state that I am as well.

T. Shypitka: It gives me great pleasure to stand and rise today and speak to Bill 11, the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2019.

Before I start, I have to give a congratulatory message to my wife. It was her birthday yesterday. I want to make it absolutely clear that I’m thinking about her at all times. I appreciate the work that she does and the sacrifices that she makes for me to be here and to represent the great region of Kootenay East.

Interjection.

[4:10 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: The member behind me says it’s too late; I’m already in trouble. Yesterday was the birthday. I sent her flowers. I sent her wildflowers. So everything’s cool.

I rise today, as I mentioned, to speak to Bill 11, Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2019, which I don’t want to beat to death, because I believe that this is something that both sides, or all three sides, are going to agree on. It’s a good bill. It’s a positive bill. It’s a bill moving forward. I think it’s a bipartisan bill.

It does trouble me somewhat when I hear some members…. The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast is obviously an exception. He spoke of its bipartisanship. But there are some members on the other side that try to make this a partisan issue, and it really isn’t. It’s a really good way of retooling the dye, so to speak, and bringing some more teeth to this legislation.

As I mentioned, the changes proposed in this legislation aim to strengthen the civil forfeiture program, which has been a very effective tool in British Columbia to punish criminals by removing unlawful proceeds of crime. It was an act that was brought about in 2006 by the former government, and now we’re growing on that. That’s good work, and that’s what government should be doing.

These changes, as I mentioned, reinforce the teeth at the civil forfeiture office, the CFO, which came into law under the leadership of the previous government, and we’re working on that. I’m happy to see the NDP, the government of the day, picking up the ball here and moving forward.

We understood the necessity of the program when it first came in, in 2006, as anti-gang, anti-violence, anti–drug trade while also being financially supportive of remediation programs.

I’ve got children. I’ve got three of them. One is a grown adult who is 29 and is about to be a father here, in December. I just found out. But I’ve got two younger children. I’ve got a boy that’s ten and a daughter that’s 13.

We’re growing up in a time that we’re seeing increased crime. We see it all over. Some members mentioned the Lower Mainland, but it doesn’t just happen in the Lower Main­land. It happens in communities like Cranbrook, Elkford and Fernie and areas that I represent. It’s disturbing. I mean, we’re seeing a huge opioid crisis right now. It’s being run by drug gangs.

We’re seeing safety issues happening all the time. I mean, on the news today — more drive-by shootings. These are innocent people being caught up in the acts of crimes. To take some of these instruments of crime away from these perpetrators, some of these criminals, is absolutely essential to mitigate the issues of crime. It takes the money out of the hands of the criminals and puts it back in the communities, which is something all members of this House can applaud.

This bill contains several proposed amendments that will allow the civil forfeiture office to expand its ability to target unlawful proceeds. One of those proposed amendments shifts the burden onto the defendant to prove that questionable assets in certain circumstances are not the proceeds of crime, unlike the program’s current law that puts the onus on the civil forfeiture office to prove the assets are the proceeds of crime.

I look at an example of perhaps a guy driving down to a school yard in a pimped-out car, with rolls of twenties in the glovebox, and he gets busted for perhaps selling drugs to a school child. Now we’ll have that ability to take that car, take that money and put it back to the community in a positive way. Shifting that burden of onus onto the perpetrator instead of the CFO is, in my opinion, a good tool to have.

Now, we need to look at some nuances to that. If the perpetrator is charged and is deemed innocent, how do we approach that forfeiture of those assets that were proven to be from unlawful proceeds? We’ll look at that in committee stage. We’ll look at those nuances in this bill, and I’m happy to do so. Making criminals prove they are innocent in light of objectively criminal behaviour is a compelling angle for the CFO to employ.

In the efforts to reduce the common behaviour of criminals offloading illegal funds, the proposed changes will allow the CFO to access the banking records of potential defendants.

[4:15 p.m.]

So no more hiding the cash in these big bank accounts. The CFO will have that ability now to look at those bank records and to seize those assets, to make sure, essentially, that crime doesn’t continue — or at least mitigate it to some degree. I’m looking forward to that piece of the legislation as well.

Also, giving some teeth to the ability to track and freeze assets of potential defendants before initiating proceedings — this could be assets being transferred overseas, out of country, out of province — is something we should be looking at. And we are, with this bill. This is a good change, especially in light of the large-scale money laundering that we’re seeing and the potential to transfer the proceeds of crimes out of B.C., as I mentioned.

I worry about, once again, the Charter challenges if it is deemed that the proposed changes are overreaching in any way and infringe on the personal rights of law-abiding British Columbians. We don’t want to get the cart in front of the horse here too much, so that we’re going after the criminals and we’re catching a lot of innocent British Columbians in the process. We want to make sure that this bill is looked at and run through with a fine-tooth comb so that we’re not implicating innocent British Columbians.

Some of these concerns are mitigated by the visible success of the program so far. It has returned the proceeds of crime into the hands of victims. That’s been a positive. There are a lot of people that have suffered horrendous repercussions from acts of crime. Like I said earlier, in drive-by shootings, innocent people lose their lives every day. The opioid crisis takes innocent people every day — all at the hands of crime and criminals. To return those proceeds back to the communities and back to those people that suffered horrendous consequences is the least that we can do.

As I said, I don’t want to beat this to death. I think this is something we can all wrap our arms around. I look forward to addressing more details in the committee stage. I strongly support Bill 11.

R. Coleman: I’m honoured to stand and talk with regard to Bill 11 today. I wanted to go back and have a little walk down memory lane as I talk about this particular piece of legislation. I was there at the beginning of it, back in ’05-06, when it was brought forward, and again when it was amended in 2011. Between ’05-06 and 2011, there were 250 successful cases, which brought back $17 million to the government from the proceeds of crime.

This is about a tool, a tool for police and for communities to protect themselves against illegal activity. These tools have a fairly interesting history over time. I joined the RCMP in early 1973, when most of you probably weren’t even out of preschool. Back then, in that time, one of the great things about being a police officer, for me, was I had the same oath of secrecy as my father did.

My father was the head of special investigations for Revenue Canada in the interior of British Columbia. Dad was brilliant with numbers, to the point where you could actually put a binder together, or a set of binders, of a significant crime that took place relative to tax fraud and take a single cheque out of the middle of that binder, and giving evidence, he could then, for the next 45 minutes, explain to you the trail, going forward and backward, of that singular cheque without looking at a note.

I tell you that because one of the times I was sitting down with my dad, I said: “Where do you get most of your cases with regard to major tax fraud or investigations that take you down a road to do a tax fraud investigation and seize assets?” The interesting answer was twofold. A lot of it came in from other people, as it does today with Revenue Canada, where somebody complains about what they think is questionable activity in and around taxes. The other piece was mainly from the drug squads.

What happened back in those days was that the police had no power to deal with certain things in regards to crime. They could actually make a seizure of drugs and some money on a drug bust. That’s where they could go, as far as anything else. But they did have the ability to phone Revenue Canada and say, “We have some interesting activities around a vehicle here that we are not so sure about. It may be in the country illegally, or duties haven’t been paid. We have some information with regard to some assets in banks or other assets,” and Revenue Canada would come in and do an audit.

[4:20 p.m.]

If you’ve ever been audited by Revenue Canada, which I have been a couple of times when I was in business, they really don’t have a sense of humour. Even if it’s a straight-up, just-pick-’em-by-chance audit, they don’t have a sense of humour. I doubt that my father had a sense of humour when he was in investigation either. What they would do is they would go in and go way deeper. They would basically say: “Okay, you have a bank account. You have this. Where’s your tax return? Where did the money come from?” And they would just seize it all.

It was almost like a civil forfeiture, because then the onus was on the person that had those assets back then to actually prove that they had reported the income that was able to buy those assets or where the income came from that bought the assets and where they filed. Well, over time that softened as we went through different periods of time with regard to tools for policing in B.C. We went through a number of iterations and experiences.

I knew this, though, having been a police officer and having been on drug cover at one point in time: the guys that were involved in the drug business always drove a better car than I did, always seemed to be going out for dinner way more than I did and lived a pretty high lifestyle.

The challenge was that you were going after them to try and catch them on selling drugs so you could convict them of trafficking and basically take care of the criminal aspect of drugs. But there was no tool to go and say: “You don’t get to profit from this. In spite of the fact you’ve been arrested and your assets are sitting there, you don’t get to play with the profits. At some point in time, we need accountability.”

With the evolution of time, my father passed on, and I left the police force and went into the security business, where part of my business was catching people in major retail operations who were stealing or defrauding their organizations, through the back door usually. About 70 percent of shrinkage was from internal on a major chain that I wrote an audit program for. At that time, the tool you had was dismissal — and restitution as part of a dismissal — rather than ending up, maybe, in court.

I became the Solicitor General of this province in 2001, and I was faced with some interesting challenges. The first one is what I already knew, and that was that communication for law enforcement, just at the most fundamental levels for intelligence North America–wide, wasn’t very much up to date for intelligence-based policing.

I also knew that the provincial police force at the time was underfunded, by 100 police officers whose positions were not filled, and that there was a significant shortfall of funding for provincial policing in British Columbia. I won’t mention who was government before I became the Solicitor General. The thing I found out as we went through it is that some things never change.

I had a station in southern Alberta in the early 1970s. If there was a high-speed chase or an emergency that was taking place, you opened up a repeater to Calgary, and it opened up every radio in the entire subdivision of Calgary.

As that chase or that activity entered the city of Calgary, a police person in the dispatch department at Calgary subdivision headquarters got on the phone to talk to the guy who was dispatching police cars in the city of Calgary, because there wasn’t a common radio system, a tool so people could actually talk to each other at the same time. So you had one dispatcher talking on the phone to another and the other two dispatching the police officers to try and coordinate where they were going in the city to take care of this crime.

Now, ironically, that actually led me to a conversation many years later, when I became the Solicitor General, about communication in B.C. We improved the 911 system so it was universal, so people could get to 911 and dispatch it to more than one organization or police officer at the time. Those that have any memory would know one city would have dispatch for 911, another would have another dispatch, and there wasn’t anything that was consistent across the board until E-Comm and CREST, on Vancouver Island.

[4:25 p.m.]

Then, as one of the tools as we’re coming through this, we started to have the conversation about: how do we move data and share information in real time to improve the efficiency as a tool, like this piece of legislation would be, for policing? The tool became a system called PRIME. At this time, in this juncture in North America, there was only one jurisdiction on the entire North American continent where every police officer was on the same information management system, and that’s British Columbia.

Now, my friend from Surrey knows the story, I think, about when we were going to put this in place and had decided, quite frankly, to make all law enforcement in B.C. get on one system. He was from the same police organization, the Mounties, as I was. He probably knows that the commissioner of the RCMP at the time was somewhat — generously, let’s say — full of himself.

He decided that British Columbia police departments — Vancouver city, Abbotsford, Victoria — shouldn’t have access to the same information as the RCMP because RCMP were at a different standard. We had made the decision, after much research — actually, a lot of it was as a result of work by the former chief of police in Vancouver, Jim Chu; back then he wasn’t the chief — about how we are going to have some information to be quick, easy, informative.

The background of selecting that tool was this — some things that had happened. We had a police officer check a car outside of Merritt, British Columbia. There were no wants or warrants or no information on the normal CPIC system. So we let the person go. That person had an order that wasn’t entered into the system the police officer would know. He left and about eight hours later killed his ex-spouse.

Imagine how the police officer felt. If he’d only known the information that could have stopped that incident. There were two or three of those incidents that were presented to me early on as a Solicitor General. Then, as you looked at it, you said: “Okay. I’m also facing a major missing women situation.” That, later on, became the Pickton investigation.

In those days, the way missing persons were handled…. A fax would go out and get posted in a detachment or a city police department — of people. Nothing connecting the dots, of course, because it was all paper. People came, they picked up their files, and they went out on patrol. If they were on highway, they’d pick up their ticket book and away they went and did the job for the night. They investigated the files they had to do work on.

We decided that we would legislate in British Columbia that all police forces in B.C. would pick, would be on, PRIME. This was on the advice not of the minister…. The minister never, whether you want to believe it or not, whether it be organized crime or money-laundering investigations, ever directs or touches an investigation or ever directs the police or a statutory authority — something that, one of these days, our Attorney General will learn.

The reality is this, though. The RCMP wanted a different system. It was a very interesting meeting that took place in the office of the deputy commissioner of the RCMP in Vancouver with the commissioner of the RCMP and a tech guy whose name I’ll never remember, who was also in the room. The commissioner had been for lunch with three chiefs of police from British Columbia, from three major cities. Basically, he said: “Well, we’re not going to do this PRIME thing. This guy” — who’s a minister — “was only a constable. I mean, after all….”

This is the conversation at lunch. They said: “Have you met this guy? This isn’t something that’s come just out of his head; we’re all in favour of it too.” So the conversation at about noon or one o’clock on that day went something like this. “Mr. Minister, the RCMP are going to have their own system. We don’t really want to be on the PRIME system.” I looked at him, and I said: “Okay, Commissioner.”

[4:30 p.m.]

He made his pitch. I said fine. I said: “Commissioner, you have till 4:30 this afternoon to let me know that the RCMP is going to be on PRIME. Or tomorrow morning at ten o’clock, because I have a cabinet meeting, I will ask the cabinet to decide whether we should give two years’ notice on the contract in British Columbia. We’re not going to have a system in B.C. where there are borders on information and information-sharing and investigations that can save people’s lives because you want to be different.”

Well, about 4:30 in the afternoon, I was informed that the RCMP was all in on PRIME. We brought the legislation to this House. We debated it, and everybody agreed that it was the right thing to do.

You can imagine the difference it would have been back in the ’90s, when the missing women really started to go missing, if you had a system like PRIME, where somebody could have entered into a computer system information on somebody stopped outside, let’s say, a party house in Coquitlam who was on a missing-persons database in Vancouver. Would the dots have got connected quicker? Would crime have been solved quicker? The answer is yes.

Today I can tell you that in British Columbia, it is one of the tools that we put together that was successful for fighting crime in B.C. Very important for police officers. A friend of my son’s is now in the Calgary police department. In Alberta, they’re still arguing about what systems they should be on with regards to information management, to the point that up until last year, the Calgary police department — and I don’t think they’ve improved it — was on an old DOS system, a late ’70s DOS system for information-sharing, because they can’t agree on a system.

It takes leadership from law enforcement, not from a minister — and from, frankly, the criminal justice branch — to actually get the tools that are needed to deal with crime in your jurisdiction. It was the leadership of the deputy commissioner at the time, Bev Busson, the chiefs of police in British Columbia and the work that had been done on the pilot project by Jim Chu and the city of Vancouver that led us to having a system in British Columbia. It wasn’t something some politician did.

It was no different as we did civil forfeiture in the early 2000s. We actually started working on the legislation in about 2005. I think we brought the original bill to the House in 2006. We also then tweaked it a few years later, and today, as everybody knows, about $77 million has been put back into crime prevention and other programs from the pockets of criminals in British Columbia.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Now, it will be interesting how the vote goes on this bill, because our present Attorney General opposed this legislation, through the civil liberties, in both of its iterations back then. He actually said it was wrong and shouldn’t be done. The quotes are out there in the public record. Like the LNG thing, I’m not going to spend a lot of time on quotes. But the fact of the matter is, civil forfeiture has become a pretty good tool.

It was sort of like: how’s it going to handle the tests in the courts? Obviously, it was new. It was started in Ontario by the first people to do it. The premise was: if we find an investigation, and we actually have the ability to go in after an investigation, conviction or otherwise, and we have assets that can’t be explained — similar to back to when they did the audits for Revenue Canada — why can’t we put the onus on the criminal to prove that that doesn’t come from the proceeds of crime? In the 250 cases that were done between 2006 and 2011, not one of them won a challenge against the proceeds of crime in court. It’s fundamentally a very good tool.

Now, as we go into this bill…. We thought we were out on the edge in 2006. We pushed the window a little bit further in 2010 or ’11. This one pushes another window as to who and what and how the proceeds of crime can be determined and seized. And I totally support pushing any window that can push back on criminals. I don’t think anybody who’s in public life has a love affair with criminals. They actually care about the people they represent.

[4:35 p.m.]

If you care about the people you represent, you know that, quite literally, it’s important that the tools are out there, whether it be the change in radio systems, in a situation like PRIME, on computers; whether it be data management or whether it be other procedures and tools you can give the police to be more effective at their job.

At the same time as we’re doing that, though, we also gave tools to the criminal justice branch to improve how they could proceed on prosecutions and how you could change other things for tools for police.

A classic one that was actually not with the Attorney General at the time, but with civil liberties, that was really roundly criticized a few years ago was when we gave the tool to the police that they could have an administrative penalty on impaired driving. They could suspend the driver, they could do a roadside test, and they could actually seize the driver’s licence for up to 90 days at the roadside — and the power to seize a car. Now the challenge with this is that everybody says: “Why would you give them that tool? The police are just going to use it the wrong way.”

Well, in actual fact, it hasn’t worked out that way. But the tool, I submit, has saved hundreds of lives. Back when we actually were moving on the impaired driving stuff, most deaths that took place on our roads in British Columbia took place from speeding or impaired driving. Today texting has jumped over top of it, and we have another problem.

That’s why you see…. When the government comes forward with a piece of legislation or changes that they’re making administratively to increase the penalties on something like texting, it’s to drive back the message, like we did on impaired driving, to be able to move quicker on that — or on speeding, when we set excessive speed and street racing back in the mid-2000s, when we were losing a lot of young people in fatal accidents because of street racing. We changed, and we could seize the cars and put the penalties in place.

All of these tools come from advice from police. As you go through this, you learn as you get tools. So this particular piece of legislation, a tool to get assets from criminals, is good. Now, it doesn’t always work. For instance, in about 2004-2005, police said: “I think we should have an integrated gaming enforcement team.” So it was put together. It never seemed to function. Organized crime was still doing their guard and pursuing things like money laundering and all the rest of it.

The chiefs of police came to the minister, wrote the minister a letter, and said: “We think it could be more effective if you shut that unit down and moved the money to the organized CFSEU” — as it was called — “for better investigations coordinated with organized crime to go after this issue. Let us to go to work on a better model.” So that’s what they did. A group called JIGIT came in, rules were changed, and that particular issue was pushed back on.

The thing I’ve learned in all of the time that I’ve been in public life is that a minister never tells the police how to investigate. A minister never, ever talks about the details, even the smallest one, on an investigation that’s ongoing. Even though he may be briefed at the highest level, slipping one little sentence or one little piece of information could lead your competition, the criminal, to figure out what might be going on.

When you get sophisticated, detailed investigations with informants and people that are undercover and witnesses whose lives could be put at risk, it is absolutely paramount that at no time, no matter what criticism or what media wants to put a camera in your face, would you ever, ever comment on an investigation. The reason for that is that you don’t want to put people’s lives at risk or put investigations at risk.

Oftentimes you’ll see a minister, and you’ll see your own ministers at times, getting criticized, whether it be a children and family investigation or an organized crime investigation or a situation that is before the courts and people didn’t like the conviction coming out. They don’t get to talk about it. They just take the heat. That’s the way it is. The minister and elected people should never be in the middle or giving advice on an investigation of any kind whatsoever. That’s why the laws are written with statutory authority, which is the same thing with a piece of legislation like this.

[4:40 p.m.]

You have a civil forfeiture office. It’s a statutory authority. Heaven to bits that anybody in here thought that somebody in their street was involved in organized crime or had proceeds of crime in their house or vehicles or whatever and decided they would go tell the civil forfeiture office and the police to investigate it. You can’t do it. It’s their job.

What we’re about today is the tool. We’re giving them a tool with enhancements that we hope will do even more to push back on the proceeds and seizures of the proceeds of crime. That’s important. You can bet this: as we move into more and more of a cyber world, with things like Bitcoin and these types of things that law enforcement is going to have to deal with, they’re going to need more tools.

They’ll need more legislation, forethought ahead, as to how we can improve what we have today, what we’ve developed in the past and what we can do in the future. So this is another step.

It was started by the B.C. Liberals and continued on by the B.C. NDP because we all agree that we should be able to go after the proceeds of crime and give our law enforcement community and the office of the civil forfeiture guys the tools they need to do it. That’s a given, just like any other tool, any other investigation.

As we go through this piece of legislation in debates, people are going to ask questions about how far we’re going and is it okay to go here. I don’t really have those kinds of questions because I’m probably a bit more go-further type of guy. But, you know, there will be questions about that in committee. That’s important, because you know what happens with legislation…. Even later on, when this might go to a court challenge, the answers given by the minister will actually form, some day, a conversation about legality or whatever in some court case, because they have the ability to go to Hansard and actually go to these on sensitive things like this.

I caution members. If the answers are kept a little tight, it’s for a reason, to make sure you don’t jeopardize the Charter strength of a piece of legislation sometimes, like this one. So it’s going to be another tool, a tool just like back when my father was head of investigations for Revenue Canada. For him, Revenue Canada was a tool in a relationship with the RCMP in that particular town.

I also think you’ve got to remember this. We’re pretty fortunate in this country. You know, there are seven different police organizations around the city of Los Angeles that can’t talk on the same radio system in 2019. If there’s something serious that happens in Prince George, it’s live in every police car in British Columbia once it’s put into the computer. They have that information. They know the car, the description, whatever.

It actually moves and connects dots, because the future of policing is intelligence-based policing. It’s faster, it’s speedier, and people can actually pattern crime with stats to where we need to put our resources. You can actually have the information today to know that in a particular area of a community, there’s a hotspot. There’s a bunch of B and Es or whatever going on in this area, and you can actually target your policing with intelligence to improve your policing in that area. That’s what this bill is about, making sure you have the tools to be able to do that better and better for public safety in your communities.

I’m pleased that this bill is here today. I’m pleased that we have the opportunity to talk about it. I hope members will take it into account whenever they see one of their ministers put on the heat with a pin about answering for an investigation or a case, particularly some day for the Minister of Children and Families, which is the toughest one. Or oppositions on both sides — and I’ve been on both sides of this House now — will go after a case where all the minister can do is answer a very specific question in a very specific way to not jeopardize confidentiality, or whatever the case may be, for anybody that’s affected by that case. So keep that in mind.

As we go through this bill, we see the new tool being used, and you hear the criticism about it, don’t second-judge it. You make the decision to vote for it. You want to give this tool to police, like other tools we have, so that we can go forward and protect our communities. In doing so, we should celebrate the fact that we’re enhancing civil forfeiture in British Columbia.

[4:45 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, when the minister arises, it shall close debate.

Hon. A. Dix: I wanted to express my appreciation on behalf of the Solicitor General to all of the people who’ve taken part in this debate, on all sides of the House. Members will know that the Solicitor General feels very passionately about this matter, about the fundamental obligation of all of us to undermine the profit motive of crime. That’s fundamentally what we’re talking about here. We’re also talking about giving resources to communities who deal with the consequence of those crimes.

I think the unanimous support that I hear in the debate in the Legislature reflects that the Solicitor General is on the right track, that he is advancing and making progress, as we do, with legislation.

With that, and with thanks to all of the members — and I know that the Solicitor General is looking forward to taking part in committee stage on the legislation — I move second reading.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 11, Civil Forfeiture 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. A. Dix: I call Bill 20, the Medicare Protection Amend­ment Act.

BILL 20 — MEDICARE PROTECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Hon. A. Dix: On the bill, I’m honoured to move second reading of Bill 20, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2019.

This legislation, like the legislation we just debated, is significant and important legislation, I think, in the history of British Columbia. It marks a significant change in the way that we raise revenues in the province. It is, I think, a reflection, first of all, of the values of the Premier, the values of the Minister of Finance, who are the ministers who are principally responsible for bringing this initiative forward and making it happen.

On January 1, 2020, we are going to eliminate medical services premiums in British Columbia. For individuals across our province, this will have a significant benefit. It represents, especially for people that are sometimes referred to as middle-income people or middle-class individuals, the largest middle-class tax cut in the history of British Columbia. It’s hard-wired to the middle class for reasons that I’ll explain briefly in this presentation.

Up to $900 for individuals, when the full premiums are eliminated, from where it was when the government took office, and up to $1,800 for families — an enormous, significant tax cut that is needed by people now.

I think we heard from people — we certainly heard from people in the election campaign; we’ve heard from people since — who are struggling in our province with high costs — the high cost of housing, in particular, in many communities, but high costs in all communities, I would argue, from Vancouver-Kingsway, where I represent, to Kelowna–​Lake Country, where the opposition Health critic represents, to everywhere in the province. We see the impact on the affordability of the basics of life that the current situation brings to people.

This decision by government to focus a major tax reduction on the middle class, to ensure that regardless of your income…. Whether you’re making $48,000 and you have to pay MSP premiums in full, or whether you make $480,000 or $1 million, the tax benefit to you is the same. That’s a significant moment and, I would argue, the right approach right now to tax policy, not just because it makes life more affordable for people. And it does.

[4:50 p.m.]

We can all think and have in our mind’s eye constituents who will benefit specifically from this. I can think, for example, of someone in my constituency, Vishy Ganeshan, who, amongst other things, runs his own catering business, his own restaurant, and who benefits directly from this tax cut to the full extent for his family.

He works hard every day; he’s productive every day. He gets up at 4 a.m. every day, and he’s working still at 7 p.m. every day. This is the person, and many others, whom the Premier was thinking about when he introduced and proposed this change before the 2017 election. In fact, he proposed it in 2016. It was a cornerstone of the then opposition’s platform, of the NDP platform in the last election. It is a cornerstone of our efforts to make life more affordable for people.

I just want to put that in context, because I think it’s important to understand how significant this premium change is. The medical services premium, as everyone knows, is organized…. Sometimes we used to say — in a different time, in a different place and, in some places in the world, at the current time: “It’s effectively organized as a poll tax. It’s a flat tax on people.” There are exemptions. Under specific income levels, it raises up, and then you pay the full medicare services premium, regardless of your income.

It represents a significant change in taxation policy, it should be said, compared to the previous 16 years, where the approach was to raise flat taxes, such as medicare services premiums. That is, in fact, exactly what happened. Members will know that in the 2001 period, medicare service premiums were raised in one year, in one budget, by 50 percent. That was $192 for individuals at the time, in 2001 dollars; $384 for a family of two; $432 for a family of more than two. That was the increase at the time in medicare services premiums. It was a shift in the taxation base — because the government was cutting income taxes at the time — from progressive income taxes onto the middle class.

In 2010, in 2011, in 2012, in 2013, in 2014, in 2015 and in 2016, the previous government raised MSP premiums above the rate of inflation every one of those budget years. That was their strategy; that was their approach. People will say — and it’s a legitimate debate to say it: “Of course, you have to pay for things, and you make choices about how you pay for things.” But this was a shift in the tax burden onto the middle class, onto a flat tax, which, in my opinion, was not the right course either for the economy, for the affordability of people or the right way to raise revenues for the health care system or for the rest of government services.

The consequence of all that, when you think about it, for an individual: prior to and in 2001, a family of two was paying $64 a month in premiums. By the end of the period I just talked about, that amount had doubled. For a family of three or more, it had been $72 a month; it doubled to $144. For a single person, it had gone from $36 a month to $72 a month. In other words, the share of the budget depending on these tax increases had increased dramatically.

It was a deliberate government policy. They decided to do it. They made choices. Governing is to choose, and these were the choices they made. Now we are making different choices. I think it’s why this decision, this bill, this piece of legislation, is so significant in the history of British Columbia. It means that a major tax on the middle class is removed from the tax system, one that had been doubled in the previous period. It’s a different position. The previous member, in a previous speech on a previous topic, talked about people’s evolution on issues. We do evolve on issues from time to time, and people change their minds on issues, and that is okay. But this is a significant change in direction.

I think it reflects the approach to the economy of the Minister of Finance, the Premier and the government, which is to be focused in a serious, consistent way on the affordability of things for middle-income people and the quality of services that that group of people receives and that everyone receives in our province.

[4:55 p.m.]

Now, I talked about it being the largest middle-class tax cut in history. As I will — I try and do this for my colleagues from time to time — I looked back into the 1920s for previous taxes, just to make sure that we were being correct on this point. I would say that there have been, of course, significant tax cuts over time.

One thinks of the late 1980s, of the decision of the government at the time to reduce the provincial sales tax by a point. That was a significant tax decision of Mr. Vander Zalm’s government at that time, although it did not reach that level. Sales taxes, of course, are not paid equally, as MSP premiums are, by people with $50,000 and by people with $500,000. Obviously, people with $500,000 have more money to spend. Nonetheless, that was a tax cut brought at that time.

If you look back in time, the most significant single tax cut, it should be said, was made by the previous government on income taxes in 2001. At that time, if you looked at it in 2001 dollars, it was about $1.5 billion. If you looked at it in terms of 2020 dollars, it would probably be closer to $2 billion in value, which is similar to the individual benefit on MSP premiums.

That tax cut and this tax cut were similar in terms of size and scope, but there are important differences. Members have talked — and I hear it on social media when I introduce this — about the employer health tax. Indeed, there is an effort to balance off revenues for this, although this is, net of the employer tax cut, an $800 million reduction in taxes — a fact that nobody in this House, of course, can deny.

Indeed, in 2001, the government also raised fees. The very MSP premium rate hike that I’ve talked about earlier — the 50 percent rate hike in 2001 in MSP premiums — was done, of course, to mitigate the value of income tax cuts.

The difference is fundamental. I just want to make this point about it and who benefits here, principally. The people who benefit principally, as compared to different tax choices you could make, are clearly, in this case, the middle class.

If you think back to the 2001 tax cut, someone earning $1 million would’ve received a tax cut of roughly $62,500. We’ll round it down to $62,000 in current dollars. That’s the value of that tax cut. A person earning $46,000 would’ve received, in 2020 dollars, about $975 in that tax cut. That said, both of those people — the person who received $62,000 and the person who received under $1,000 — would also have had to pay the increase in MSP premiums. If they had a family, it would’ve amounted, in 2020 dollars, to be about $600. You look at the benefits: you get $900, minus $600; that’s $300. If it’s $62,000, minus $600, you still get a pretty good tax cut.

The point is that this decision and this approach of the government to favour the middle class in this tax cut is what the economy needs right now. People in our communities, small business people — who are not paying the employer health tax, 85 percent of them — who receive this tax cut as individuals will be spending that money and investing that money in their communities, as will most everybody who receives this MSP cut. They’re going to use that money to pay for family services, to pay for the things they need, maybe to put just a little bit more money away.

That is the purpose of it. That is what the government and the Premier were thinking about when they raised, and decided to proceed with, this very significant fiscal measure, which is, by any standard, one of the most significant fiscal measures ever introduced in any budget in the history of the province. The idea is to make life more affordable for people. That’s why we can say, looking at taxes in the past, that this, hard-wired to the middle class, is the largest middle-income tax cut we’ve ever seen. It benefits middle-income people — an $1,800 benefit.

Never mind that, if one lives and uses the Port Mann Bridge every day, you might be adding $1,500 more to that if you live in the suburbs of Vancouver. Just that tax cut is a significant improvement in the life and the affordability of life for people living everywhere in British Columbia.

[5:00 p.m.]

I think it was the right decision, obviously. I’m on the government side. I think it was the right decision for them. I think it was the right choice made by the Premier. I’m very proud of it, and I’m very proud that as Minister of Health — almost by coincidence, since I’m responsible for the legislation — I get to speak about it in the House today.

I want to speak more specifically to the details of the legislation, which I’ll have an opportunity to debate with the critic, the member for Kelowna–Lake Country, at committee stage.

What the legislation does, as the members will know, is it sets the stage for the elimination of premiums. It deals with transitions, in other words. It ensures and continues to ensure that although premiums are eliminated, the MSP program will continue to provide eligible B.C. residents with provincially insured health care benefits. Obviously, that’s important. That’s the principle. The MSP system was not a vessel for taxation. It’s a means by which people access public health care services in British Columbia and a very, very, very important one at that.

With regards to the Medical Services Commission, which is the nine-member board that manages MSP on behalf of the provincial government, the changes mean it will no longer be able to set and collect premiums for periods of MSP enrolment after January 1, 2020, but will continue with its other responsibilities related to MSP.

Although MSP premiums are being eliminated, the MSP program will continue to provide, of course, services to British Columbians. Eligible B.C. residents must continue to fulfil their other obligations under the Medicare Protection Act and regulations, such as enrolling in MSP, identity proofing to obtain a B.C. Services Card and updating their MSP account when there are family structure and address changes.

We’ve, obviously, worked very closely with the Ministry of Finance on the transition period. The legislation also allows us, in the transition period, to continue to collect for periods prior to January 1, 2020, when people will still owe MSP premiums and still do after the premiums themselves have been eliminated on January 1, 2020.

I can say that this is an important moment for all of us in British Columbia. This is a very significant change that will affect future governments but affects people in the province.

I think introducing a tax cut for middle-income people, for people who live in communities around British Columbia, people who are seeing higher costs in all of their communities, particularly housing but for many other things, understand the value of this, understand the value of not being the only province in Canada with MSP premiums and understand that, fundamentally, this will allow them to live life, to make life a little more affordable and to afford some things that, for them, almost certainly are necessities that they can’t afford now.

I think it’s the right direction in tax policy. I think it’s the right direction with respect to the funding of our public health care programs. What it means for our economy and our province in the long term is that the engine of that economy, middle-class people who decide to start their own small business, who support their children, will have a little bit of a break in that moment and will not continue — with a flat tax as we’ve had before, as a poll tax, as an MSP premium — to pay a disproportionate share of support for the public health care system.

With that, I ask all members of the House to support Bill 20, a very significant bill. I commend the Premier, who said he was going to do this, who announced it in 2016, who delivered a platform that showed that he was going to do it, and then the Minister of Finance who delivered on that commitment in the fall of 2017, in the spring of 2018, and ensured that medical services premiums will no longer be charged to families in British Columbia.

I move second reading.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing Kelowna–Lake Country. [Applause.]

N. Letnick: That’s applause for the Minister of Health’s speech.

Thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to Bill 20, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2019. It was kind of funny to hear the Minister of Health talk as if he was the minister of taxation for 15 or 20 minutes. But that’s okay. There might be a cabinet shuffle at some point, and maybe he can move to the left.

Hon. A. Dix: No chance.

N. Letnick: Well, he might be able to move to the left at some point and take over for the Ministry of Finance. He obviously has passion for this part of the portfolio.

Just one point, if I may, before I get into my prepared text, which I think I worked a little bit on, just to make sure that the Minister of Health had some half intelligent comments from me.

[5:05 p.m.]

One of the big reasons why, in 2001, the previous government — and I have to admit that I wasn’t there in 2001 — cut taxes by 25 percent was to try to get the economy going again after the previous NDP government had bankrupted this province and made us into a have-not province. So let’s not be too self-congratulatory on all these policies.

Perhaps the Minister of Health might want to stick to health, instead of self-congratulating the Premier and the Finance Minister for a particular bill.

Interjection.

N. Letnick: Oh, the Leader of the Third Party wishes to enter the debate. Isn’t that fresh, especially after yesterday, when he left the debate when he had a chance to be a part of it. Anyway, I just wanted to talk about that.

You know what? I’ll get back to the bill. For the most part, the bill is acceptable. Actually, I’m encouraging my colleagues to support the bill. The legislation removes the obligations to pay MSP, or medical services premiums, as well as all mention of premiums in the existing Medicare Protection Act.

It also makes a change to those meeting with the Medical Services Commission that do not require legal counsel, if they choose not to have legal counsel. It provides changes to the act that allow for the transition away from MSP premiums but instead shifts the burden to the backs of organizations, large and small, which I’m going to get into, in quite some depth, on my time.

On this side of the House, we support the elimination of MSP premiums, as we initiated back in the spring budget of 2017. We believe in providing quality health care for all British Columbians, but we cannot support this government’s double-dipping, forcing British Columbians to pay for MSP and the employer health tax at the same time in 2019.

Ever since it was announced, it has been crystal-clear that the employer health tax was nothing more than an MSP replacement tax — another one of the NDP’s half-baked tax schemes to fund their spending spree. Not only have they replaced the MSP with the employer health tax, but this government has the nerve to charge them both simultaneously in the year — one final cash grab.

Those of us on this side of the aisle believe in providing quality health care for all British Columbians. I would assume, and I know, that the hon. minister does as well. What we don’t support is a government double-dipping into people’s pockets just because they can, especially when done under the guise of making life more affordable — a big part of the minister’s speech. This creates an unfair burden that collects health taxes twice and provides no material benefit except helping the Finance Minister line the government coffers. Meanwhile, small businesses are faced with laying off staff or raising prices, as a direct result of the employer health tax.

If the minister would like an example, I just got an email this morning. I get emails on a regular basis, but this one just came this morning. I asked permission to read it in the House today, and the author said that of course I could. It’s written by Colleen Chapman, chief executive officer of CanScribe Career College in Kelowna. She says: “Hello, Norm.” Most people in Kelowna know me by Norm, which is great.

“I wanted to email you with my disgust for the NDP government and their underhanded tactics in bringing the new employer health tax into B.C. As a small business owner, I have an additional 3 percent tax added to my entire payroll, applicable on even those employees residing outside of B.C. I’m currently paying for my staff’s MSP and have been for years.

“Now I’m being taxed for the entire year before the EHT is even implemented, and for the entire 2019 year, I will be paying 1.6 times more for the same services my employees were previously receiving. How will I make up for this extra tax? Hire one less person or maybe reduce existing benefits or possibly fire staff and replace with out-of-province subcontractors.

“Please congratulate the Premier for me in person the next time you see him.

“Yours truly,

“Colleen Chapman, chief executive officer of CanScribe Career College in Kelowna”

It is going to be hurting all kinds of people. Municipalities will be burdened by the employer health tax. They’re going to have to raise property taxes to pay for the increased costs.

There’s only one taxpayer. We know that; we all say that. The costs eventually will find their way down to hard-working British Columbians in the form of increased costs of goods, increased property taxes or increased rent as a result of the landlord’s increased property taxes. There goes the whole philosophy of making it more affordable for British Columbians that we heard from the Minister of Health/Finance.

[5:10 p.m.]

While we can applaud the NDP moving on the B.C. Liberal government promise to eliminate medical services premiums, we cannot support the bait-and-switch of replacing them with the employer health tax. The NDP has bungled this file from the very beginning and has no credibility when it comes to tax policy. A speculation tax that does nothing to target speculators who treat our housing market like the stock market. A school tax that doesn’t go to schools. And now an employer health tax that is downloaded to schools, municipalities, universities, colleges and, as we heard, businesses, even small businesses.

It seems that the only revenue-generation plan that we can see from this government is overloading taxpayers and businesses. Watch as the government attempts to paint small businesses as ultra-rich corporations. Well, I can tell you that Colleen Chapman with CanScribe Career College is not an ultra-rich corporation.

Imposing the EHT on ma-and-pa grocery stores down the street is not the same thing as taxing Walmart or Save-On-Foods. It’s the difference between keeping employees working and prices reasonable, not the difference of a fraction of a decimal in Walmart’s bottom line.

It’s hard to run a small business. I ran small businesses for 20 years. It’s hard to keep people employed. It’s hard to meet that payroll every Friday and help the hard-working men and women of this province support their families when the Finance Minister has one hand in their wallets.

The government keeps claiming that only a small percentage of businesses will pay, but according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the EHT will be paid by 44 percent of businesses with a payroll. That’s 60,000 B.C. businesses, most of them relatively small, footing the cost of this tax. The average small business owner subject to the tax will be paying more than $15,000.

The employer health tax will be implemented starting January 1, 2019, as the minister has alluded to. Any non-charity organization with a payroll over $500,000 will have to pay the tax. For the first year, there will be a tax double-dip, as the MSP will not be eliminated until the end of the year, until the first of January, 2020. All employers who currently pay their employees’ MSP will have to keep paying the MSP, just like Colleen Chapman said, and then, if their payroll is above $500,000, will pay the health tax as well.

Recently the government made changes, including setting the threshold for charities at $1.5 million in payroll, instead of $500,000. Charities will also be assessed per location, not per organization.

Let me remind the members once again: the NDP is doing all of this as part of their 19 new and increased taxes in an effort to “make life more affordable.” Double-dipping and charging hard-working British Columbians at every possible opportunity are doing the exact opposite. The employer health tax is coming from the pockets of people and simultaneously driving up costs.

The NDP is only providing $90 million for schools, universities and colleges and health authorities. The cost to just school boards is $75 million, meaning that the SUCH sector still faces a huge bill for the new NDP tax. That means that parents and students will be faced with higher tuition or cutbacks of school programs.

Municipalities will be hit hard by the tax. The Union of B.C. Municipalities states that the cost for MSP pre-halved was $19 million, and the health tax will cost their members $38 million a year. Even with Bill 20, that goes to wipe out the premiums. The EHT is going to cost the city of Vancouver $13 million a year; Surrey, $3.35 million; Richmond, $2½ million; Abbotsford, $1.7 million; Kamloops, $700,000. Think of all the ways local governments could otherwise put those dollars to use. It can pay out in so many ways in a city, a regional district or a town.

It could be higher recreation fees, keeping people healthier, as I’m sure the Minister of Health would like to see. It could be higher property taxes. Or it could be higher costs added to new developments. In the end, it means the same to taxpayers — less money in their pockets, as opposed to what the Minister of Health was proposing, to provide for their families. Less affordability, not more affordability.

I’m worried that affordability is slipping further and further away from tens of thousands of families, especially middle-class families across this province because of the NDP’s reckless approach to tax policies. Higher prices, higher municipal fees, higher taxes — this is wrong.

[5:15 p.m.]

Both sides agree to Bill 20. We both agree that we should eliminate MSP premiums. What we don’t agree with is transferring MSP premiums over to the employer health tax. But the government side decided a taxation shell game was necessary to keep raking in the money while attempting to fool British Columbians into thinking they’re seeing some real tax relief.

How appropriate that we’re discussing this mere days after April Fools’. Well, they’re trying to fool taxpayers into thinking the costs are gone, but it’s a cruel prank, and I’m sure British Columbians will see right through the rhetoric. We have been pushing the NDP on these half-baked tax schemes, and this demonstrates the ongoing mess and confusion they have created.

In conclusion, the opposition continues to support removing MSP premiums from hard-working British Columbians, and we will support the legislation. What we don’t support is the implementation of the NDP replacement tax and their itchy finger on the trigger of a “taxing anything that moves and doesn’t move” philosophy.

Mark my words. If the NDP get re-elected after the next election, they will bring in an inheritance tax and/or a capital gains tax on a primary residence of British Columbians, just as their Green partners in power advocated for in the last election. We must stop them now, before they can do any further economic damage to our province and hurt the opportunity to get ahead for my children, my grandchildren and yours.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and stand and speak in support of Bill 20, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2019. This bill enables the elimination of the regressive approach to MSP premiums in the province of British Columbia.

I’d like to start by correcting history, because history is often overlooked. A lot of people are trying to take credit for what’s going on with MSP reform today. I can tell you that MSPs were introduced in British Columbia in 1968. That’s 51 years ago. Successive Socred governments, Liberal governments, NDP governments have come and gone, and each and every government has done nothing to eliminate MSPs. Not once.

It wasn’t until the mid-2000s that this form, this approach, this regressive approach, was turned into a form of indirect taxation, through the B.C. Liberals, a one-size-fits-all approach to taxation. In essence, a head tax, a head tax that led to rather myriad issues.

This issue became front and centre in British Columbia in January of 2015, an issue that the B.C. Green Party brought to the Legislature in January of 2015, with a call for the elimination of MSPs. Both the official opposition at the time and the government at the time will recall I introduced a petition with 65,721 signatures on it that was put together by Michelle Coulter, from Ucluelet.

I introduced another petition of about 7,000 names who contacted the B.C. Green Party. I also proposed at that time an alternate means of actually eliminating the MSP that maintained the revenue. It was at that time that overwhelming public support started pressuring the B.C. Liberal government at the time, and the NDP opposition jumped on it.

As people reflect upon this historic event today, I would suggest to them that they should look no further than the influence of the B.C. Green caucus on government policy to get us to the elimination of MSPs when, as a single MLA sitting in this House in 2015-2016, we as a group turned this into a provincial election issue and had people fighting over themselves trying to determine who would eliminate it first.

I say that again with sincerity and by pointing to the history. So 1968 was when we introduced MSP premiums in British Columbia. The very progressive Barrett government of the 1970s didn’t touch MSP premiums. The Liberal and Socred governments thereafter didn’t touch…. I daren’t even say this, because I’m so sick and tired of hearing about the 1990s, but nevertheless, in the 1990s, another NDP government didn’t eliminate MSP premiums.

Those last 16 years that we’ve heard so often didn’t eliminate MSP premiums. But I would suggest that it was in those last 16 years that, actually, public pressure and public concern rose. The reason why is people started to recognize that this was tax creep. It was tax creep happening in a truly regressive fashion, in a one-size-fits-all fashion. Whether you earned $3 million a year or $30,000 a year, you were paying the same premium.

[5:20 p.m.]

What we proposed, what the B.C. Greens proposed in 2015, was a different way of looking at the funding of the premium, a funding that mirrored what goes on now presently in Ontario. While we applaud that the government has eliminated MSP, we would not have done it this way. We would not have done it this way, because the way the government has chosen is to singularly pass that cost on through an employer health premium.

Now, I recognize, and we support the notion, that there was room to grow the employer health premium in British Columbia, as we were by far the lowest employer health premium in terms of employee paying in the country — the payroll tax, in essence. However, the approach we took is that we believe it’s important to place a value on a service, but that value should actually reflect your ability to pay.

We had proposed a measure that followed and mirrored what is done in Ontario, where each and every person in Ontario has an item called an Ontario health care premium. That’s a progressive amount, much akin to what we see in employment insurance and the Canada Pension Plan. You have a third line. It’s called Ontario health premium, which, for low income, is precisely zero dollars. If you earn over $200,900, I think it is, you pay something like $900 a year, a progressive amount. So there is a value to the health care services — a small cost, based on your ability to pay — which ensures, then, that revenue comes in but in a progressive fashion. That was our approach.

That was an approach that would have actually not led to the double-dipping situation we have for this single fiscal year. It’s an approach that would have also recognized that across British Columbia, there are many collective agreements where the signing of those agreements has actually included costed benefits, which is the employer paying the medical services premiums. That’s a costed settlement against an agreement that a union, a collective bargaining unit, has actually costed against the salary settlement.

Now, unfortunately, through the elimination of the MSP premium, what has happened is that costed settlement against past settlements is now vaporized. So those benefits, which were accrued and negotiated away by unions from north to south and east to west…. They now can look back and say to their union members: “We have lost that ability to negotiate for that thousand or whatever dollars a year that was coming off.”

I’m actually quite shocked that the NDP decided to choose this approach, because they have thrown under the bus, in essence, every single member of a labour union in the province of British Columbia that had a negotiated settlement that included the medical services premium being costed against that settlement in terms of the actual past negotiations. That’s, in essence, something like $1,000 that has come off each worker’s costed rights. The unions in British Columbia should be up in arms over the NDP approach, because now that costed benefit has vaporized.

Those previous salary settlements could have had that extra amount that was costed to pay the premium added to salary and other benefits. I’m surprised, honestly. I’m surprised that we haven’t heard protests from the unions. Well, maybe not, in light of some of the other kinds of things we’ve seen in areas where they’ve been given…. But that, to me, is quite remarkable.

That progressive approach would have avoided many of the problems that we see with the implementation, particularly for this year. It is this year that there’s a problem with the double-dipping. It would have recognized the costed settlements that were in place with existing collective agreements. It would have respected that amount, moving forward, by allowing members who gave up that money, gave up that in a negotiation, the right to have that come back to their actual negotiated package.

In 2001 and 2002, the B.C. Liberals rose the MSP premium something like 50 percent. Then they froze it for six years, and then again, in 2009 and 2010, they started to increase it again, 4 to 5 percent each year, until 2015. By 2017, all categories of MSP premiums — individuals, families of two, families of more than two — had doubled since the B.C. Liberals took office in 2001. That started to create dissent within the broader public in British Columbia — the sense that there was an unfairness, which is why we had so much support for this initiative that we took on in 2015. As I mentioned, 65,721 signatures were on a petition put forward by Michelle Coulter that I brought to this Legislature. I believe I introduced that in 2016.

[5:25 p.m.]

It was an issue that I know there wasn’t a single MLA in this room that did not receive many thousands of emails on, from chain emails across the province.

I’m glad that government today and the opposition at the time, and the Greens, in the election campaign, were all climbing over ourselves to say who would eliminate MSP premiums first. I don’t think…. In fact, one of the moments in the 2017 leaders’ debate I thought was quite a fine moment, from my perspective — selfishly, he says — was when I asked the now Premier: “So let me get this right. In your campaigning for MSPs, what you’re planning…. You have a plan to develop a plan to come up with a plan.” That was the NDP approach. And he agreed, remarkably.

In fact, one of the plans to develop a plan to come up with a plan was to create a committee — an MSP Task Force. Government actually put such a committee together before the budget last year, and then decided that government knew best exactly how it was going to move forward with the elimination of the MSP, despite the fact that the committee had yet to actually return their reports.

While the committee was talking about a variety of mea­sures and metrics and ways the revenue could be replaced, whether it be through a sugar tax or whether it be through a small employer health tax or whether it be through a health care premium, government decided to go its own way and go 100 percent with the health care premium.

That’s government’s prerogative and government’s choice. As I say, again, I’m surprised that there wasn’t uproar within the union movement in this province, because I can tell every single union member in this province that has had, historically, MSP premiums paid by their employers, that they’ve just lost out a thousand bucks plus, at least, for each and every one of them, from a negotiated previous costed settlement against what they were owed and deserved because that was costed against their settlement.

It’s actually quite remarkable that government has gone this way. And yes, I know this full well because I have acted as chief negotiator twice in bargaining agreements where we have actually costed our MSP premiums against a negotiated settlement. So yes, I know this to be true.

With that said, I do applaud the fact that we are, indeed, moving towards the elimination of MSP. The co-benefit that is not often talked about is that there’s an entire bureaucratic structure that is no longer needed. There are literally tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands, of letters that are emailed every month saying: “This is what your MSP premium for this month will be.” If you think about 100,000 letters going out at $1 a letter, that’s $100,000 a month for a start, but it’s much, much more than that.

We also know that there is a very serious problem in terms of collecting long-term debts that have been accrued in the MSP premium. Part of it is unknowing debt — there are those who can’t pay — but there are also those very egregious examples out there where people have gone away and not realized that they, apparently, owed MSP. They come back to rather large bills.

I’ll give you a real-world example. A student might be working in British Columbia for one summer after graduating from high school. Say they graduate from high school in June, they attend their convocation, and they work through the months of July and August. They might have a union job. They might actually be in a union job where they look at their paycheque and they realize that, as part of their employment, the employer was paying MSP.

They go and take their job. It’s their first job straight out of high school. They see that the employer is paying the MSP, but they don’t really know what that is. Then they decide that they’re going to go to Europe for college. They go to Europe for four years; they leave the province of British Columbia. They may go to France or Britain or Germany or Sweden or Norway and attend a collage there for four years. Then, perhaps, they might want to come back to Victoria or Vancouver and work in British Columbia.

Well, guess what. The second they come back to British Columbia, they get a bill. They get a bill for four years of MSP premiums plus accrued interest because they did not opt out of MSP when they left the country to go to these other jurisdictions, for which they were 100 percent covered by the local jurisdiction. When you’re a student in England, you’re covered. If you’re a student in other jurisdictions across Europe, you’re covered. But you’re expected to continue to pay here unless you physically opt out.

Now, the number of people who physically opt out has been so small, you could almost count it on a hand, because people didn’t know they had to do that. The number of people who had these outrageous bills presented to them upon their return is huge. Therein lies the problem.

We know that what happens is that a young person — and there are many examples of this — will come back from abroad. They’ll get the bill, and they have a choice. Do they pay this bill they think they owe, even though they weren’t eligible — or they may have been eligible, but they didn’t use it, or even know they did — or do they not? In many cases, they don’t.

[5:30 p.m.]

What happens then is that collection agencies start to come after them. Then they have a credit rating…. They’re starting off in their life. They may have worked for one summer — one summer — in a union job. They didn’t that that company that was paying them actually was paying the MSP. They come back four years later, and they get a bill for thousands and thousands of dollars. They don’t know what this is about. Then the collection agent comes after them, and on and on it goes.

That’s no longer going to be the case, and that’s a good thing. That’s a good thing, because we don’t need those collection agencies. We have a lot of debt on the books that is going to have to be forgiven, I suspect, or collected by some other means, but at least we’re moving forward and beyond this.

Again, coming back to this. This was a campaign issue from the B.C. Liberals. They didn’t want to be left out. Fifty percent cut, they planned. When the B.C. NDP ran, they campaigned to eliminate….

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

They didn’t really articulate how. Frankly, I don’t think they actually figured it out, because their plan was to develop a plan to come up with a plan, and the plan was going to be first developed by a committee that was developing a plan that they ignored.

They staggered their way through, and they decided to come through with this employer health tax approach. That’s their prerogative. We understand that. We recognize that they are government, and they have these choices to make. While we support the overall notion of MSP being reformed, we don’t believe that that was the appropriate way to go in its entirety. A small component, yes.

The B.C. NDP campaigned on cutting the MSP, and they initially did it by 50 percent. In actual fact, what they did was basically leave in place the B.C. Liberal budget, which had already reduced it by 50 percent. They had promised to move on to the entire elimination, which is where we are right now.

The first step of the MSP premium, reducing by 50 percent, happened in Budget 2018. Here we are now moving forward with the completion, through this tax. Again, when I look at this…. We’ve had a platform issue even in 2013 — going back to the history. In 2013, we were calling on the elimination. It actually was formally put forward repeatedly in 2015 and 2016. As I stated, I’m very, very pleased that we’re actually at this position now.

Overall and in conclusion, since 2015, we’ve outlined a number of regressive natures…. One of the things that we’ve outlined, as well — and I hope the Minister of Health takes note — is that right now we’re penalized in British Columbia for being a destination of choice for elderly Canadians.

Why I say that is that it’s very simple to calculate the amount of money that is spent on health care and weight that as a function of age. We know that the average age in British Columbia is lower than the average age in other provinces. We know that the federal Canada health transfer is based on the number of people, with no age weighting to that number of people. So we know that when you do a simple weighted average….

We know how much health care money is spent as a function of age. We know it increases exponentially toward the latter years of your life. We know that when you take the age profile of the province and you weight the Canada health transfer by that age profile, B.C. is short by something in the order of $200 million of Canada health transfer money that should be coming to us, based on an age-related approach.

We know that people in British Columbia may work in the oil sands in Alberta during their younger years. They may be paying provincial taxes in Alberta. They may be working in the Hibernia fields. They may be working in a factory in Ontario. Then in the latter stages of their life, they may choose to come back and live in a place where there’s no snow in the winter. Where is that place? That place is often Vancouver Island.

We know this is going on in Canada. That is the beauty of this great nation that we have. We allow people to freely go from east to west and north to south. We encourage people to come here, and we have a long history of being a home…. In fact, Victoria — I’ve grown up here. I don’t know whether it’s still called this, but it certainly was called this when I was a younger person: the city of newlyweds and nearly deads. I’m one of those few people who has moved from the age of newlywed to nearly dead. There are not many of us out here, but I am….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Maybe. The member for Chilliwack-Kent is suggesting I’m speaking too soon. I hope so. Certainly, I’ve watched the growth of this town over the last 57 years, and my goodness, it has grown. It has grown and become more diversified. It’s quite exciting.

But coming back to that Canada health transfer. I sincerely hope that we do have the pressure being put on the federal government to reflect upon the nature of the Canada health transfer and the unfairness of people paying their taxes in other provinces and then retiring to British Columbia.

[5:35 p.m.]

I would suggest that it is entirely defensible to argue that the Canada health transfer should be weighted by age, based on the amount of health care spending we do as a function of age. I’ve done the calculation. And 200 million bucks? We could use that. I’m sure the minister could use 200 million bucks. We could fund all sorts of drugs, like Orkambi, for example. I’m just joking. But we could — $200 million is nothing to sneeze at. This is something that I hope they’ll encourage.

Anyway, with that said, I do commend the Minister of Health. I mean that sincerely. We in British Columbia are very lucky and fortunate to have a minister who goes so deep on files and is truly committed to this file. We’ve seen some very good things happen in this province. This is one of them. Again, I don’t necessarily like the way the funds are being replaced, but I do certainly have full confidence in the Minister of Health, the direction he’s taking this province in health care.

With that, I’ll take my place and thank him for his good work.

Hon. H. Bains: It is an honour always to stand here and speak on the issues that are important to all of us here and all of the constituents that we represent here in this House.

I rise to support Bill 20, Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2019. This is the bill that moves us toward elimination, completely, of MSP premiums, effective January 1, 2020. It is part of this government’s commitments that we made during the election, and we continue to comply and deliver on those commitments. The first commitment was to make life more affordable for British Columbians. We have taken a number of initiatives to do that, and this is another one.

As you know, we eliminated MSP premiums by half, effective 2017. We eliminated tolls on the Port Mann Bridge and Golden Ears Bridge, saving a single car driver $1,600 a year. But I can tell you it is a huge benefit to the small businesses as well.

I spoke to one trucking company. He had ten delivery trucks. He came and actually gave me a hug. It was at one of the social events. He said: “Thank you very much for the work that you’re doing.” I didn’t know what he was talking about. He said: “You know what?” On Port Mann, he delivers a product for customers on a daily basis. He said for each truck, he pays about $4,500 to $5,000 a year in tolls. He said he’s got ten trucks. That is a savings for him and that company of $45,000, $50,000. That is a lot of help for a small business. That, in fact, will help him to grow his company and make those jobs much more secure. Those are the ones that are working for him.

In addition to these programs, we have a child care program. As you know, our Minister of Finance in this last budget brought in the child opportunity benefit program. Again, a family with one child will get $1,600 in child benefit; two children, $2,600; three children, $3,400.

Also in this budget, we have eliminated student loan interest. That is a huge benefit. As you know, students with an undergrad degree in British Columbia, on average, were paying over $30,000. They were in debt for $30,000 to $35,000 for an undergrad degree. You add interest on top of that, which is not what you pay on your home mortgage. It is much more than even when you buy a car. It was just a disincentive for our young people to go for higher education.

It was such a bad policy, especially at a time when all government policies, all government data, shows that all future jobs, 82 percent of them, will require a post-secondary education diploma or apprenticeship.

[5:40 p.m.]

That’s the future. We had this disincentive for students to go and take that post-secondary education, with huge bills to pay as soon as they graduated. So we are eliminating that.

We raised the minimum wage. You know, I established the Fair Wages Commission. They went around the province. They consulted widely with stakeholders, with workers, with unions, with small businesses and came back with a recommendation. They gave us a pathway to $15.20 by June 2021 — to increase the minimum wage in a gradual, predictable method, giving small businesses the certainty that they were looking for and, at the same time, making life more affordable, having a few more dollars in the pockets of those lowest-wage earners in the province.

This is in contrast to what happened in the previous 16 years. The wages for the lowest-paid workers in the province were frozen for ten years, but tax breaks were given to the 1 percent, the highest-wage earners. Something is wrong with that picture. That clearly shows that the priorities of the previous government were not to help the middle class, not to help the lowest-paid workers in the province.

Why does this makes sense, both economically and socially? It’s because every penny that minimum-wage earners receive in a wage increase, they spend almost all of in their own communities, in their own businesses. So businesses and workers benefit. Those families have a few more dollars to spend and have a better life for themselves and for their children.

It makes sense. But you will hear arguments from folks, especially on the other side, that somehow businesses will leave if you raise the minimum wage, that there will be job losses. But again, I read a paper that was put together by 50 very top-notch economists from different universities in the province. Seven of them came from our three leading universities in British Columbia.

They wrote and they said that to say that businesses will leave when you raise the minimum wage is fearmongering. They said raising the minimum wage not only benefits workers; it benefits businesses. When it benefits workers and businesses, it benefits our community. That’s what those 50 economists say. But again, you will hear that the world is going to end.

Since that time, actually, unemployment rates in British Columbia have gone down. We are enjoying the best economic growth in the country. We have the lowest unemployment rate in the country. You know what I mean? The world didn’t end by raising the minimum wage. Actually, the economy is better today than before the minimum wage was raised. Those are the steps that we’re taking to make life more affordable.

Let’s do the comparison. When you are talking about all those things to make life more affordable, the action that this government has taken…. These tax cuts go to the middle class and low-income people. But if you contrast that to the tax cuts that were announced by Gordon Campbell in 2001, 25 percent…. Eighty percent of those tax cuts went to the 20 percent of top wage earners, and 20 percent of that went to the remaining 80 percent.

But it didn’t just end there. That money amounted to about $1 billion at that time, to the treasury. That money had to come from somewhere. What did they do? They raised the provincial sales tax for a while as well, and then MSP premiums went up. B.C. Hydro rates, gone up. ICBC rates, gone up. At the end of the day, it was the working class, the middle class, the low-income families who paid for those tax cuts so that the people at the top could have more money in their pockets.

It was the largest tax shift from the top 10 or 20 percent over to working-class people. We are doing things differently. All our tax cuts are geared toward middle-class working people and low-income people, people who have been burdened with taxes and fees for the last 16 years. Their life is becoming a bit more affordable.

[5:45 p.m.]

When you take a look at the MSP premiums, they were at $36 for one person in 2001, $64 for a family of two, $72 for a family of three or more. Before our government came to power, before 2017, what were they? Seventy-five dollars for a single person. That is an increase from $36 to $75, more than double. For a family of two, they went from $64 to $150, more than double. A family of three or more, from $72 to $150. That’s their record. On the one hand, they talked about tax cuts and low taxes. But for who? The top 1 percent got the tax break, but everyone else paid more. That was the 16 years of history.

I think when you’re looking at what we need to do, then the money is also…. It’s not that we are giving money and then we are cutting services somewhere else. We are improving services at the same time as we are making life more affordable for British Columbians. We hired 4,000 teachers since we took over — 4,000 teachers. Schools are built in Surrey, where 7,000 children were studying in portables under the watch of the previous government.

Those schools are going to be built. Sure, it’s taking time, because it takes planning. It takes time to build those schools. They are going to be built. But I remember the Surrey school board talking to us. From 2006 until 2010, not a single dollar was approved for capital improvement in Surrey schools. In the meantime, population growth was about 1,000 to 1,200 per month. They don’t come single. They come with families. They have children. That is the result. What we saw at the end of the day was 7,000 students in portables.

We are building those schools. We are hiring more teachers. We are providing more services and support to teachers for in-class learning. We’re building playgrounds, where parents have to raise money to build playgrounds. This bill clearly goes towards making life more affordable.

Bill 20 is exactly what was needed to be done. We are building schools, as I said before. We are building hospitals. I want to thank the Minister of Health. The planning for the new hospital in Surrey is underway, but we’re not waiting, because it takes time to plan and build those projects. But the Minister of Health was there in Surrey, announcing the urgent care centre, right across from the Surrey Memorial Hospital, where if you don’t have a family physician, you could go and have medical services that you need. Non-emergency cases — you can go there. They’re open for extended hours and on the weekends. Those urgent care centres are opening all over the province.

We’re improving services as well. At the same time, we’re making life more affordable for British Columbians. Why? Because we are also supporting a strong, sustainable economy that all British Columbians can benefit from. If you look at the last budget, over $20 billion in infrastructure was announced — to build roads, to build bridges, to build schools, to build hospitals. The work that we have done in the last 18 months doesn’t even come close to the work of the previous 16 years. In fact, it was negative, in my view, when it comes to real people and the benefits for real people in British Columbia.

[5:50 p.m.]

On their watch, the industry that I came from, the industry that built this province for the last 150 years, the industry that was the engine that drove the economy in British Columbia, was brought to its knees, and 30,000 jobs were lost. Over 150 mills were shut down. That’s their record.

On our side, you take a look. MSP premiums, first cut in half last year. Next year, starting January 1, MSP premiums are gone forever. Tolls are gone forever on the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges. Not only that, we are expanding child care, because today’s young people both have to work because life is not affordable, thanks to the previous 16 years. They both have to work. They can’t even find spaces to leave their children. If they find spaces, they can’t afford it. One of them has to stay home. We’re investing in that — $1 billion.

When you look at the total package, this is part of the package to make life more affordable, Bill 20. It clearly shows the direction that we are going. If we can do this kind of work, if we can make these changes to help people and make their lives more affordable in the last 18 months, can you imagine what we can achieve for the next three years? I think the future looks very bright for British Columbians under this government.

People in British Columbia, prior to our government, wondered when the economy would ever benefit them. They struggled to put food on the table or pay rent. When you look at it, the wages were stagnate under their watch. But in the last two years, wages have improved by 4 percent. The economy is growing every day — fastest-growing economy in the country. That’s why we can afford these benefits.

I just want to say how pleased I am that many seniors who were paying MSP premiums no longer have to pay MSP premiums. Many retirees who had to pay MSP premiums from their fixed income don’t have to pay any more, starting January 1 next year. Many non-union workers who had to pay their own MSP premiums don’t have to pay anymore.

This is another step that we’re taking to make life more affordable for British Columbians. I want to say thank you. I’m so proud to be part of the government that is taking these steps. I especially want to thank the Minister of Health for bringing this bill in, taking another step towards making life even more affordable for British Columbians.

With that, I take my seat. I’m really, really happy to support this bill. I urge everyone in this House to support this bill.

L. Throness: Well, it’s always a pleasure to speak in this House, and it’s a pleasure, especially, to speak to Bill 20 today, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2019.

I will say at the outset that this is really a housekeeping bill. The biggest thing it does, in my view, is remove the words “premium” and “premium assistance” from the Medical Services Plan vocabulary eight months from now — not yet but eight months from now. To me it’s more symbolic than substantive because the burden of the medical services premium will be simply shifted to the employer health tax.

Nevertheless, it is a milestone because the premium itself will be abolished. As the minister noted when he made his remarks, it is historical. It marks the end of a long road in B.C. history and in the history of Canadian health care. Before I get to the bill, I want to just make a few remarks on a historical basis to provide hon. members with some historical perspective on the premiums.

In 1919, it started, a royal commission reported on health insurance. In 1922, the B.C. Legislature passed a motion urging the government of Canada to give early consideration to legislation for an adequate system of insurance against illness. In 1929, another B.C. royal commission was appointed to report on health insurance. So there’s a long history here.

[5:55 p.m.]

In 1948, B.C. introduced hospital insurance only. It only covered medical care within hospitals. That was originally financed with premiums. But people didn’t pay them, so premiums were eliminated for provincial hospital insurance and replaced with a 2 percent increase in the sales tax. So there have been problems with premiums for a long time.

It wasn’t until 1968 that universal public medical insurance was introduced in B.C., partially financed by a premium. It would remain like that for the next 51 years, until the end of this year. At the time, medical expenditures were very small.

In 1965, I was ill with a kidney disease when I was seven, and I spent six weeks in hospital. At the end of it, my dad showed me a bill that we received in the mail for my care. As I remember, it was for about $750. Can you imagine that — $750 for six weeks in hospital? It doesn’t sound like much, but at the time, it was a huge amount. I remember dad showing it to me as a matter of interest, because it was insured. We didn’t have to pay it.

The best systemwide statistics we have are from 1975. Public expenditures in B.C. then were just $995 million, in current dollars, in that year. At that time, of course, we had a much younger population, and we needed less medical care. There weren’t so many expensive medical technologies as we have now. We couldn’t intervene to cure illness like we can now. People are now able to live with chronic illnesses for much longer — and that’s expensive. Drugs are so much more effective today and also more costly. Wages were proportionately lower, and so on.

There are many reasons that spending has grown by leaps and bounds. In 2018, according to CIHI, the Canadian Institute for Health Information, B.C. spent $22.4 billion on all aspects of public health care. That’s 22 times what it cost in 1975, even though our population has only doubled in size since that year. We kept our premium, almost as an artifact of the historical development of the system more than anything else, although I used to explain to people that it was useful as a constant reminder that our medical services are not free.

Premiums were criticized, by the NDP and others, as being not progressive, like our tax system is. I would point out to people that premiums raised just 14 percent of total health expenditures. The other 86 percent was raised through our progressive tax system, but the premium itself was progressive as well, in that many thousands of British Columbians paid no premium at all. Many more were subsidized so that they paid only a partial premium. There was progressivity in the premium. Every year, it raised about $2.5 billion through the Medical Services Plan premium. It was indeed a constant reminder that health care was not free.

I received a constant litany of complaints about the premiums. People would be irritated by them. Every year they had to go up a little bit, along with the vaulting costs of the medical system. There were some who neglected to pay or who couldn’t pay or who had to pay the full premium based on last year’s income but had lost their job in the current year and could no longer afford them. On and on it went. There were a million special cases, there were many anomalies, and the system itself was expensive to administer.

Voters didn’t like funds being raised in that way. So we in government arrived at the obvious solution: to abolish it — not all at once but by degrees, as we could afford it. Because we had a great economy going, we had a surplus. We wanted to use it well. In the 2016 budget, we cancelled premiums for children and increased the premium subsidy. That meant we reduced premiums for 335 British Columbians, and 45,000 more people would pay no premium at all.

In the 2017 budget, seeing the growing attitude of the people of B.C. against premiums, we announced our intention to eliminate it entirely. We added this caveat. I quote from the budget: “The timing and the structure of the change will be influenced by the province’s fiscal capacity.” We never promised it would be immediately eliminated, but we did announce that on January 1 of 2018, we’d cut it by half and also increase the subsidy, returning premium levels back to what they were in 1993. We were moving in that direction, and this was a significant cost.

It cost $845 million a year, that year and every year thereafter, yet it was done entirely without tax increases. It was simple; it was affordable. It made a big difference for families. It was prudent; it was careful; it was orderly. More than half the premium would simply disappear. The economy would thrive. People who had to pay premiums would find that they were exactly half the burden they were before, and premium subsidies were increased yet again. We could all look forward to eliminating the rest of the premium in exactly the same way. That was our commitment, and we would have done it as a government.

[6:00 p.m.]

We would have eliminated the last half, just as we did the first, not through tax increases or tax shifting from one pocket to another, or from one taxpayer to a different category of taxpayer, or eliminating the name from the program, as this bill does, as of January 1 next year. As the economy grew, and as we continued to prudently manage the economy, it would just disappear, and no one would suffer when the premiums would finally exit.

That was our last chance to influence the MSP premium, because the government changed hands not long after. I must say that I lament the change because it signaled a left turn, a wrong turn, and, in my view, a turn toward unaffordability and complexity and a brand-new tax burden which is turning into something of a nightmare for employers and consumers and taxpayers of all kinds.

I’ve imagined in my mind how the discussion went in the new government caucus, how they came to the bill before us today. Probably the Finance Minister stood up and said, “Well, everybody, the B.C. Liberals left us with a $2.7 billion surplus. What should we do with it?” and someone else raised their hand and said: “Nobody likes the MSP premiums. The Liberals got rid of half of that, but I think we should drop the other half, using the surplus.”

That would have been a reasonable and wise thing to do, but then a big-spending NDP member probably put up their hand and said: “Why would we do that, since we can spend a whole lot of that money on new and bigger, showy programs? Raise the equivalent of the MSP by shifting the tax burden onto somebody else.”

Then I’ll bet the Finance Minister said, “Who would we shift the tax burden onto? Who would bear that kind of cost without complaint?” and another caucus member chimed in and said: “Individuals vote, but businesses don’t vote. Why don’t we shift it onto them?” Then there would have been great applause on the other side. So it was done.

In fact, the NDP, in their first year, got rid of the surplus, all on their own, and in addition, from last year through to the end of the three years envisioned by the budget in 2019, the NDP will raise spending as well as revenue by nearly $6 billion a year. That’s nearly 10 percent. Sure enough, for their first budget, the NDP announced their grand plan — not to get rid of the premium, not to give taxpayers a break but to substitute a new premium called the employer health tax, and place it upon employers.

It’s a job-killing tax. It’s a consumer-price-raising tax. It’s a cause of municipal tax hikes. It’s a fee increase for parents with kids in daycare. It’s like a heavy stone thrown into the fiscal pond of our province that is having ripple effects right through the entire economy.

I would say that the new employer health tax is just as irritating as the old one, as the old premium, because it touches so many people in so many ways. But it’s in different ways. In addition, it hurts employers and the jobs they create and the wages they’re able to pay, and it harms our economy.

I want to tell you how. Though the Premier said that the employer health tax is a much fairer and progressive approach, as he said, I looked at a couple of studies on payroll taxes and found this to be untrue.

Here’s a study from the Fraser Institute from August of last year. Here’s what it said about payroll taxes. I want to quote from that study. “As these taxes increase,” the study said, “there’s less money available for the wages and benefits for employees and investments in innovation, expansion and tools that improve worker productivity. Therefore, over time, wages will not grow as fast as they would otherwise without a payroll tax. So workers ultimately bear the cost of payroll taxes through reduced pay.”

The Fraser Institute academics went on to say that just a 1 percentage point increase in the average payroll tax rate would reduce annual wages by up to $605 a year, which, coincidentally, is very close to what the MSP premium was, even though the word itself will be abolished in the NDP lexicon through this bill before us today. Unless the members opposite don’t trust the Fraser Institute. Although it has a sterling economic reputation.

Let me quote the Institute of Labor Economics from last summer, a Canadian group which put out a paper entitled Estimating the Impacts of Payroll Taxes. Allow me to quote from it. It said: “We find…significant impacts on wages, implying that payroll taxes are passed almost entirely to workers in the form of lower wages.” So although this bill abolishes the premium in name, workers are still going to pay the employer health tax.

I would point out that in Victoria, the prediction of these studies has come true. The employer health tax resulted in a cost of $690,000 a year to the police force of Victoria. Who will bear that cost? Well, nine officers and civilians will be laid off or not hired because of it.

These are people who will not be paying any other taxes. They won’t be purchasing things in the community. They won’t be protecting the community. There are all sorts of negative spinoff effects resulting from the fake abolition of the MSP that we see in this bill.

[6:05 p.m.]

The minister talked about the middle class. It is the middle class worker who will be paying $1.8 billion a year, but this in a hidden way.

I received an email not long ago from a daycare in Kelowna, because I’m a critic, that would be paying $45,000 a year in the employer health tax forever. Who will pay for this? Parents are going to get a fee increase, for one thing, if the government will allow it. But also, they won’t be able to afford to give raises to early childhood educators, which will worsen the shortage of early childhood educators in the province.

There are all sorts of unintended consequences that will appear in future months and years because of this bill. Nor does it seem to matter to the government that there is already a hefty payroll tax on all employers and workers — a national one, called the Canada Pension Plan premium. It’s now at 10 percent. Half of it is paid by employers. Half of it is paid by employees. We used to say, when I worked in Ottawa, that one point in the CPP premium was worth 100,000 jobs in the private sector across Canada. That is a real impact.

Well, the EHT, the employer health tax, is 3 percent per year, 60,000 businesses will have to pay it, and 44 percent of businesses in the province will pay at least $15,000 a year. That will come indirectly and in a hidden way from workers. But there is more. Municipal taxpayers will have to pay the EHT indirectly, through their municipal taxes, because municipalities have to pay the tax. There is, finally, only one taxpayer. I’ve heard story after story of municipal tax increases because of the employer health tax.

I’ll bet taxpayers never anticipated that when the MSP was eliminated, it was just being shifted from their wallet in the front pocket right onto their backs. But here is the real genius of the NDP. They decided to begin collecting the employer health tax in the year 2019, the same year as they would keep the last year of the MSP, so that British Columbians would have to pay both. I would point out that many employers pay the MSP for their employees. So they’re paying that as well as the employer health tax. It’s a double whammy.

The EHT and the remaining part of the MSP will be paid during the year 2019 — this year, right now. What kind of wrong did British Columbians do that they deserve the punishment of paying more in tax for health care over and above what we used to pay under the MSP premium? Together they’ll raise nearly $3 billion this year. That’s the gift of the NDP to the taxpayers of B.C.

So we come to the bill before us, which is really very simple. It abolishes the definition of premium. There’s no big reason to oppose the bill, given that the MSP is being abolished, which is B.C. Liberal policy as well. If there were no employer health tax, we would applaud it, but we will support it grudgingly. However, I do notice that in sections 9 and 10, if anybody owes former premiums to the Medical Services Plan, that liability will continue. The government will continue to collect their pound of flesh. They will collect back premiums as a debt owed to the Crown, even though they’ve abolished them for the foreseeable future. Probably they’ll collect them from many people who can least afford them.

In section 12, I notice that the reverse is true. From time to time in our office, we have people coming in who have difficulty paying their premiums because they have a low income, and they’ve had a low income for many years. We realize that they never should have been paying the premium. Given the subsidies of the government, they’d been paying them by mistake. We would help them go back as far as six years to get their premium returned. I see that this is being preserved in this bill, in section 12, and that’s something that I think is fair and that I support. We will continue, in our office, to look at people’s past incomes to make sure that they get the subsidies that we as B.C. Liberals promised when we were in government.

In summary, although we will be paying MSP premiums for the rest of the year, and although we are paying the employer health tax, which replaces those MSP premiums, we’re just abolishing the words from the law. This is sort of symbolic. The NDP are dressing up the issue in new clothes, but the issue itself remains. The tax is there. The employer health tax will continue to raise nearly $2 billion a year.

It will continue to hurt the economy for many years to come. It will continue to depress the wages that middle-class workers receive. It will continue to increase municipal taxes. It will increase consumer prices as daycares and others shift the employer health tax onto others, but many of these increases will be hidden. They will not be noticed by many voters, as the NDP has shifted the burden from people who vote onto businesses that don’t.

[6:10 p.m.]

This is about making decisions, as the minister said. This is about making decisions as a government. This was a crafty move for the government to make in political terms, to be sure. But it’s also deeply cynical. Our province won’t win in the end, because this tax will be a continuing burden and a harm to our economy.

I would remind the House that we would have abolished the MSP for good. It would not have burdened businesses or workers or anyone else. It would simply have disappeared. Hopefully, the people of B.C., including employers and their workers, will remember that in the next election.

Hon. J. Sims: It’s my pleasure today in this House to rise and speak in support of Bill 20, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Health for moving on this and really for all the awesome work he has been doing on the health file since he has become minister. He’s been travelling around the province announcing hospitals, urgent care centres, more MRIs, more knee surgeries, more hip replacements, more doctors, more nurses and better treatment of those who work to support our seniors in senior centres as well. I want to thank him for the amazing work he’s done in that area, and I really want to congratulate him for bringing forward the elimination of the MSP premiums.

I believe in a universal health care system, as many of us do. When Tommy Douglas brought this system in, he didn’t imagine that what universal health care meant across the country would vary from a province to another province. We were one of the few provinces paying this MSP premium for health care, and it seemed not to be right. Not only seemed; it was absolutely wrong.

If we have universal health care, whether you live in Alberta, you live in Ontario, you live in P.E.I., you live in Nova Scotia, then there should be no premiums, because we are one country governed by the Canada Health Act. So it is long overdue and, therefore, accolades to our Health Minister for taking action on this.

I’m hearing lots of concern from colleagues on the other side, who can’t quite make up their mind whether they support this or whether they really oppose it. It’s difficult to work that out when they are speaking on this. But we also have to remember that while the other side was in government, they did double MSP premiums, raising costs for people and for businesses. Not just a 10 percent increase or a 20 percent increase; we’re actually talking about doubling MSP premiums.

I’m so proud of the fact that after 16 long years, we have a government that is fully eliminating this regressive tax to make life more affordable for people. That’s what makes me so proud to be an NDPer. It’s that we look at the stresses and strains and the affordability challenges faced by hard-working people in Canada. They are telling us that life had become so, so difficult.

This is the largest tax cut in a generation, saving B.C. families as much as $1,800 per year, individuals up to $900 and, overall — I want us to stop and take stock of this, because I certainly had to — $2.7 billion, the largest tax cut in B.C. history. What is amazing about this is it goes across all the socioeconomic areas, all the full bands, because this puts us on a level playing field with Canadians right across this beautiful country.

[6:15 p.m.]

Now B.C. joins the ranks of having truly universal health care, where health care is not dependent on your income and what you can afford, because we know that coming up with $1,800 a year, or $900 for an individual, is not an easy task.

It’s not an easy task. There are many students I talked to over the last number of years who went without getting health care coverage, without paying the premiums, even after they were working, because they were trying to pay off their student loans as well. They didn’t even realize the kind of debt that they could end up incurring because they didn’t have that coverage.

One thing that I’ve always believed in is that the size of your income and where you happen to be born geographically in Canada, and whether you’re born into a well-to-do family or a family that is struggling, should not determine your access to health care services. No matter where you live, you should have the ability to access health care services on an as-needed basis. It should not be dependent upon the size of your family’s income and your income.

I’m so delighted that this hard-working Health Minister has taken action on this not a year down the road. He didn’t even wait until we were close to the next election. He took action on it straightaway, because, both philosophically and financially, we knew this was the right thing to do. We knew, as a government, that it was going to put pressure overall, but you move on doing what is right, and that is giving true universal health care to British Columbians.

This bill will deliver on the commitments we’ve made. As you all know, the premiums have already been cut in half. I have constituents who stop me in the street, stop me at the grocery store and tell me what a huge difference this has made. I know they’re looking forward to January 1, 2020, when they will have made even more gains.

This is good for people, this is good for the economy, and this is good for job creation everywhere in B.C. When people don’t have to spend that $1,800 as a family on their health care premiums, guess what. They get to go to their local grocery store and maybe buy some healthier food choices. They also get to spend it in their local businesses in their own communities. These are not the people who are going to be sheltering their money in tax shelters offshore. These are the people who are going to feed the small and medium-sized businesses that are the backbone of our economy. And these are good things to move on.

I also have to add that along with this, there have been many other affordability measures that I’m so proud our government has taken. Coming from Surrey-Panorama, we, south of the Fraser, know what it is like when you have to cross bridges all the time. And of course, it was another inequity that existed in B.C. that I could never understand: why only south of the Fraser, the two bridges there, had tolls on them.

Once again, for equity’s sake, those tolls have been removed, and we’re hearing from families what a huge difference that has made, whether it’s students, whether it’s business people, whether it’s people having to travel for jobs or visit their grandchildren as they travel over the bridges. This has also helped with the gridlock.

We’ve also addressed affordability with the greatest investment in a new social program — child care. I’m so proud of the minister and the minister of state with those portfolios, because once again, they didn’t spend years studying. They went into taking action straightaway. I meet young families who tell me what a huge difference this has made. It’s made women who may not have been able to go back to work, go back to work.

We’re hearing these stories that are both moving and that tell you we are on the right track.

[6:20 p.m.]

Not only is this the biggest tax cut, this cutting of the MSP premiums 100 percent as of February 1, 2020, but I also want to say that I’m so proud of our government. In Surrey alone, we have announced over 7,000 spots for schools to get kids out of portables. And our investments in infrastructure — $20 billion over the next three years.

This is a government that has a balanced budget and that is investing in social programs after decades of a dry period and — do you know what? — growing decent-paying jobs, good-paying jobs, in every corner of the province. We’re building hospitals, building schools, building roads and highways, building bridges and building child care centres.

I could go on, but I won’t because I know there are many others who are anxious to get up and speak about this largest tax cut in B.C. history, which is going to be benefiting British Columbians.

J. Thornthwaite: I am happy to stand in this House and respond to the Medicare Protection Amendment Act. I support the elimination of the MSP, as per the B.C. Liberal’s spring 2017 budget. But I don’t support the NDP government’s double-dipping, which forces British Columbians to pay for both the MSP and the employer health tax in 2019. This is what’s happening right now. This double-dipping creates an unfair burden that collects health taxes twice with no foreseeable benefit.

The employer health tax is a dubious measure, enforced by the NDP government, that unfairly targets businesses that carry a payroll of $500,000 or more annually. These employers are being forced to bear the burden of this tax. In order to pay for it, they will have to lay off staff, costing employees their livelihood. It’s a job-killer, and it hurts affordability. Why? Consumers will be footing the bill through increased prices for goods because businesses will be scrambling to find a way to cover the cost of the health tax.

These implementations do nothing to bolster the job market, promote entrepreneurship or make life more affordable for British Columbians. There is an NDP theme here: having life more expensive for British Columbia, not more affordable. We have an increase in property tax, the speculation tax and the misnamed “school tax” that has nothing to do with schools — 19 new or increased taxes that the NDP has imposed on British Columbians since they were elected in 2017.

Small and medium-sized businesses on the North Shore are being unfairly punished. They’ve worked tirelessly in order to create something that they are proud of. Many of them have invested time and money to create their businesses. One example is the Savary Island Pie Co. in West Vancouver. The Savary Island Pie Co. is a successful, popular family business that was established 35 years ago. It is currently run by a 38-year-old entrepreneur named Brad.

The bakery currently employ 35 to 45 employees, and he pays about $1 million in payroll. The employer health tax charges him 1.5 percent of that, which is costing him $15,000 in additional taxes — for nothing. This comes in addition to the $10,000 in rent that he pays alongside increased property taxes. Why? Because the municipality has to pay the employer health tax. And how else do they pay for it? By increasing property taxes. The cumulative cost of all of this means Brad won’t be hiring any more staff, because the cost of labour is simply too high. This is alarming, considering he’s already working seven days a week to keep his business functioning.

Brad also has to raise the cost of the goods produced by Savary Island Pies. This means that there is a risk that demand might go down because of the increased cost. This is bad news for Brad and for his employees because a decrease in business means he won’t be able to come up with the money to pay for the labour that runs his bakery. Brad is understandably frustrated that the NDP seems to be discouraging small businesses in our community.

[6:25 p.m.]

Shuttering small businesses by way of astronomical taxation is no way to bolster the economy. Entrepreneurs should be rewarded for their hard work and for the great goods and services they bring to their communities.

Another example of a business being unfairly punished is Delany’s coffee shops. Delany’s is a coffee shop on the North Shore that began in 1993. The shop started as a small roadside kiosk on the streets of Vancouver. They worked all day selling coffee and produced bake goods in the evening. When a space opened up on Denman Street, they risked it all and began working to create a name for themselves. After four years of working day and night, they opened a second store.

This family business eventually blossomed and now has five locations that employ a total of 70 employees. Instead of being rewarded for their pioneering spirit and hard work, they are being burdened with additional taxes, an estimated $70,000 to $80,000 in additional costs. This is a hardship, combined with the increases imposed on them by the minimum wage.

These extra operating costs present an unfair burden for the owners. Like Brad, they will likely be forced to re-evaluate their staffing ability and the cost of their products. Their business adds a unique flavour to the North Shore, and they have to fight to remain competitive in their sector because they aren’t a big-box corporation. But the NDP doesn’t care about local small businesses.

Major Tom, a digital agency in Vancouver that employees 75 staff across Canada, is paying an additional $80,000 this year and MSP premiums — double-dipping again. This cost means that they will hire one less person every year or lay one person off to cover the cost of the extra tax. That is the definition of a job-killer. Major Tom’s biggest expense is salary, and the only way they can reduce this cost is to reduce their staff.

The technology industry is an important sector in British Columbia. In order for it to grow and prosper, we need to support companies like Major Tom for diversifying the job market.

It gets worse. These industries are commonly employing millennials — good, well-paying jobs for millennials. But as you can see from Major Tom’s experience, there will be less open positions in these companies in an attempt to keep payroll spending to a minimum. How will young people in the fields get ahead if they can’t find a job in their chosen industry?

When businesses cannot stay open because they have to raise prices or lay off staff to cut labour costs because it’s simply too expensive to pay them, it’s the consumer who pays. It’s the laid-off employees who will pay. It’s the university graduates whose industry is hiring less staff to manage payroll and labour costs who will have to pay. And the entrepreneurs who have risked it all and put in the time and the work will also have to pay, not the NDP. They don’t care.

It’s certainly time to retire the outdated medical services premiums once and for all, but it is not appropriate to find another way to foot the bill by implementing yet another tax. The NDP continues to fail in implementing the MSP replacement tax, and instead of finding a feasible way to cover the tax, they parade out a parade of taxes that only make life more expensive for British Columbians, not more affordable.

It does nothing for the economy and does nothing for British Columbia. Overloading taxpayers and small businesses is not an appropriate revenue-generation plan. I support eliminating the MSP, but I do not support replacing it with yet another tax.

Hon. G. Heyman: I will not spend a long time speaking in favour of Bill 20, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, but I am very proud to take my place and note this very historic amendment. I want to commend the Finance Minister and the Health Minister for bringing forward exactly what this government promised — the elimination of the medical services premium and the largest middle-class tax cut in British Columbia history.

[6:30 p.m.]

We’ve heard much, over many, many months, from members of the opposition, claiming that this will make life more expensive, that it’s not fair, that it’s somehow going to add to costs for British Columbians, without offering a shred of credible evidence compared to their own history. So let’s, for a moment, look at the history of the opposition when they were in government and when they formed government.

In 2001, they implemented a broad-based income tax cut. How did they pay for it, despite the fact that they claimed, at the time, it would pay for itself? They paid for it by raising the Medical Services Plan premiums by 50 percent — 50 percent. It was a 50 percent increase to a regressive tax across the board in order to pay for a cut to the progressive income tax system that disproportionately benefited, when compared to the rise in the Medical Services Plan premium, the richest British Columbians, progressively down to the least well-off British Columbians.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

We’re maintaining those income tax cuts. In addition to that, we are, in two phases — and this is the final phase, effective in 2020 — eliminating the Medical Services Plan premium, worth $900 to an individual and up to $1,800 for a family. That is a huge and significant difference because the Medical Services Plan premium, were it paid at all by somebody earning $600,000 a year, was exactly the same as that for somebody earning $60,000 a year. That’s hardly fair.

When we talk about impacts to families, we’re not talking about hurting their pocketbooks solely. We’re talking about hurting the places where they spend whatever discretionary income they may have. That is the real impact on the community. It’s an impact that was felt by everyone. It was an impact that was felt by small business. It was an impact that was felt by children. It was an impact that was felt by students who didn’t have the necessary money to get school supplies. It was felt by young people who wished for hockey equipment or dance equipment or music lessons.

This was the last bastion of a Medical Services Plan premium in Canada, and we’re removing it. We’re not apologetic about it. We are proud of it. The fact remains that when you remove $1,800 in flat, across the board, unfair regressive taxation from families in British Columbia, you are making a huge difference. The fact also remains that it doesn’t matter how or what method we would have figured out to pay for most, not all, of that loss to provincial revenues, the opposition would have found something to complain about instead of simply acknowledging their actions — in 2001, raising the Medical Services Plan premium by 50 percent and, subsequently, over the course of their entire time in office, doubling it.

When they’ve done that to families in British Columbia, piled on all the other costs they put on families in British Columbia, it’s really a bit rich to say, as the member for Chilliwack-Kent said, that we’re putting costs on those who can least afford it.

The fact is that we’re doing exactly the opposite. We’re providing relief to people who need relief. Whether it’s through this incredibly, incredibly historic, largest middle-class tax cut in B.C. history, whether it’s providing child care, whether it’s providing assistance in moving into clean energy accommodation in vehicles, whether it’s investing in public transit, the actions of this government are making life more affordable for British Columbians every day, making life better for British Columbians every day and ensuring that we do so with a view to equity, with a view to fairness and with a view to supporting the kind of healthy British Columbia communities that British Columbians have asked for, for 16 long years.

[6:35 p.m.]

The time has arrived. It’s an honour to support this bill.

R. Sultan: I am pleased to respond to Bill 20, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2019. The legislation before us today is a step in eliminating MSP premiums paid directly by individuals. Let me emphasize that: paid directly by individuals.

It’s a goal we all share with this government. It’s exactly what the B.C. Liberal government was planning to do, leading up to its final year in power, in 2017. Before you, we might say, is a bill merely completing the job that the B.C. Liberals were planning in any eventuality, so we agree with the intent of the bill.

Interjection.

R. Sultan: I am delighted that the eminent minister is smiling and nodding his head in agreement with my remarks.

The B.C. Liberal reduction in MSP premiums of yesteryear, cutting them in half for about two million households earning less than $120,000 a year — that’s what we did — is the equivalent of a $1 billion tax cut at the individual level.

Interjection.

R. Sultan: The minister seems to disagree with my arithmetic.

The promise was that when fiscal circumstances allowed, the other half of the MSP premiums would also be eliminated. While we share the current government’s goal of eliminating MSP premiums, the way we got there was radically different. Our way of eliminating MSP premiums was through a $1 billion personal tax break to British Columbians.

The NDP version of this useful social innovation, shall we say, was merely to transfer the obligation to somebody else. They didn’t cut the taxes at all. They just shifted them from A to B. I want to, therefore, emphasize, as a matter of honesty or perhaps knowledge of the English language, that we seem to have a different meaning for words on this side of the House compared to the other side of the House.

In B.C. Liberal land, when we talk about tax cuts, it’s spelled t-a-x c-u-t. Tax cut. The idea is an innovation in fiscal thinking that the NDP might ponder. I know it’s a rather radical thought, but I commend it to you for your consideration. A tax cut, t-a-x c-u-t. In B.C. Liberal land, a tax cut means leaving money in consumers’ pockets. However, in NDP land, a tax cut means taking your hand out of pocket A and putting it into pocket B. It’s not really our version of a tax cut at all. It’s just hitting a different pocket.

I’m tempted, therefore, to introduce a private bill. My private bill would be entitled the Cessation of Disrespecting the Intelligence of the Average B.C. Taxpayer Act of 2019. If you want an acronym, CDIABCTA for short. This new bill would ban, under threat of severe treble damage penalties, the assumption that government believes that the average B.C. taxpayer is a moron incapable of distinguishing between an honest elimination of a tax versus the mere transfer of a tax from A to B.

[6:40 p.m.]

I mean, let’s respect the taxpayer. They aren’t that dumb. They know what’s going on. This isn’t a tax break at all. I think this would be helpful of the government, dealing with many restless taxpayers wondering about these 22 tax increases, despite our Minister of Environment bragging about their tremendous tax cuts…. Middle-class tax cuts — that’s all we hear about. But they’re confusing the public by continuing to insist that taking money out of pocket A and not taking money out of pocket A but taking it out of pocket B is, in fact, a tax cut. Taxpayers are smarter than that. They see through that deception.

My private bill, should I get around to drafting it — and I must do it quickly, because I know time’s a-wasting here — will at least give the NDP the assurance that the taxpayer knows exactly what’s going on, because we do know they know what exactly is going on. I don’t think the public is so dim that they can’t see what is plain as the nose on your face — that the advertised MSP premium tax cut is merely shifting taxes from individuals to providers of goods and services, including, prominently, government itself. That’s a rather circular tax route, but that’s, in fact, what a big chunk of this is creating.

How does it work, in NDP-land, when it does come to taxes being transferred from pocket A to pocket B? Well, it’s a rather prominent list of new taxpayers that all of a sudden are hit for some levy out of the blue that they hadn’t really anticipated. I think, particularly if you’re a government entity, it’s probably the last thing in the world you would ever imagine would happen to you — that the party that favours government perhaps more than anything else, which certainly seems to be evident, all of a sudden hits them over the head with a bunch of taxes which they weren’t expecting.

Let’s list a few of them. They transfer the taxes from individuals to schools. That’s innovative. I mean, there are schools almost everywhere. That’s a juicy tax target. Let’s whack them with some taxes, and that’ll make up the difference.

And hospitals. Well, they’re a prime target. I mean, they seem to be spending a lot of money. In fact, they’re about 40 percent or more of the entire government budget. They’re big. There is a lot of money flowing through there. Let’s hit them with some taxes as well.

Social agencies. Well, we can whack them for some taxes to make up our pretend tax cut on individuals.

And small businesses — those fat cats struggling with their storefronts — can’t pay the real estate taxes. Who has any sympathy for them? They’re obviously not very competent. Let’s whack them as well.

Ah, but here’s another favourite target: big business as well. We’ll get some money out of them to make up the deficiency. Let’s not forget the coffee shops, the cab drivers, the lawyers, the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker. There are lots of people out there that can be taxed. Everybody who delivers services…. I’m thinking there must be, in fact, some way — I’m sure I can prove it — that the person who delivers my mail is going to pay some of this new tax as well.

I plead with the NDP, in the interest of protecting my fragile sanity, to please change your talking points and don’t keep talking about this tax cut. Certainly, I don’t think many of us on this side of the House are so dim as to actually believe that rhetoric. I’ve got news for you. My assessment is that the average British Columbian taxpayer is not so dim as to believe that at all. They see through the deception that these so-called tax cuts are just taking money from pocket B instead of pocket A. My friends on the opposite side: you’re losing credibility by not modernizing your talking points and bringing them into the real world.

[6:45 p.m.]

Let me just enumerate in a little bit more detail and try to quantify how much is being transferred to pocket B.

School boards. Well, they’re only being whacked for $75 million. My school boards tell me this was a big surprise. They assumed, as government entities, that if the government was going to hit them with a new tax on this side of the ledger, there’d be more money coming in on the other side of the ledger to make up the difference. But the last news I got — maybe my news is out of date — was: “Oh no.” They had to scurry around and draw down their bank savings or whatever money they might have in the piggy bank somewhere, in the grade 1 class or something, to make up the difference.

These new taxes, of course, are part of the employment tax, which everybody has to pay, including the public sector. Same thing for the universities, colleges and the health authorities.

And this is a big surprise. We’re being whacked by close to a 5 percent tax increase on our real estate taxes in — that dreaded word — West Vancouver, where we don’t have any yacht clubs. Or maybe we do. For that 5 percent tax cut, about 2 percentage points of it — 40 percent of the tax increase — is the tax increase that you folks have put on our poor suffering real estate taxpayers in the town I live in. Certainly, the pain and agony, as those tax notices are now going out….

It’s going to be rather loud and shrill. “What are you people doing raising our taxes 5 percent?” I know it’s nice to have such modernized garbage pickup. I put out my green box even if it has three eggshells and maybe an orange peel in it, and a great big diesel truck comes along and picks it up regardless. That’s the kind of luxury we have in West Vancouver when we’re not at the yacht club. I’m kind of amazed at the level of services.

Even this group of people, who aren’t very often found at the food bank, are beginning to wonder about these real estate taxes. Let’s not get into the subject of speculation, education, property transfer tax and all those other terrible things aimed at the villains in our society.

The municipalities are being hit hard. We’ll survive somehow in West Vancouver. I’m not sure this is quite so typical of less affluent communities around British Columbia. They have to pay this tax as well. And they’re going to collect it. They have no other means of income than putting it on their taxes themselves. So this tax cut that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy is talking about…. Well, maybe in a very narrow perspective, it was a tax cut, but it’s a tax increase for the real estate owners of British Columbia. And I think it’s deception not to admit that.

I really feel particularly concerned about the plight of small business owners in this province, because the economy is certainly softening. People are having to hold down two or three jobs to face the cost of living. I think we should not pretend that that is not a reality. When our friends in the NDP talk about the cost of living, they have hit a sore spot, an accurate sensitivity.

For example, I have a daughter trying to figure out what to do with the rest of her precious life, and my other daughter, who lives in the east…. The first daughter is thinking of moving back to Vancouver. My daughter in the east said: “Vancouver? Why don’t you move to Montreal? You can’t make a living in Vancouver.” That really hit home. My own daughter is being advised by another daughter not to move here. So I have to take a three- or four-hour plane ride to see them in the east?

[6:50 p.m.]

This is not right, but this is the reputation we have for the cost of living. It’s costing so much money. But I’m just delighted to hear the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy say that with middle-class tax cuts and making it so affordable to live here under our NDP government, we’re all sitting pretty. It’s great.

I add up the 22 tax increases. Is he serious that this is the government of low tax burden? Are you kidding me — 22 taxes? I think it’s very problematic that we can sell this as a low-tax place to come and live. I’ll be very interested to see my two daughters arguing about whether it’s Montreal or Vancouver. I suspect on the dollars and cents at least — let’s not talk about the weather in Montreal — I may be the loser. I’d love to see my daughters more often in the twilight of my years, but I’m not so sure.

I have a plea to my good friends across the way. Of course, our expensive, our very effective, health system has to be funded. We can’t do it by resorting to the Big Rock Candy Mountain, as my colleague here from the Kootenays is prone to sing from time to time. We all have to dig deep and pay for our superb health system — the doctors, the hospitals, the PharmaCare and all the rest. Let’s face up to it. This is not cheap. Somebody has to pay.

I’m not resenting the fact so much that the NDP, in its wisdom, decided it’s probably politically smart to take it out of pocket B — multiple pocket Bs — instead of pocket A. I could defend that proposition if I really had to. But what I find extremely offensive are the speeches saying: “Aren’t we great? We’re cutting taxes for everybody and reducing the cost of living.”

Our taxpayers aren’t that stupid. I would like to report that very piece of important information back to you, because they disrespect you when you tell them these great big fibs. They just don’t believe it, and they shouldn’t believe it, because it’s not true.

I think maybe I’ve rambled on long enough here. Noting the hour….

Interjections.

R. Sultan: I’m told I should wait here until the Speaker arrives. Okay.

I move we adjourn debate.

R. Sultan moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolutions and progress, 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. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:55 p.m.