Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading on Bill M225, Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (Holodomor) Memorial Day Act, 2019.

[2:50 p.m.]

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL M225 — UKRAINIAN FAMINE AND
GENOCIDE (HOLODOMOR)
MEMORIAL DAY ACT

A. Weaver: I move that Bill M225 be now read a second time.

It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak at second reading to Bill M225, the Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (Holodomor) Memorial Day Act.

As I noted upon introducing the bill at first reading, the term “Holodomor” is derived from the words moryty holodom, meaning extermination by hunger. During Holodomor, between three million and five million Ukrainians died as a result of a deliberate and politically motivated famine in 1932-33. This bill, if passed, would allow the fourth Saturday in November to be memorialized by the Legislature as Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (Holodomor) Memorial Day.

Canada is home to the world’s third-largest Ukrainian population behind Ukraine and Russia, with an estimated 1.36 million Ukrainian Canadians living across the country. Among them are members of my family. Please let me expand upon the importance of memorializing this horrific tragedy through the narrative of my own family’s experiences in the Ukraine.

I’m profoundly grateful to my uncle Bohdan Krawchenko, who was born in December 1946, shortly after the Second World War, in a refugee camp in the American zone of southern Germany, for helping me with our family’s history during, after and before the Holodomor.

Dyadʹko Bohdan was director of the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Alberta for many years before moving to the Ukraine in 1991. There, he became director of policy studies at the Council of Advisors to the newly constituted Parliament of Ukraine after Ukraine declared its independence on August 24, 1991. Bohdan Krawchenko is presently the dean of the Graduate School of Development at the University of Central Asia in Kyrgyzstan, where he also served as director general from 2007 to 2014.

My grandfather on my mother’s side, Alexander Krawchenko, immigrated to Canada in late 1950, arriving in Montreal with $5 in his pocket and with a family of four waiting in France to join him. Within half a year or so, being a good welder — I’ll come back to that — he had saved up enough money to pay for the transatlantic passage that brought everyone, including my mother, to Montreal.

Born in a small village in Dnipropetrovsk, Eastern Ukraine, in 1914, he survived the offensives and counter-offensives during the 1917 to ’20 Ukrainian revolution, the Stalin collectivization, the famine, the repressions and the horrors of the Second World War. He often reminded his children, including my mother, that he was one of the fortunate ones. Most people like him didn’t make it.

The Soviet regime was not established in Ukraine until 1919, after three attempts. At the end of 1918, the Bolshevik party in Ukraine had only 5,000 members in a country of 29 million people, and Soviet power depended entirely on Red Army forces from Russia. In 1919, the Bolsheviks implemented devastating agricultural policies of collectivization and forceful grain requisitions that led to the 1921 famine that claimed the lives of a million people and proved to be a dress rehearsal for a far more ominous famine a decade later.

[2:55 p.m.]

It implemented the new economic policy in 1921 — NEP, as it’s popularly called — a more market-oriented economic policy to foster economic growth. That allowed private individuals to own small enterprises, but its biggest impact was on the countryside, abandoning the much-hated collectivization and allowing private holdings, including a relatively sane tax policy instead of forceful confiscation.

Agriculture production increased; 70 percent of peasants were members of cooperatives. There were huge leaps in educational achievement. The urban economy expanded. The Ukrainian countryside had one of the world’s highest birth rates. All of this came to an end when Stalin decided on rapid industrialization that meant forced collectivization — that is, the abolition of private holding and forcing peasants into state-controlled collective farms for the simple reason that it was easier this way to extract enormous surpluses through outright confiscation. The fact that agricultural production plunged was not an issue as long as the surpluses could be extracted.

I should note as a little sidebar here that this same catastrophic policy was also pursued by Mao Zedong, Stalin’s disciple, in the Great Leap Forward from 1957 to ’60 that resulted in 30 million deaths in China. The country — China, that is — recovered under Deng Xiaoping, who was also greatly influenced by the experience of the new economic policy, the NEP, in his reforms, built in Ukraine.

Ukraine was always viewed by the Russian Bolsheviks as something of an El Dorado, with its rich black soil, whose agricultural produce was there for the taking. But it had a troublesome peasantry, with its strong self-organization, village committees, cooperatives, and so on, that also served as a social base of the national idea. If only it could be brought to heel, broken, then the rapacious policies would encounter little resistance.

My great-grandfather, Ustym Krawchenko, was part of the large base of the natural leadership of village society that had to be removed. He had seen the world, having sailed some 20,000 nautical miles as an army conscript, from Petersburg around the Cape of Good Hope to the land in the Far East, to participate in one of the last battles of the 1905 Russo-Japanese War.

He was stirred by the Ukrainian Revolution. During the 1920s, under the new economic plan, he was active in village life and, in 1925, a founder of the village improvement society from his village. There were nine children in his family, and the parents scrimped to send the eldest three boys to institutions of higher education. The family was sustained by a farm of some five hectares.

As Stalin moved towards collectivization in 1927, there was a large tax increase on the middle- and high-income peasants. The vast majority of peasants in Ukraine were middle peasants, holding somewhere between four and seven hectares of land. That year, at a meeting of the village council — recalling that, at this time, these councils played a very significant role in the governing of villages — Ustym criticized this measure, arguing that it would lower incentives of peasant households to generate surpluses. The village council supported his position and voted against the tax increase.

A few days later Soviet security services arrested him, and he spent half a year in prison. Ustym was released in May 1928, the year Stalin declared industrialization and the first step of collectivization. The onslaught of the Ukrainian peasantry began with the so-called dekulakization campaign, which involved ridding the countryside of its most productive strata and its natural leadership. The aim was “the liquidation of kulaks as a class.” Their property was to be confiscated. One group was to be imprisoned in concentration camps or shot; the other, deported to Siberia or northern Russia; and the third, resettled in another location.

My family fell in the second category. On March 5, 1930, a dekulakization brigade comprising party activists, the OGPU — that’s the forerunner of the KGB — and urban residents descended on the village, ordered the family out of the house and took them to be loaded on a crowded cattle wagon headed for the woodlands of northern Russia, the Vologda region.

Aboard was Ustym, age 50, his wife, 41, and five of the youngest of the nine children who were at home at the time: my grandfather, Alexander, who was 15, and four girls — aged 11, twins aged eight and a five-year-old. After some two weeks on the cattle wagon, they were deposited in Vologda, where it was still winter. Women and children were separated from able-bodied men and herded into a church. Conditions were appalling. There was one loaf of bread for 18 people.

[3:00 p.m.]

Children started to die en masse. The mortality rate was so high that the camp commander petitioned authorities to allow children under the age of 15 to be sent to their relatives and friends. The four girls, my great aunts, the eldest being 11, were put on a train alone and sent to Dnipropetrovsk, in Ukraine, into the care of one of their elder brothers, my great-uncle, Dyadʹko Vasyl, a 21-year-old engineering student at the time.

Ustym, their father, was driven into the woods to work to fell trees. It was winter, and he was half-barefooted since his boots were torn, and there was only one pair. In a letter to Vasyl, he wrote: “We are doomed here to a gradual death from starvation. We are told here that a bullet is worth more than any one of us, the exiled. So you all together must take care of your sisters and brothers to save them and lead them on the path that your parents put you on. I myself am destined to find a grave in the woods of Vologda Governorate.”

He quoted a poem written by one of his fellow exiles from the Odessa region of the Ukraine. “When I remember Ukraine, my heart sinks…. Cry, children of Ukraine. Grow up in tears…. One day we will cry and sing and rejoice together.”

As a side note, in 1930, before the fully blown apparatus of repression was established, people wrote these letters where they expressed themselves in a manner that would be simply unthinkable a few years later. My great-uncle Vasyl collected 22 such letters he received from various members of our family, burning the originals after transcribing them into school notebooks. He clung to them when the Germans took him from Ukraine during the Second World War as forced labour, where he remained after the war.

My grandfather and his mother escaped the Vologda region. With the young girls gone, the authorities decided to move them to where the men were working in the woods. There was no place to live, no food, and they lived on the street. There was only one way out — to flee. It was an epic journey of almost 1,500 kilometres.

My grandfather was 15 years old. As he wrote in a letter to his brother Vasyl: “If a runaway is caught, he or she is arrested. A Ukrainian is easily distinguished from a Russian. I learnt to speak their tongue and got a Russian jacket and dressed mother in a Russian sarafan,” which is the national dress. His mother had to pretend to be deaf and dumb, since she didn’t know Russian.

They slept in the woods or haylofts and begged for food. There was a dramatic moment on the journey when they reached the River Sukhona that they had to cross. “As they waited,” as grandfather wrote, “the militia came. They sat in the boat, and I pleaded with them to take us across. I thought we were caught, but they only asked: ‘Where are you going?’ ‘To work,’ I said, and they didn’t react at all.”

By the end of 1930, they’d made it to Ukraine, to Vasyl’s cramped quarters, and my grandfather was about to turn 16. Imagine that. He was just 15 when he made the 1,500-kilometre trek on foot with his mother. They couldn’t stay in Dnipropetrovsk. As escapees, they would be punished.

My grandfather did what thousands of other runaways did. He fled to the eastern cities of Ukraine, where industrialization had created a massive demand for labour. The industrial centres were a cauldron. You could lie about where you came from, and in this period, there was no way authorities could quickly verify the information.

He worked on a massive construction site, the building of the Dnipro hydroelectric dam just outside Zaporizhzhya, carrying heavy drills up scaffolding at the age of 16. Then he moved deeper into the industrial heartland, Donetsk oblast, changing jobs if it looked like the truth would emerge that he had fled exile. My grandfather excelled at welding.

He visited nearby Berdyansk, a town by the sea where he met my baba Antonina, whose family were rooted city-dwellers with their own house. She worked in an office at an enterprise and was quite adept at getting him various identity papers. They married. He was 20, and she was 18. One year later my uncle Oleh was born in Donetsk, and my mother, four years later, Ludmilla, in Berdyansk. The town had several machine-building plants, and there they lived until the middle of the Second World War.

The rest of the family, by now, was scattered — the elder sister in one place, the young girls and mother together either with one of their brothers or with other relatives. One brother, who was a land surveyor, even spent a short time in Tajikistan. But Ustym, fortunately, did make it back to Ukraine. He “broke away,” as one of the brothers wrote in a letter, and meandered to the Kazan, capital of Tatarstan, found work in Stalingrad and moved to Donetsk.

[3:05 p.m.]

Ustym, my great-grandfather, died in 1951, far away from the Vologda forests. After the Second World War, he and his wife moved to Truskavets, Lviv oblast, in Western Ukraine, where he worked building wells in this town of spas.

It’s a cruel twist of fate that those, such as my grandfather’s family, who were exiled to northern Russia or Siberia for their resistance to collectivization and not allowed to return to their village, survived the 1930s because of this. For what unfolded in the Ukrainian villages was horrific. Collectivization was accelerated in the winter of 1930-31, and there was large-scale resistance. Revolts and uprisings broke out in many villages. Peasants slaughtered cattle rather than turn them over to collective farms. Draconian grain requisition quotas were set that included the confiscation of seed grain.

By early 1933, the average peasant family, comprising five or six people, was left with 80 kilograms of grain to feed themselves. Peasants were forbidden to leave collective farms, and the Ukrainian borders were closely patrolled to prevent the starving from searching for bread in neighbouring Russia.

One of the worst famines in Ukrainian history, which killed millions, ravaged Ukraine, the Holodomor. It is one that could have been totally avoided. Collectivization and the famine-genocide of 1932-33 destroyed the peasants of Ukraine as a social strata. The Ukrainian village was silenced and never again rose in opposition to the Soviet regime.

Ukraine had not recovered from the traumas of the 1930s when it was plunged into the cauldron of the Second World War. It was the largest Soviet republic, which the Germans occupied in full, and armies swept through it — not once, not twice, not three times but four times. The Nazi invasion and the Soviet army retreat involved a scorched earth policy, destroying all that could not be evacuated and included the execution of inmates in the NKVD prisons. That’s what the secret police had called them.

The German retreat left yet another trail of destruction and the retaking of the country by the Soviet forces. Not once but twice the mere fact that my grandfather was a welder saved his life and the lives of his family. Forced-labour, some more often called slave-labour, work camps were the destination for my family.

The war was characterized by unheard-of brutalities outside the field of battle. During the occupation, some five million civilians were killed, of whom over 600,000 were Jews, and 1.4 million military personnel either perished on the fronts or died as prisoners of war. Every third man in the Red Army was lost, compared to one in every 20 in the British Army. Altogether, 6.8 million people and two million citizens of the republic were sent to Germany as Ostarbeiter, forced labour.

Stalin’s appalling unpreparedness to fight the war has been well documented. He pinned all his hopes on the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The Germans invaded the U.S.S.R. on June 22, 1941. By October, Donetsk oblast was taken. They confronted an army that was poorly led. During the 1936 to ’38 purges, 60 percent of army commanders, from the corps to brigade level, had either been executed or died in prison camps. The dispirited troops were quickly encircled and surrendered, only to die as prisoners of war.

My grandfather, Alexander, was in the Donetsk region digging anti-tank ditches when the German army and the German war machine shattered the Soviet army. He survived and walked to Berdyansk, where his family lived. Once he told my uncle Bohdan about his experience. He struggled through battlefields, with thousands upon thousands of corpses strewn across the landscape and with wounded soldiers in agony, breathing their last breath. He arrived in Berdyansk bedraggled, emaciated and in shock. When he knocked on the door, his wife did not recognize him.

My grandfather, like others, did not know what to expect. His brother Vasyl, the engineer, and three of the elder girls had already been taken by Germans as Ostarbeiter. When it became known that the German advance in Russia was stopped and that they would retreat in the face of superior Soviet forces, my grandfather knew that the steppes of Ukraine would once more become a bloody battlefield.

[3:10 p.m.]

He loaded the family on a wagon. He was just 28, his wife 26, with two children: my uncle, who was seven — that’s Uncle Oleh; and my mother, just two years old. With a cow in tow, he said goodbye to his parents, promising to return soon, and headed to no particular destination — just west, some out-of-the-way spot so that the fronts coming to and fro would pass.

My grandfather’s welding skills provided a livelihood as they meandered and ended up in Slovakia. There, the Germans took them as forced labour — my grandfather to work repairing railcars and my grandmother as a highly exploited agricultural labourer with two children to take care of.

The end of the war found them in the American zone of southern Germany. Otherwise, they would have been sent back to Ukraine, as three of his sisters were. From Germany, they moved to France and then to Canada.

When the casualties of the revolutionary period, collectivization, famine and the purges in the second world are combined, more than half of the men and a quarter of the female population of the Ukraine perished. The survival rate of those who had been marked as enemies of the people was even lower.

My grandfather was, indeed, one of the fortunate ones. It’s hard to believe — one of the fortunate ones. He did return to the Ukraine, by then in retirement, after his wife, my baba, had died. He completed a theological degree at the Ukrainian Orthodox St. Andrews College Faculty of Theology at the University of Manitoba and became an Orthodox priest. With his eldest son, Dyadʹko Oleh, also an Orthodox priest, they visited the native village and held a memorial service for all of the departed souls from his family, my family and the rest in Ukraine.

That is my family’s story before, during and after the Holodomor. My family is only one of millions of Ukrainians who experienced the same.

Through the passage of this bill — as has been done in the federal parliament as well as the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec — we say that we remember and that we memorialize the memory of the millions who died in Holodomor.

Today we can only imagine the atrocities experienced by the people of Ukraine. And while our memories fade with time, let us collectively say: “Never again.”

T. Shypitka: It gives me pride and honour to speak to Bill M225, the Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (Holodomor) Memorial Day Act. Before I do, I’d like to really thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for spearheading this issue and bringing it forward to where we are today.

Thank you for the sombre and terrifying tales that you shared with us. I think it’s an important piece of the recognizing and the reflection that we need to bring this act to where it should be.

To first recognize and reflect, as the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head so eloquently did just now, we must first understand. I thought I would take a moment of my time today to recognize the past because we cannot move forward without sometimes looking back.

I will refer to some historical facts that I found through the Holodomor research and education consortium. The term “Holodomor,” as the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has stated, essentially means death by hunger in Ukrainian. It refers to the starvation of millions of Ukrainians in 1932 and 1933 as a result of Soviet policies.

The Holodomor can be seen as the accumulation of an assault by the Communist Party and Soviet state on the Ukrainian peasantry who resisted Soviet policies. This assault occurred in the context of a campaign of intimidation and arrests of Ukrainian intellectuals, writers, artists, religious leaders and political cadres who were seen as a threat to Soviet ideological and state-building aspirations.

Between 1917 and 1921, Ukraine briefly became an independent country and fought to retain its independence before succumbing to the Red Army and being incorporated into the Soviet Union. In the 1920s, Soviet central authorities, seeking the support of the populace, allowed for some cultural autonomy through the policy known as indigenization.

By the end of the 1920s, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin decided to curtail Ukraine’s cultural autonomy, launching the intimidation, arrests, imprisonment and execution of thousands of Ukrainian intellectuals, church leaders, as well as Communist Party functionaries who had supported Ukraine’s distinctiveness.

[3:15 p.m.]

At the same time, Stalin ordered the collectivization of agriculture. The majority of Ukrainians, who were small-scale farmers, resisted. The state confiscated the property of the independent farmers and forced them to work on government collective farms. The more prosperous farmers, owning a few head of livestock, for example, and those who resisted collectivization were branded kulaks, rich peasants, and declared enemies of the state who deserved to be eliminated as a class. I think that’s important to note because elimination of a class or a type of people is essentially genocide. Thousands were thrown out of their homes and deported, exiled or executed.

In 1932, the Communist Party set impossibly high quotas for the amount of grain that Ukrainian villages were required to contribute to the Soviet state. When the villages were not able to meet the quotas, authorities intensified the requisition campaign, confiscating even the seed set aside for planting and levying fines in meat and potatoes for failure to fulfil the quotas. Special teams were sent to search homes and even seized other food stuffs.

Starving farmers attempted to leave their villages in search of food, but Soviet authorities issued a decree forbidding Ukraine’s peasants from leaving the country. As a result, many thousands of farmers who had managed to leave their villages were apprehended and sent back — virtually a death sentence. A law was introduced that made the theft of even a few stocks of grain an act of sabotage punishable by execution. In some cases, soldiers were posted in watchtowers to prevent people from taking any of the harvest. Although informed of the dire conditions in Ukraine, central authorities ordered local officials to extract even more from the villages. Millions starved as the U.S.S.R. sold crops from Ukraine abroad.

The U.S.S.R. vigorously denied that the Holodomor occurred. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Communist Party, secret police and government archives that have become accessible to researchers support the conclusion that the famine was caused by Soviet state policies and was indeed intentionally intensified by Soviet authorities.

Unfortunately, humankind has seen numerous examples of political injustices: the Holocaust, as the member said, the Mao Zedong regime and the Holodomor. Closer to home, we are working through injustices that years ago were brought upon our First Nation communities. This is something that we’re all trying desperately to heal from. Truth and reconciliation is not specific to any one area or region of our planet. Reconciliation may look differently, but truth is synonymous with us all.

Moments in history like the Ukraine famine and genocide serve as a reminder of the horrors that have been inflicted on innocent people. Nearly 90 years later the memories of this still linger in the minds of generations of people affected. This bill honours those that died and the millions affected, many of whom found new homes in other countries, far from the horrors of the Soviet regime.

By commemorating this day here in British Columbia, we are affirming our position with the rest of Canada that we are a place of welcome that remembers the past while striving for a better future. Now this isn’t a big bill. However, its simplicity doesn’t reflect its importance.

When a mistake is made, there are only three things you should ever do about it: admit it, learn from it and don’t repeat it. I’m hoping for all three with Bill M225, 2019. The Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (Holodomor) Memorial Day Act will do just that.

Hon. B. Ralston: I’m pleased to rise in support of Bill M225, the Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (Holodomor) Memorial Day Act.

I want to thank the Leader of the Third Party for introducing this legislation. I particularly want to thank him and his family for sharing a very moving personal history of his journey through the last century and the impact that events such as Holodomor and other major events of world history have had upon him and his family, and how he comes to be here in this place. It’s important, as we seek to understand each other, to understand our own backgrounds and antecedents.

[3:20 p.m.]

I have brought very similar bills forward in this House as a private member in 2009 and 2013, so I’m familiar with this issue. I’m really glad to have the opportunity to speak to it today.

I, unlike the Leader of the Third Party, have no Ukrainian ancestry, not even remotely in the lateral reaches of my family background. I came to an awareness and an interest in this issue in a very different way. I was elected in 2005 as the MLA for Surrey-Whalley, and in my riding is the Ukrainian Orthodox Cultural Centre on 108th Avenue in Surrey. It’s next to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of St. Mary.

As a constituency MLA, I went to various events there. What I discovered was something that I didn’t really know anything about — the history of Holodomor and its significance to Canadians who trace their origins to Ukraine. I particularly want to thank Katherine and Bill Miske, who really got me interested. They really piqued my interest in this topic. I really want to thank them for making me aware and setting me on a journey to learn more and to join with others in the Ukrainian community and the Ukrainian diaspora here in British Columbia and Canada, as we seek to do just what this bill says, here in British Columbia.

The Miskes are pretty amazing people. They were recognized in 2016 by the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, the B.C. provincial council, for their contributions to their community. They’re the kind of people that…. In any organization, there are always a few who do all the work: they organize the events; they collect the tickets; they organize the food; they organize the dance; and they do it selflessly and without complaining. Part of, I think, their legacy — in a minor way — is that they got me interested in this topic. Therefore, that’s why I brought it forward previously, and that’s why I’m so pleased that it has come here to the Legislature today.

As others have said, the bill recognizes the famine and genocide that killed literally millions of Ukrainians in the winter of 1932 and 1933, during that period of forced collectivization in the Soviet Union. The tragedy…. Some estimate that up to — estimates vary, understandably — as many as ten million Ukrainians died. One-third of them, fully, may well have been children.

It’s known, as we’ve discussed here already, as Holodomor. The derivation comes from the two Ukrainian words — holod, meaning hunger, starvation or famine, and moryty, to induce suffering, to kill. During this time, the Soviet state had drawn a line around a huge area in Ukraine and would not let anyone come or go from that area. And inside that area that was circumscribed, they set very high — impossibly high — quotas of grain for villages to contribute and forbade Ukrainians from leaving their village in search of food. The inevitable consequence, along with a battery of laws to enforce that, was the resulting tragedy and widespread famine that killed many, many people.

The Leader of the Third Party has spoken about some of the motives of the Soviet leadership, for fearing the national awakening of Ukrainians and their aspirations for cultural expression and an independent state. It’s significant that the former Soviet state attempted, with great success, to actually keep the news of this tragedy from spreading out into international news.

There was a very famous reporter for the New York Times who was, I think, convinced — wrongly — that nothing had happened. That was what people relied upon as an accurate account of what took place. So for many, many years, the truth of what happened in Ukraine was hidden from history — of course, no more.

[3:25 p.m.]

Some of the survivors of this famine and genocide, and their descendants, reside in British Columbia. In the course of my meetings and attendance at events in Surrey, I’ve met those who trace their origins to Ukraine at this time. I’ve actually heard firsthand accounts from one woman who lived and managed to survive that period of history — very moving and profound accounts of deep personal and societal suffering.

Those who have survived, and their descendants, have made, of course, valuable contributions to the province’s cultural, economic, political and educational life, not the least of which is the member who just spoke before me and the Leader of the Third Party. About 5 percent of British Columbia’s population traces their origins to Ukraine. It’s approximately 200,000 people. There are about 1.3 million Canadians who trace their origins to Ukraine as well.

This event has been memorialized and recognized by a number of governments. The government of Ukraine; the Parliament of Canada; the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec; UNESCO; the United Nations; the United States House of Representatives and the Senate; the European Parliament; and many other jurisdictions worldwide have officially condemned the Holodomor or recognized it as what it was — as a genocide.

The Ukrainian government itself has officially observed the fourth Saturday in November as Holodomor Memorial Day since 2006. So that’s why we join with all of those other jurisdictions, and particularly with the government of Ukraine, to proclaim the fourth Saturday in November of each year Holodomor Memorial Day to remember those who perished as victims of the Holodomor.

I look forward to hearing the contributions of others to the debate.

M. Lee: I wanted to add my participation to this discussion in support of Bill M225, 2019. As with the member for Kootenay East, I certainly would convey our appreciation on behalf of the B.C. Liberal caucus and the Leader of the Official Opposition, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, who wanted to join in this discussion today and has been, certainly, a great friend of the Ukrainian-Canadian community, particularly in Metro Vancouver.

It is a time when, unfortunately — with bills of this nature, with the struggles that we have in our world — we need to continue to have memorial days to remember. Regrettably, acts against humanity continue to exist and are brought to other members of our world, both in the past and in the present. As the member for Kootenay East referred to, the history of Canada, with Indigenous peoples…. There are other examples, of course, but I know that when we talk about other tragedies in the world, including in this country and in this province, with other communities, there’s no comparison. We cannot compare what has happened in the history of one people to another.

For the Ukrainian-Canadian community, which has been, for many years, leaders in the world, to bring greater attention to the tragedies, as to what happened, as the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the Leader of the Third Party, so eloquently described…. It’s the Ukrainian-Canadian community, both here in Victoria and in Vancouver — with memorials that have been erected in Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg and Windsor, to name other parts of our country — that have demonstrated the leadership to bring a greater awareness of what has occurred.

[3:30 p.m.]

Like the Minister of Jobs, I also don’t have any Ukrainian heritage in my blood. But in 1985, I had the opportunity to serve on a national youth advisory committee, and I would say that was the first time that I met with young Ukrainian Canadians in Winnipeg who served on that committee with me. I learned a lot about the history of the Ukraine and much of the tragedy for generational impact that Holodomor brought to the Ukrainian people. More recently, I have made many friendships, including clients of mine who are from Edmonton in the Ukrainian community there.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I just want to mention…. I think it was a year ago that the Minister of Jobs and Trade and I were with the Ukrainian community at the Trinity Orthodox Cathedral in Vancouver. It was to commemorate Holodomor, and it provided much information, as the minister just outlined, in terms of the misinformation that was brought either by the Soviet Union or by others and the hiding of this human tragedy for so many years, until the 1990s, and the efforts that it took to make the world understand what had occurred.

I also want to pay tribute, as well…. I recognize that the minister has, through other efforts in this House, tried to bring a similar bill to this House. I share his efforts in this, but also to recognize another friend of the Ukrainian community, the late Mark Warawa, the Member of Parliament for Langley-Aldergrove who, I know, in speaking that day, also had great sympathy and great understanding for the importance of this memorial. I know he’s here with us in spirit today.

It’s important, of course, as we look at the bill…. There is an aspect in the recitals to the bill that it would “provide an opportunity to reflect on the enduring lessons of the Holodomor and other crimes against humanity….” You know, much of what we talk about in this House is the importance of the rights of the individual, and to suffer what occurred during that regime…. It’s said that at the height of what was occurring in 1932 and ’33, people were dying at the rate of 25,000 per day, 1,000 per hour or 17 per minute. The scope and the depth of this tragedy is untold.

One cannot imagine what others have said when there is mass starvation that’s forced at the hands of the Soviet communist regime. Children, parents, mothers and fathers, grandparents, suffering together, having nothing to eat, having to resort to eating things that are untold of and unspeakable.

This is a forced human tragedy at the hands of that Soviet regime, but it is something that…. We know, as a society and as a people, as we look at injustice around the world, that those lives — the lives that have been lost — and, as with the Leader of the Third Party, the member for Kootenay East and other Ukrainian Canadians, the generational impact to families, the memories, are something that they need to live with and that we need to learn from.

[3:35 p.m.]

A memorial day like this enables the sharing of this information, the creation of greater awareness. I know that there have been efforts — for example, with the Canada-Ukraine Foundation, which launched a national awareness tour back in 2015 — to educate the young, the youth of Canada, and I think that that is of great benefit. As much as we talk about the tragedy and what occurred and who has perished, it is an opportunity, at least on an annual basis, that we remember.

I’m sure that for many in the gallery here today — the family members of the Third Party Leader — these memories are quite haunting every day. But at least for one day in this year, in this province, in this House, we will remember, and we will learn. We will understand how there are bigger things in life, basic necessities, the basic respect for human dignity that we need to all have for each other. As we wear our red poppies to remember Remembrance Day, coming up as well, this is a time, certainly, to remember sacrifice.

I know that when we talk about human rights in Canada and the movement, many members of the Ukrainian-Canadian community, like many members of the Jewish community, for example, have participated and led so many efforts around human rights in this country. It comes from the depth of what each of those communities experienced in different ways. We have a lot to learn from that, and we have a lot to be appreciative of.

As much as we are remorseful about what has occurred and the sacrifice that has been made, the least we can do is to do what the member from the Third Party has put together and put forward today.

With that, I know that all members of this House will join those who spoke and the leaders of each of our parties to support this bill.

Hon. M. Mungall: I rise today not just in support of this legislation but to say thank you to those who have worked on this for many years and to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the Leader of the Third Party, for putting forward this legislation today; to the Minister of Jobs, Trades and Technology for his work over the years; and to the House Leader also, for it’s not very often we get an opportunity to speak to a private member’s bill. I’m very glad that we have that opportunity.

There have been a lot of very strong words spoken here today in support of this bill, and it goes to show why we needed an opportunity to talk about it. I really want to appreciate and thank the Leader of the Third Party for sharing his own family’s personal story connected to the Holodomor. That goes to show how important recognizing history and the role it plays on us today is and why it’s so important to remember.

I want to say thank you, not just on behalf of myself but mostly on behalf of my one-year-old son, because his great-grandfather, at his age today, was experiencing the Holodomor…. Sorry; I get a little bit emotional at the thought of my son going through something like that. To know that that is his family history is very saddening.

I really appreciated being able to listen to the Leader of the Third Party’s family story and being able to share what happened, because in my son’s family, my husband’s family, we don’t have those stories. Because not only as an infant was he experiencing the Holodomor, but…. The member spoke of the years following the Holodomor and how devastating those years were. And then came the Nazis and World War II.

[3:40 p.m.]

The effect that that had on my husband’s grandfather was one that…. He never spoke of his childhood. He never spoke of his homeland. And he never spoke of the experiences that he had escaping a Russian gulag and making his way to Canada. He never spoke of it, but the horror that he experienced lived with him the rest of his life. He wasn’t an easy person to live with as a result. That’s the effect that that had on him.

Not only is the Holodomor a testimony to the extremes of ideological public policy and the harm that it can create for people in the moment and for generations following; it’s a testimony to that multigenerational impact. It’s a testimony to what people have to bear. It’s exactly the reason why we need this day: so that we can remember and we can honour those experiences that people had. We can honour their survival, we can honour their memory, and we can honour the very reason — their experiences — why we always have to be vigilant in making sure that these types of policies don’t happen again.

We are very fortunate in Canada that we have democratically elected governments that are working to make changes to these types of bad public policies that happened in our own country in the past. We are in an era of reconciliation. On Thursday, we passed legislation implementing the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. Honouring what happened to Canadians and their ancestors in other countries is also part of the Canadian experience.

Again, I’d like to just take this moment to thank the Leader of the Third Party very much for bringing this forward. It gives space, it gives time, it gives a reason to make sure that my son and his family know his heritage and, hopefully, will be able to start better understanding the stories of why his ancestors came to Canada.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister of Energy and Mines, for sharing your views with us.

Seeing no further speakers, the Leader of the Third Party will close the debate and move the question.

A. Weaver: Thank you for the thoughtful remarks from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology; the member for Kootenay East; and the member for Vancouver-Langara. I heard a very compelling story from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources which brought back memories to me.

My grandfather, my didus, could not speak about these stories to me. I never heard them directly from him. I heard them largely through his son and my mother. PTSD, something we are so aware of today, is something that was not in the common discussion and common dialogue back when my grandfather and my grandmother moved and immigrated to Canada. What they experienced was left behind — the physical experience. Those memories never left. They struggled for many, many years with PTSD as direct consequences of what they lived through.

I heard the member for Kootenay East say the following words: “Admit it, learn from it, and don’t repeat it.” I think those words are so very important — that we do reflect upon these horrific events of the past and we learn from that. We don’t deny they exist, but we agree to never repeat it.

I, too, was inspired the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology. On November 17, 2014, when I sat on the opposite side and heard him introduce a bill, at the time, to follow along these lines — to create the fourth Saturday in November as Holodomor Memorial Day….

[3:45 p.m.]

I was quite inspired by that, and it was ultimately what pushed me to introduce this in 2017 and again now — to ensure that this is not forgotten, that we do move forward with the passing of the legislation.

Finally, I appreciate the comments from the member from Langara. I also understand and have heard the support from the Leader of the Opposition. It’s interesting to know that he served on national youth advisory committees in 1985 with members of the Ukrainian community from Winnipeg, Manitoba. That is where a large component of my family lives today, and I do wonder whether at some point their paths crossed with the member for Vancouver-Langara’s path.

I look forward to the committee stage, and I thank the members for all of their comments.

With that, I move second reading of Bill M225.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: 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 M225, Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (Holodomor) Memorial Day Act, 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. L. Beare: I call that we continue second reading on Bill 33, the Securities Amendment Act, 2019.

Deputy Speaker: The House will be in recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 3:47 p.m. to 3:48 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

BILL 33 — SECURITIES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

M. Dean: It’s a pleasure for me to rise today to speak in favour of Bill 33, which is the Securities Amendment Act.

We know that when fraud is occurring across our province, it affects everyone. It doesn’t just affect a small number of people. It actually trickles down all the way and affects everybody who lives in our province — not just fraud but money laundering and other white-collar crimes as well. They’re often left unchecked.

Our government wants to stop that. We want to make sure that all British Columbians are safeguarded and protected and are not victims or vulnerable or exposed to these kinds of crimes. It can really affect people’s financial security. It can affect their financial retirement as well. And it undermines trust in the system.

In fact, for many years, the B.C. Securities Commission has struggled to collect over $500 million in fines. Those fines are meant to be returned to the victims of those crimes. We knew that changes were long overdue. The previous government failed to update the legislation for almost a decade. So it really was time, especially as the market and financial situation of the province and the world has changed so much in that time as well.

[3:50 p.m.]

Through this amendment act, we’re overhauling the Securities Act to give the B.C. Securities Commission the most powerful tools — in fact, the most powerful tools in the country. We’re going to improve fine-collection abilities, we’re going to update regulations to better protect people from fraud, and we’re going to establish clear regulations for derivatives. We’re establishing new regulations for derivatives and benchmarks, because we need to actually bring B.C. in line with other jurisdictions across the whole of Canada.

By doing this, what we are doing is sending a very clear signal to fraudsters that they can’t come here and make victims of British Columbians. These rules apply in British Columbia. Not only that, they’re going to be the toughest rules in Canada. So we’re saying to fraudsters: “Do not bring your business here. Do not target British Columbians and create financial insecurity and break their trust.” The B.C. Securities Commission will have powerful tools to act swiftly and decisively to protect people and to punish fraudsters, sending that message again.

It will mean that B.C. is home to the strongest enforcement powers in Canada. What that means for British Columbians is that they can be confident that their investments and their hard-earned money that they’re putting into investments will be better protected from fraud today and into the future. That sends a strong message. That is a deterrent, and then that means that’s actually preventing fraud, which is what we want to do in the first place.

The tools that will be provided through this amendment include providing to the B.C. Securities Commission the ability to freeze property if it was transferred to another person for less than fair value by a fraudster. What that means is that BCSC can follow the money and freeze property that’s been transferred to other people.

I’ll give you an example. Say a fraudster, who has been planning a securities fraud, has fraudulently accumulated that money and uses it and buys a condo, but registers it, for example, in another family member’s name. They live there. They all live there. The fraudster lives there, and family members live there and enjoy the benefits of that money, though it’s not legally acquired.

Effectively, the fraudster could previously have turned around and said: “Well, it’s not mine. You can’t take that. It’s not my asset. It belongs to someone else, so that’s not accessible for you to take.” But what it means now is that, actually, the BCSC will have the ability to preserve and, ultimately, seize that property. Then, eventually, when it’s sold, the proceeds are returned to the victims of that fraudster. That’s justice. That’s making sure that we safeguard the interests and the hard work of British Columbians.

What else does this act do for the BCSC? It means that they could actually prevent the renewal or the insurance of a person’s driver’s licence if they haven’t paid their penalties. Well, that makes it very difficult for them to get around and about and continue to perpetuate their fraudulent activities.

It also means that they have priority over claims from other creditors. Under the previous system, when the BCSC was collecting on its financial sanctions, it often had to share those funds with other creditors, and you can imagine that this fraudster has probably got a lot of creditors. Those creditors, of course, probably didn’t return that money to the victims of the fraud. Now BCSC will have priority over other creditors. That means more money will go back to the victims of the fraud. BCSC will also be able to seize registered retirement plans from fraudsters who haven’t paid their fines.

Another example of how effective these changes are, as well, is that financial sanctions from the BCSC won’t expire. They won’t have an expiry date. Imagine, for example, the fraudster…. We know who the fraudster is. They’ve spent all the money that they made committing the fraud, and they’ve got no other assets.

[3:55 p.m.]

Under the current system, BCSC’s financial sanctions are only valid for up to 15 years. After 15 years, their ability to collect any fines…. What happens to the money? It goes back to the victims. They no longer have that authority. Well, we’re going to change that so that there is no expiry date. What that means is if the fraudster then does end up earning money, at least there will be some recourse for the victims to actually receive some kind of money back. Some of the money or all of the money might be able to be returned to the victims.

I want to add, as well, that this is part of our overall crackdown on money laundering and on British Columbians actually living in a province that’s being taken advantage of by a small number of people. These crimes and these deliberate exploitations of people have a trickle-down effect that affects all British Columbians — affects everybody across the province. If you think about it, think about how money laundering has really impacted the province of British Columbia.

We know that there have been numerous reports on money laundering, and they’ve all pointed out that it hurts everyone. If we think about, for example, the cost of housing, the cost of housing has escalated for a lot of different reasons, and money laundering has been shown to be one of those factors.

It’s not just the assets and asset-flipping. It has a trickle-down effect as well. It has a broader impact. Because then, for example, people who are even renting out want to get more money for their asset. It affects everybody. It affects people who are renting as well as people who are buying. Families get split apart because people can no longer actually work and buy houses in their neighbourhoods and their communities where they might have other family members living, for example. The choices are taken away from family members because of these kinds of activities — money laundering and fraudsters, etc. It undermines trust in the system.

We’ve actually rolled out a lot of programs to make sure that we’re tackling all of these kinds of crimes that are impacting the daily lives of British Columbians. For exam­ple, the land transparency act that we’ve actually passed and implemented in British Columbia is the first in Canada. It means that owners of property in our province can’t hide behind numbered companies. We know who owns property in our province, so we can actually identify those people.

Of course, now we actually have a public inquiry into money laundering as well. We’ve completed a two-pronged probe, including an expert panel on money laundering in real estate, so that we’ve identified and we have the data to show what those systemic risks are and where the greatest risks are in real estate and financial services in terms of risks of money laundering.

We’ve also launched the condo and strata assignment integrity register — again, Canada’s first. It’s an on-line register to collect comprehensive assignment information to crack down on tax evasion, improve fairness and improve transparency in B.C.’s real estate market. Because without these safeguards in place, it’s British Columbians that are impacted.

We’ve updated the property transfer tax return so that we can uncover beneficial owners that are behind corporations and trusts. We’ve enacted legislation to allow information-sharing on the homeowner grant with the federal tax officials to improve tax enforcement there as well. We’ve also established a federal-provincial working group on tax fraud and money laundering. We need a lot of different strategies to make sure that we’re cracking down on fraud and on money laundering and all of these criminal activities that actually impact all British Columbians.

What it means is that we will hopefully be reimbursing the victims of fraud and returning funds to people who are victims as our number one priority and outcome of this amendment act. Restricted funds can only be used for specific legislated purposes, including returning funds to victims that have been defrauded and investor education along with improved collections and enforcement activities, like a whistle-blower program. Any of the funds that are collected through this program are actually all put to good use and to improving the whole system and making sure that we’re reducing the risks in the system and we’re rebuilding that trust for people across our province.

[4:00 p.m.]

Just to have a look again at what some of the new measures are, there’s that enhanced ability to freeze and seize assets that fraudsters have tried to shield in the past by giving them to friends or family below market rate; seizing registered retirement plans; adding an ability to order administrative monetary penalties without a hearing for lesser contraventions; expanding access to funds to improve collections; directing ICBC to refuse to renew a driver’s licence, for example, if a fraudster doesn’t pay their fine; and giving, as I said, the BCSC priority over other claims from creditors.

There are a lot of tools here that we’re going to be able to use to actually tackle the overall system, where there are lots of risks and loopholes that, again, affect all British Columbians, because of undermining trust in the system and taking away that financial security, taking away people’s ability to rely on their own investments that they’ve spent their working lives building up and making sure they’re looking after their own futures in retirement, for example.

The other thing I just want to highlight, as well, is that having these penalties in place sends a message. It sends a really strong message. We’re not just reaching a minimum standard. We’re setting high standards here. Many of these tools are the first in Canada and are the strongest in Canada as well. It sends that message that we’re not going to let British Columbians be victims. The best solution, as I said, is having that deterrent so that we’ve got measures in place that actually prevent…. Or at least provide opportunities for early detection.

Regulation is offering that protection, those safeguards for British Columbians. It’s an opportunity to modernize as well. So we’re able to really improve the acts, the tools, the regulations and the powers of the BCSC as part of our overall package, our overall strategy, to make sure that we crack down on white-collar crime, crack down on money laundering, crack down on exploitation of British Columbians and provide those safeguards and protections for them.

That’s why I am very honoured to speak in favour of this act. We need to provide these tools to the B.C. Securities Commission. We know that they want to do a good job. They want to do a thorough job. They want to do a comprehensive job. Let’s give them the tools to do that.

M. de Jong: Thanks, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to participate briefly. I have been listening, either from my seat in the House or elsewhere, to the debate that has taken place. I’m appreciative of the fact that the Finance Minister has brought the legislation before the House, and, in her opening and second reading remarks, has provided some initial rationale for why the bill is here and what the objectives of the legislation are. Not to get ahead of myself, but I will say at the outset that I take no great issue with some of the objectives that are being sought.

I will, in a moment, speak about the relation of this work to another initiative that has been underway, and I hope is still underway. I don’t think that will come as any great surprise to the Finance Minister. All of us, last day, had an opportunity to listen to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, who took us, as only he can, on a colourful trip down memory lane, as it relates to securities regulation in British Columbia and Canada. Sometimes, because of the nature of the individual, it’s easy to lose sight of just how informed and the extent of the history that he brings and the perspective that he brings as someone who lived those days that, for many of us, are merely pages in a history book, but that he lived and experienced.

[4:05 p.m.]

He took us through a very colourful and interesting period in the country and the province’s history and then sort of took us up to 2008 and 2009. I’m going to, perhaps, offer a few thoughts on what followed there, and perhaps pre-emptively alert the Finance Minister to some questions that she might anticipate receiving when we do enter the committee stage of this debate.

Harkening back again to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, he posed the legitimate question or made the legitimate observation about the fact that here we are in a country of 36 million, 37 million, maybe 38 million now — modest numbers by international standards, especially when we consider that geographically, we’re the second-largest country in the world. We have managed to create and maintain upwards of a dozen or 13 regulatory bodies. By any measure, that is an absurdity, such an absurdity that when we got to the events of 2008 and 2009, which represented something of a cataclysmic event on an international scale, it became very apparent that Canadians, including British Columbians, were not well served by that model.

My purpose is not to try to politicize this discussion in any way, shape or form. But when I hear members, like the previous speaker from Esquimalt-Metchosin, feel obliged to offer editorial comment that previous governments did nothing, they really should inform themselves. I know that the Finance Minister is a fair-minded individual. She will inform her colleague, I hope and I trust, that that’s just not true. That is such an unfair comment to make and does a disservice, not to the politicians — and few care about them — but to the officials within British Columbia who have worked very, very hard in carving out a leadership role for Canada on the national stage.

In the aftermath of those events, where markets collapsed and people here in B.C. and elsewhere in Canada lost a great deal, analysis took place. The federal government of the day made it clear that they expected something to be done at a national level to properly manage systemic risk, to ensure that the tools existed at a national level in a coordinated way. It sounds simple, and it sounds like it should have happened a long time ago. But the best way I can think of to inform the House of just how challenging that was is to relate the words of the Supreme Court of Canada from November of last year, one year ago.

The work that was undertaken in the aftermath of 2009 ultimately gave rise to a memorandum of agreement amongst six provinces, including B.C. and Ontario, the largest jurisdiction as it relates to security instruments. There was a challenge, a challenge that ended up in the Supreme Court of Canada, largely initiated by the province of Quebec, for reasons they are best able to describe. But the Supreme Court of Canada rendered this decision on the matter. Again, I will say…. If some of this sounds familiar, it’s because the Finance Minister and I had a brief conversation about this during her estimates early this year. But I think it’s important enough in the context of this legislation to repeat this.

[4:10 p.m.]

The Supreme Court of Canada — with British Columbia not just in attendance, and not just as an intervener but actually having launched a cross-appeal of our own — at paragraph 8, offered this background: “Canada is one of the only industrialized countries in the world that does not have a national securities regulator. This is largely attributable to the constitutional division of provincial and federal powers as set out in part VI of the Constitution Act, 1867….The result is a nationwide patchwork of provincial regulatory schemes and the absence of a truly national approach to regulating capital markets.”

Then, at paragraph 9 in the same decision, the Supreme Court of Canada says: “In spite of this constitutional impediment, however, various attempts to centralize or standardize the regulation of securities in Canada have been made for over 80 years.”

As I said this spring, what the court, I suppose, should have said is unsuccessful attempts, because for 80 years, the goal of establishing a coordinated national regulator has eluded us all.

The court was ruling on a memorandum of understanding that was arrived at in September 2014, and the court described that as follows:

“The framework of the cooperative system is set out in an agreement between the federal government and the governments of Ontario, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and the Yukon — together, the participating jurisdictions — which is known as the memorandum of agreement regarding the cooperative capital markets regulatory scheme — the memorandum.

“This system has four primary components, which are as follows: (1) uniform provincial and territorial legislation. The cooperative system’s first component involves the standardization of provincial and territorial legislation respecting the day-to-day aspects of the securities trade. To this end, the memorandum provides that each participating province is to enact a statute that mirrors the model provincial act.”

At some point…. If the Finance Minister spoke to this in her second reading remarks, I apologize. I was listening. I got called away, and I tried to read it. But I don’t think she did.

That is the aspect of this that I hope, during the committee stage, she will address. In the spring, we canvassed the degree to which this is moving forward. The minister at the time indicated to the House that the government of British Columbia, the government today, remained committed to the memorandum of understanding, remained committed to operationalizing the cooperative capital markets regulator at a national level.

She indicated that they were developing a timeline. To be fair, she mentioned that there was additional work taking place with respect to the existing British Columbia legislation. I presume the result of that work is what we have before us today.

But I am beginning to get a bit worried, because all I am hearing about is the improvements that are being made to the B.C. act about creating the tools, about protecting people — all worthwhile and well-intentioned. But I’m worried that we are losing sight of the fact that the best protection for British Columbians and Canadians is to take the final step and operationalize this national regulator.

As my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano said, if we actually think that we are going to construct some kind of wall of enforcement in British Columbia exclusively, we’re dreaming. This is commerce on an international level. You can argue that for 37 million Canadians, it’s a daunting task — never mind four million or 4½ million British Columbians.

I’m not intending to go on at length. I’m not intending to be argumentative, at least at this stage of the conversation.

[4:15 p.m.]

The Finance Minister, I hope, will, during the course of the committee stage debate, offer the House and offer the committee some indication of where this work fits in relation to the other work that I hope is continuing. When I say that, I realize that this is very technical work, that the staff, the very capable staff…. My concern is that, if they have been working exclusively on this, we have surrendered our leadership position at the table nationally.

I do feel obliged to remind the House that here we are, perilously close to achieving something nationally that will serve the interests of all Canadians and all British Columbians. But there is an important final step to take: the uniform Capital Markets Act that British Columbia had secured a leadership role in shepherding through to completion.

I can also assure the House that it was not easy. It was not easy ensuring that this work wasn’t left to the exclusive domain of Ontario and the exclusive domain of the Ontario Securities Commission. There are unique differences that characterize the way the markets work on this side of the Rocky Mountains, and we fought hard to ensure that that was recognized and that a process was created that would take that into account and have those unique features reflected.

Today when I hear people, in the course of this debate, taking a measure of pride in the fact that we are now distinguishing ourselves from other jurisdictions, I get a little worried. Because the whole idea was to work together and create a framework to avoid this patchwork that the Supreme Court of Canada referred to and create a coordinated set of regulations and a coordinated set of legislation that would protect all Canadians and, thereby, better protect British Columbians.

Now, I think — always dangerous to presuppose what one might hear from a colleague in the House…. I expect that at the point we put some of these questions to the Finance Minister, she will assure the House that the work is ongoing. But whilst in the spring I was content to rely on those more general assertions, I think it’s time to lay out the timeline.

It’s time to say to the House: “We are now fully engaged. We are taking, as a province, our responsibilities as co-chair of the committee to draft this coordinated legislation seriously, and we expect to have it done by a certain date.” Because the signal, unfortunately, that is beginning to get sent into the markets, into the capital markets, security markets, is that British Columbia is stepping away. I hope that’s not the case. I hope the Finance Minister, during the course of the committee stage debate, will offer assurance — and more than just assurance, an indication of what the schedule is going forward.

The board is in place. The organization is in place. Yes, it is entirely true that during the course of the transition period, we want to ensure that we have a fully functioning securities commission that can protect the interests of British Columbians, protect the interests of consumers. But I think my concern, as I have clumsily tried to express it today, would be minimized if we could hear from the Finance Minister about the plans to push forward in an enthusiastic and expeditious way and in a way that capitalizes on the leadership that British Columbia has shown nationally to establish a cooperative capital markets regulator.

[4:20 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to intervene in that limited way on this matter. I know other speakers — my colleague across the way and my colleague from Langara — will have some comments as well.

S. Malcolmson: Money laundering is linked to gang activity, to the spread of fentanyl and to the affordable housing crisis that has hit British Columbia hard and hit my community of Nanaimo very hard. This has made life more challenging in so many ways and made life much less affordable for people.

The previous government was warned about rampant money laundering. They chose to let it grow. We have learned, in the two years this government has been in place, more and more about how the B.C. Liberals ignored and mismanaged this issue over many years.

Our Attorney General has asked the previous government for their cooperation providing documents on money laundering. They have chosen not to cooperate. So when this government formed on this side, we took action on a number of items, launching an investigation to determine the extent of the problem at casinos, implementing the German report, which has already produced a significant drop in suspicious cash transactions….

Deputy Speaker: Member, let’s focus our comments on Bill 33.

S. Malcolmson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve certainly heard the other members talk about all kinds of related issues, so I am doing that too.

Interjections.

S. Malcolmson: I’m getting there.

Mr. Speaker, if you’ll allow me some leeway, I am moving in that direction.

Deputy Speaker: The member will continue.

S. Malcolmson: We now have a public inquiry that is looking at the matter of money laundering, so now the work carries on. The general frame is that people and our economy suffer when fraud, money laundering and other white-collar crimes are left unchecked.

For years, the Securities Commission has struggled to collect over $500 million in fines. Changes were long overdue, and I’m very proud that this government has chosen to take action and update the Securities Commission legislation, something that had not happened for over a decade. With Bill 33, we are overhauling the Securities Act to give the Securities Commission the most powerful tools in the country, to improve fine collection abilities, to establish regulations to better protect people from fraud and to establish clear direction for derivatives. We’re also establishing new regulations for derivatives and benchmarks to bring B.C. in line with other jurisdictions across Canada.

We’re sending a clear signal to fraudsters that the rules apply in B.C. The B.C. Securities Commission will now have powerful tools to act swiftly and decisively to protect people and punish fraudsters. These changes will mean that B.C. will be home to the strongest enforcement powers in Canada. People’s investments will be better protected from fraud today and into the future.

Today’s amendments will give the Securities Commission the most powerful tools. This will include the ability to freeze property if it was transferred to another person for less than fair value by a fraudster. The Securities Commission will then be able to follow the money and freeze property transferred to family members at any point. It will prevent the renewal or issuance of a person’s driver’s licence if their Securities Commission penalties have not been paid. It will give them priority over other claims from other creditors. Finally, it will allow seizing of registered retirement plans from fraudsters who have not paid their Securities Commission fines.

I’m encouraged by some of the validators of this approach. Brenda Leong, chair and CEO of the Securities Commission, said: “We’d like to thank the B.C. government for taking action to crack down on white-collar crime with these groundbreaking amendments. We now have new and better tools to go after the bad actors who break the law and cause significant harm to investors and the capital markets.”

The executive director of the Canadian Foundation for the Advancement of Investor Rights, Ermanno Pascutto, said: “B.C. is setting the bar high when it comes to protecting people’s investments. These amendments to improve fine collection rates are some of the most far-reaching in Canada and align with international best practice. We are pleased that the B.C. government and the B.C. Securities Commission will make it a priority to return funds to victims of investment fraud.”

[4:25 p.m.]

Several examples of what the B.C. Securities Commission will be able to do with these new collection and enforcement powers that it couldn’t do before. The first example. The problem is that a fraudster who is planning a securities fraud buys a condo, registers it in the name of a family member and lives in the condo with the family member. The money, then, has effectively been transferred out of the fraudster’s pocket, keeping it out of the reach of the Securities Commission without significant court time and unavailable to compensate the victims of the fraud. The solution with this legislation, Bill 33, would give, then, the Securities Commission the ability to preserve and, ultimately, seize the condo so that when it’s sold, the proceeds would then be returned to the fraudster’s victims.

A second example. The problem is that when the Securities Commission collects on its financial sanctions, it often has to share funds with the fraudster’s other creditors. Unlike the Securities Commission, those creditors generally don’t return money to the fraudster’s victims. The solution with Bill 33 is that the claims from the Securities Commission will now have priority over other creditors, meaning that more money will go back to the fraudster’s victims.

A third example. A problem could be that the fraudster has spent all the money that they made committing securities fraud and has no other assets. Right now, the Securities Commission financial sanctions are valid for up to 15 years, which is often not enough time to collect on the fines issued. With this legislation, the Securities Commission’s financial sanctions will no longer expire. As a result, the Securities Commission can continue to collect from the fraudster indefinitely and return the money to the victims.

These amendments are part of our government’s larger work to crack down on financial and white-collar crime. Ending hidden ownership has been part of this government’s 30-point housing plan, and I’m proud that in just one year government has taken the following actions to address tax fraud and close loopholes in the real estate market.

One is that we completed a two-pronged probe that included an expert panel on money laundering in real estate to identify systemic risks that leave real estate and financial service sectors open to money laundering. Secondly, we introduced the Land Owner Transparency Act to establish Canada’s first public registry of beneficial owners of real estate in B.C. Third, we launched the condo and strata assignment integrity register, Canada’s first on-line register to collect comprehensive assignment information to crack down on tax evasion and improve the fairness and transparency in B.C.’s real estate market.

We’ve updated the property transfer tax return to uncover beneficial owners behind corporations and trusts. We’ve enacted legislation to allow information-sharing on the homeowner grant with federal tax officials to improve tax enforcement. We’ve strengthened the property transfer tax auditor’s ability to take on tax evasion. Finally, we’ve established a federal-provincial working group on tax fraud and money laundering.

Now, as the federal government re-forms and as Members of Parliament–elect return to Parliament Hill in Ottawa this week, we are encouraging them to keep in mind the following ways that they can also take action to make it easier to crack down on fraudsters. Our government has asked the federal government to take these actions. We want changes that would make it easier for the Securities Commission to freeze suspected fraudsters’ bank accounts, we want Securities Commission fines to survive bankruptcy, and we want to improve information-sharing between FINTRAC and our Securities Commission. Right now, the federal government allows student loans to survive bankruptcy, but Securities Commission fines do not. We don’t think that’s fair.

These are necessary measures to protect investors and provide more effective penalties against fraudsters. I’m encouraged that our provincial government’s Finance Ministry staff have begun discussions with their federal counterpart on these requests.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

In closing, I’ll say again that with Bill 33, our government is sending a clear signal to fraudsters that the rules apply in British Columbia. The Securities Commission, with the passage of this bill, will have more powerful tools to act swiftly and decisively to protect people and punish fraudsters. We want people in British Columbia to be confident that their investments will be better protected from fraud today and into the future. And with the passage of this legislation, that will be so.

[4:30 p.m.]

M. Lee: I rise today to speak to Bill 33, and not some of the other bills that members on the other side of this government insist on speaking to.

I am concerned that the message that this government is sending to British Columbians, and to markets in this country and elsewhere, is the fact that B.C. will stand alone — will put up the walls, as the member for Abbotsford West said — and will not get the work done that is fundamentally necessary, that has been built on many years of the leadership of members of the securities law bar, members like Doug Hyman and others who have been working to form a national securities regulator through a cooperative capital markets regulatory body.

This is fundamentally important for this country and for this province. The fact that this government and members on the other side of this House do not understand that is deeply concerning.

The member for Abbotsford West was surprisingly modest and polite in his comments just now. He referred back to the discussion that he and I had with the Minister of Finance on May 7 of this year during Finance estimates.

The member for Abbotsford West is a former minister of the Crown for Finance, among other roles, and knows in depth what it took to have British Columbia at the head of the table to lead the effort to ensure that, when it comes to capital markets leadership in this country, British Columbia has and continues to have that lead role to shape the uniform securities act, the model act, for this country. We have that role, and I know that in response, the Minister of Finance indicated a variety of things as to where the focus currently lay with this government.

I just wanted to speak to that first, because it is something that the member for Abbotsford West just commented on, which was a timeline. At the time, five months ago, the Minister of Finance was not prepared to set a new timeline or agree to a new timeline. The reason for that was her concerns, as she expressed at the time, about the delays. There have been challenges with the process. When you’re trying to put together seven jurisdictions that are signing on, with the clear support of the Supreme Court of Canada, which supports the MOU, which sees the jurisdiction…. To put in place that cooperative capital markets regulator — this is the work that is complex, certainly. It’s multi-jurisdictional.

The fact that the Minister of Finance was not prepared to agree or set or give any indication of a timeline five months ago is concerning. When we asked the questions around where the work was — the status of the work — on a cooperative capital markets regulator, the Minister of Finance, in response to the member for Abbotsford West, said that B.C. has “pulled our staff back to focus on the work that needs to be done in British Columbia.” Presumably, at the time, the minister meant what we are seeing today in this House — the amendments to the Securities Act under Bill 33.

I find it curious that no member of the government has spoken to the other aspects of this bill. They speak about the enforcement part, but they don’t speak to what securities regulations need to do in the first place, and that this bill does actually deal with as well, but in a different way, and for reasons that I will get to in a moment.

[4:35 p.m.]

The concern I have is about the unintended consequences of this bill. When British Columbia sets a course to introduce further amendments to the Securities Act — which is an act I know well from 20 years of legal practice — they are, in effect, making it more difficult to harmonize the securities laws, the rules and regulations of this province, with the other jurisdictions in this country.

One key unintended consequence is that not only has British Columbia chosen to shift its resources to deal with one part of the equation, but they’ve made it more difficult to get the work done to accomplish what is needed by way of a national securities regulator, which will make it more effective to deal with securities fraud, which is partly the intention of this bill.

Let me say that when I’ve talked to other members of the securities industry, including the legal community, in the few days that we’ve had since the introduction of this bill, I have heard that this bill comes as a complete surprise to those stakeholders. It’ll be important to understand, at the committee stage, what level of consultation the B.C. Securities Commission and this government have followed in respect of the full set of amendments that they’re proposing for the Securities Act.

It used to be the case, and it certainly should be the case, that legislation of this nature, on a highly technical and complex matter, ought to be provided out for an opportunity to comment. In the absence of that, what we hear from the other members on the other side of the House is, quite frankly, a real, telling lack of understanding of securities regulation.

As the member for West Vancouver–Capilano shared with us, the effort and the complexities of all the securities regulation in this country has been a work in progress over many, many years. The importance of dealing with that level of confidence in our markets is important. I do think that all members of the House will recognize and acknowledge that, when we have the expertise, the experience and the understanding that the member for West Vancouver–Capilano brings, we ought to pay close attention to what that member has to say.

I will say that the member for Abbotsford West talked about the MOU, the memorandum of understanding that was entered into, in September of 2014, between the federal government and the governments of Ontario, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, P.E.I. and the Yukon, with another one signing on. Those seven jurisdictions are to be working towards a national securities regulator, and a significant piece to be put in place is the model provincial act — the capital markets act — and the implementation legislation.

We know, with the multiple jurisdictions that attempt to regulate securities offerings in this country and M&A — merger and acquisition — corporate transactions, that we need to have a more streamlined, uniform way of doing so. But in doing so, it’s important that public companies which are B.C.-based, whether it’s in the resource sector, the technology sector or other sectors, have the ability to continue to raise funds on capital markets in jurisdictions in Canada like Ontario, Alberta and Quebec and to still be able to do that here in British Columbia.

[4:40 p.m.]

We need to ensure that British Columbia continues to attract the talent and the capital to this province. We don’t have enough of it. We need to encourage more immigration and investment in our country and our province. I’m concerned, with the lack of understanding that government members are demonstrating, that we’re creating more barriers for that in an unintended way.

This can be another factor contributing to the continuing move of corporate head offices out of British Columbia. When I spoke, last May, to the Minister of Finance around this topic, about the national securities regulator, with the member for Abbotsford West, I did refer to the constant struggle for professionals in the securities industry here in British Columbia. That includes the investment banking professionals, lawyers and accounting firms — others who are in the capital markets business here in B.C. I used to be one of them. British Columbia has been the centre for that industry.

But the constant gravitational pull to Toronto — as some would say, it’s the centre of the universe — is a challenge. For example, when capital comes from Australia, Asia or Europe and wants to invest in mining companies and mining entities, which are global in nature and global in scope, they may have a B.C.-based investment, either in exploration or development. But they also have mines elsewhere in Canada and the world. The two choices are Vancouver and Toronto.

Capital flows through Vancouver in a significant way. A bill like this we need to be very careful about for reasons that I’ll get to in a moment. But we need to have that healthy competition with the Ontario securities commission — between B.C. and Ontario. In those two lead jurisdictions, we need to continue to have and work through that opportunity — to take that lead.

We’re at a critical point. I am concerned, like the member for Abbotsford West, that British Columbia has ceded that leadership ground — that others are filling that gap, like Ontario. If, of course, the provinces don’t get their act together, the federal government will step in even more. It’s important that when we look at ensuring a vibrant economy in British Columbia, public companies can choose to still have their head office — to have some nexus or connection as a reporting issuer — here in British Columbia.

Let me just give you a few examples about the corporate side of this bill that no other member of government has spoken to, which, again, I think is very concerning. There are changes to the takeover bid rules and the burden of proof in civil liability, which potentially will put British Columbia out of step with other markets and will put B.C.-based issuers at a competitive disadvantage, because companies may not want to choose British Columbia as their place of corporate residence where they will position their head office. They will choose other jurisdictions where the securities laws are more uniform with the rest of Canada, if they’re trying to access the capital markets in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec or any other province in this country.

We all know that securities law enforcement is important. That’s the reason why there’s a Securities Act. The Securities Act has the term “public interest” in many occasions.

[4:45 p.m.]

The commission’s duty is to ensure that the investors who rely on disclosure documents and takeover bid circulars can rely on them for good purpose. I know there are members on this side of the House whose family members are in the securities industry as well, and they understand corporate finance and capital markets. So when we look at a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission, the Eco Oro case, we see an example where, in that case, the securities commission of the day in Ontario stepped in to the jurisdiction of the Toronto Stock Exchange.

In this bill, we see elements of the same jurisdiction being given to the B.C. Securities Commission, to legislate that into law, to be the first jurisdiction in this country to do so. Well, in the context of continuing to want to ensure a national securities regulator, why is B.C. doing this? Why are they doing it at this time, when we are on the threshold of having — finally, after so many years of effort by others, by the previous government — a national securities regulator being put in place?

For example, in this bill, there is an expansion of the definition of an individual who is in a special relationship. Individuals who are in a special relationship are important. People who have access to undisclosed material information are a main thrust of the Securities Act. Insider trading, confidentiality, acting for the good purposes in the best interests of the company and its shareholders — these are concepts that special relationship play into. But in this case, it is expanded to include a person who is considering a takeover bid, reorganization, amalgamation or business combination.

Well, companies are continuously analyzing their competitive position and their business strategy, including possible acquisitions and similar transactions. Should merely considering a transaction be sufficient to put a person in a special relationship with the issuer? This is the sweeping nature of this bill. This will have a chilling effect on issuers who are operating here in British Columbia.

Now, look, I understand that companies, management teams, boards of directors, individuals who are in possession of material information and their advisers need to act appropriately. There are insider trading laws and regulations and commission decisions against that. That’s what the Securities Act is built on. When the members of the government, on the other side of this House, talk about terms as if they invented them…. People didn’t just wake up and discover what was happening.

There are concerns, certainly. We want to protect uninformed investors. That’s the reason why the Securities Act is there in the first place. We have exemptions for so-called sophisticated investors. The investors who are the ones who are unsophisticated, who are relying on disclosure documents or other advisers — that’s where your mother, your grandparents or an uninformed son or daughter might get themselves into trouble, on these quick-buck schemes.

The fact of the matter is that securities commissions, stock exchanges and professionals in the industry have been working with these rules for a long, long time, long before this government came along. So when they talk about and take in the narrative that they try to create for British Colum­bians, I think they’re missing a big part of this. And when they don’t speak to other parts of the bill, it’s very concerning. It makes me wonder whether they truly understand what they’re bringing forward, because they continually talk about their narrative. This is complex legislation.

[4:50 p.m.]

Here’s another example. In section 131 of the act, there is a due diligence defence. The onus is now being shifted on the officer and director to prove establishment of that defence. This will make British Columbia the only jurisdiction in Canada where that shifts. There needs to be a discussion of that. That will be a big change in terms of how executive officers, boards of directors, will look at their responsibilities — whether they’re prepared to sit on the board of a B.C.-based company.

Another example is subsection 132.1. This is — and we’ve seen this under the Professional Governance Act — again, the narrative that undermines the confidence that British Columbians have in professionals, in this case, experts: professional geologists, engineering firms. The constant attack and undermining of the confidence of the public in professionals that have, for so many years, governed themselves in an appropriate way…. In this act, in this bill, they’re now being put on the pin. This will be the first province, again, where experts will be made liable to investors directly. There is already liability that flows and responsibility for a technical report to backstop a new mineral exploration, mineral tenure, for example.

These are areas for concern, where this government is taking its eye off the ball. It slowed down the process for a national securities regulator, which makes this NDP government in a position where it’s focused inward. We need to work nationally. I know the Leader of the Official Opposition talks about this often. The leadership that we need from the Premier and the Minister of Finance in this province is one that needs to understand that we can’t act alone, that in this confederation we need to act together. When B.C. puts up the wall in another way, it’s a concern.

British Columbians should understand that in the narrative of this government continuing to focus on one part…. We all want to make sure that people who break the law are brought to justice. We all want to make sure that nobody is taken advantage of. We don’t want people who are finding gaps in our legal process and our system. But when we look at the enforcement roles, it’ll be important to understand how British Columbia compares — the B.C. Securities Commission, that is — in their performance against other securities commissions in Canada and North America, including the Ontario Securities Commission.

For example, what is the approach that the B.C. Securities Commission utilizes when they effectively set a $100 million penalty? The person who was subject matter of a $33 million penalty, as well, certainly is someone who should be brought to justice, and she has been. But practically speaking, why is this commission continuing to set penalties at such a high level? Perhaps it’s there to send a message, to set an example to others. But is it practically reasonable that this commission is able to collect penalties of that number?

Now, I think that in that case, certainly, British Columbians were defrauded; money was stolen from them, taken from them. And this person was brought to justice.

Whatever tools the B.C. Securities Commission thinks it needs to utilize is one thing, but they’ve had tools. I know that when we talked to the Minister of Finance last May, she confirmed, when I asked the question, “How many more resources are being added to their enforcement?” that the answer was: “One, in August.” Where’s the focus of this government? Where’s the focus as it looks at enabling the B.C. Securities Commission?

[4:55 p.m.]

Is that how it’s going to fund itself — collect more fines? Well, that’s important, certainly. But if we’re going to be tough on fraud and enforcement, we need to make sure that the Securities Commission is equipped to do so, and we also need to look at the approach they’re utilizing, as we compare it against other securities commissions.

As I mentioned earlier, there is a benefit, of course, where we will have harmonized, uniform legislation and better coordinated enforcement. When we have that with a national securities regulator, investor protection will be improved through more consistent and active compliance activities. So this bill does truly fall short on trying to implement measures on a national scale to ensure both the ability to catch individuals who are defrauding British Columbians and providing protections for B.C. residents, because securities fraud is a multi-jurisdictional issue. As criminals become more sophisticated in their approach, through data and the Internet and technology, we need to ensure that we’re acting with the federal government and other jurisdictions in this country.

The Minister of Finance certainly has acknowledged herself that criminal activity doesn’t look at borders. This is the reason why the Minister of Finance herself, back in May of this year, saw the need for closer collaboration with other securities regulatory authorities across the country. So I’m very disappointed that when this government is presenting this bill, we are not hearing from this government the status of that effort.

Like the member for West Vancouver–Capilano and the member for Abbotsford West, we are quite concerned that this government does not appear to be pursuing the opportunity and the cause of a national securities regulator. We will continue to call on this government to ensure that that’s the case, and we’ll ensure that in achieving that national securities regulator, we’d have better coordinated enforcement through uniform legislation and that with that improved coordination with police and prosecution authorities, both within and outside Canada, a national securities regulatory body would be able to optimize that level of enforcement.

Data collection on a national basis will also improve market stability. The member for Abbotsford West talked about the aftermath of 2008. There’s a strong recognition that we need to act together. There are threats. We shouldn’t assume that with the state of global markets, that won’t happen again — with the instability of marketplaces outside of Canada, the pressures that are being placed on this country.

It’s not just about the so-called ordinary investor here in British Columbia. We are all in this. We all have…. Well, many of us have pensions. My mother has the benefit of a pension from her days as a nurse. We have others who rely on the state of solid capital markets. But if we have a market failure of the scale that we were looking at in 2008, what will this government say when it’s dragged its feet and missed the opportunity because it was caught up in its own narrative?

British Columbians need to understand that this narrative that this government has placed over this province is very misguided. It’s very misleading. When it comes to an act like this, and when you look at it through the lens of why it’s important to ensure a national securities regulator, it’s a bit of a misdirect.

Certainly, we are always supportive of modernizing the province’s approach to the legislative framework for securities in this province.

[5:00 p.m.]

In the areas of increasing powers for the B.C. Securities Commission, we will look, at committee stage, at the various tools and mechanisms that are being provided to the commission. We all share the intention of ensuring that those who are participating in fraudulent activities are brought to justice. When it talks about freezing assets, seizing property, forfeiture, going after family members, drivers’ licences — all of these tools — these may well be important. But we will have that discussion at committee stage.

J. Sims: It’s my pleasure today to rise and speak in favour of the Securities Amendment Act brought forward by the Finance Minister. I have to say that the Finance Minister has been doing a stellar job — triple-A ratings maintained while giving maybe one of the largest tax breaks to British Columbians that they have ever received in the fact that the MSP premiums have been gone by half, 50 percent this year, but next year they’ll be gone altogether. I could actually spend the whole half an hour talking about the amazing job that the minister has done in a variety of ways of providing support, whether it’s been in child care, whether it’s been trying to get a handle on the housing market, whether it is just making sure that we have systems in place.

This particular piece of legislation…. Just to put it in context, when you look at other provinces, they do almost like an annual review of their securities legislation. Ours hasn’t been done since 2011. So I’m very proud of the fact that the minister has taken this on and is modernizing our securities legislation and tackling some very difficult issues.

I’ve heard a lot from my colleagues across the other side, saying: “How come we’re going on this alone? How come we’re not waiting until we have a national securities regulator?” I think if we were to wait to reach consensus on many issues, we would have the kind of nightmare we’ve had over the last number of years before we formed government, where, because of the money laundering that took place…. It allowed housing prices to spike to the point where I would say people in the Lower Mainland and across B.C. are finding it very, very difficult to buy a house.

If we waited for everybody else, we would not have addressed the money-laundering situation, or started to, in a very concerted way. In a similar way, we took action. It was a multi-pronged approach to try to get a handle on the housing prices that were out of control.

This piece of legislation is just another example of our government trying to protect people from fraud, from money laundering and other white-collar crimes. We want to make sure that they don’t go unchecked. There was a feeling…. All of us can remember watching the TV coverage when you saw bags and bags and bags of money going into B.C. casinos. Yet the investigation unit had already been disbanded. We know that British Columbians do expect their government to collect fines from those who break the law. It is also a known fact that over $500 million has not been collected.

So these changes are long overdue. We wanted to make sure that we had legislation that would take care of those kinds of situations, where we could elect those…. Here we have legislation that will improve fine-collection abilities — and I’m sure everybody on both sides of the House wants that; update regulations to better protect people from fraud — I don’t think any of us would disagree with that at all; and establish clear regulations for derivatives. That’s what this legislation does.

[5:05 p.m.]

When I start talking about this legislation and when you read through it, it can often appear dry. But I’m going to read out a quote from the Finance Minister who says it best.

“Our government is taking action to make sure we have the strongest protections in Canada for people who are investing and tough penalties for those who are abusing the system. These changes send a clear signal to fraudsters that the rules do apply here in B.C., and if you break them, there will be consequences. People can feel confident, knowing that B.C.’s investment markets will be protected today and into the future.”

Having been a teacher all of my life, one of the things that I always try to say is: what would a kindergarten student say about this? Should those people who are abusing the system and doing fraud have to pay a fine or have to pay a penalty and be punished? They would say yes. Based on the kindergarten nod test, I would say that this legislation is long overdue. Once again, I applaud the minister for bringing this forward.

I heard a lot today from a couple of previous speakers talking about: “Why don’t we just wait? Why are we expending energies on this area when we should be putting all of our energies into a national securities regulator?” I think that we can all multi-task. Multi-tasking is a wonderful thing. I think everybody in this room knows that that’s what we do.

While we’re waiting for national securities regulations to come into place, in the meantime, we, as a government in British Columbia, could not afford to turn the other eye. We could not afford to let people, who should be paying fines, get away with it. We could not leave loopholes open for the potential for fraud. What we have to do, just as we did with money laundering, is to send clear signals to fraudsters that here in B.C. you follow the rules or you pay a price. The B.C. Securities Commission will now have powerful tools to act swiftly and decisively, because it’s their job to protect people from fraudsters and to punish them.

Over this weekend, while I was back in my riding of Surrey-Panorama — the best riding in the province, of course — I did hear from a number of people of the kinds of fraudster phone calls they’ve been getting from people pretending to be investment gurus and all kinds of things.

You know what? I think that British Columbians out there would be saying this is a good step by the government. They would also want to know that their government has put enforcement in place. Having rules alone isn’t enough. You also have to make sure that you have strong enforcement powers. This legislation gives British Columbia the strongest enforcement powers in Canada. We want to make sure that people are confident that their investments will be better protected from fraud today and into the future.

We teach our kids, in a variety of ways, that they don’t always have to wait for others. Sometimes it’s okay. Sometimes it’s okay to step forward, be up front and to lead. I’m very proud of the fact that our government is leading on this type of legislation.

Trying to wait until every other province agrees with us, for the length of time it will take — though I’m sure that that work is going on — just wouldn’t be right. How do we tell our children that the reason we didn’t put enforcements in place and the reason that we didn’t change the legislation, by the way, is because we were waiting for everyone else to agree with us — knowing that we knew that fraudsters were getting away with it, fines were not being collected, and there were already all kinds of problems with beneficial agreements?

[5:10 p.m.]

Today’s amendments here do give powerful tools. They will be powerful tools. It gives the commission the ability to freeze property if it was transferred to another person, for less than fair value, by a fraudster. It seems to make sense to me. Why would we want to make it easier for people to hide their money? The BCSC will be able to follow the money and freeze property transferred to family members at any point.

Do you know something? If I were once again talking to that kindergarten class and saying, “Should we be able to follow the money if the money has been gotten in a wrong way?” they would say: “Yes, why not?” So once again, this also passes the kindergarten nod test.

We also want to make sure that not only is there a financial penalty but that there wouldn’t be a renewal or a driver’s licence issued if the penalties haven’t been paid. Should there be consequences if you don’t follow through with the penalty that is imposed on you? Absolutely. Once again, this will pass the kindergarten nod test.

This is very important. They will have priority over claims from other creditors. Sometimes people who have been the victims of fraud get left with nothing because there are so many other creditors after the same amount of money. But this makes sure — if you had fraud done to you, if you are the victim — that you will be up front in order to get compensated. It also goes as far as giving the ability to seize retirement plans from fraudsters who have not paid their BCSC fines.

Once again, if you have regulations and people don’t follow them — they don’t pay the fine — then you have to have the ability to go after their assets and also have other consequences, like not renewing their driver’s licences.

We think that these kinds of examples that I have just given really will protect, and I’m proud of the fact that the residents of B.C. will have the highest level of protection. Let me give you an example. BCSC, under this legislation, will have enhanced powers to freeze and seize property that a fraudster has transferred to a friend or family member.

This is not unusual. We hear about it on the news all the time. We read about it. It so happens that, oh, yes, this person…. “I have no money. I can’t pay my fines. I can’t even pay my lawyer.” I’ve even heard some of those arguments being said. The problem is a fraudster who is planning a securities fraud — this is an example — buys a condo and registers it in the name of a family member. The fraudster lives in the condo, and the family member…. The money has effectively been transferred to the fraudster’s pocket, keeping it out of reach of the BCSC and unavailable to compensate the victim of fraud.

Well, guess what. Under this legislation, BCSC now has the ability to preserve and, ultimately, seize the condo so that when it is sold the proceeds would be returned to the fraudster’s victims. I think that’s a good thing. That’s sending a signal that you cannot hide by putting the assets in your family members’ names.

I’ll give you another example: financial sanctions that do not expire. It’s because sometimes fraudsters hope that they can play out the clock. Under the new regulation, the financial sanctions will not expire. Here is a situation where a fraudster has spent all the money they made committing securities fraud and has no other assets.

Currently financial sanctions are valid for up to 15 years, which is often not enough time to collect all the fines issued. Once again, the solution, in this case: this legislation will make sure that financial sanctions will no longer expire. As a result, we can continue to collect from the fraudster indefinitely and return the money to the victims.

[5:15 p.m.]

I think that’s a good thing. Isn’t that what we want to do? You don’t just want to let the clock play out and then hope that that’s it. I was asked by somebody else today: do these amendments address money laundering? Not directly, but I would say there is a very strong element and that this legislation is part of our government’s larger work to crack down on financial and white-collar crime.

Ending hidden ownership is part of the B.C. government’s 30-point housing plan. I’m sure all of us have memorized the 30-point housing plan by now. Once again, kudos to the minister, because it is beginning to have an effect where house pricing has stabilized and there are more people able to now look to the future to buy a house.

In this one year alone, our government has taken a variety of actions to address tax fraud and close loopholes in the real estate market, which are long, long overdue. I just don’t know where the government was — the previous government — when they watched house pricing escalate the way they did — where now, in Vancouver, you can be earning six-digit figures and you still wouldn’t be able to qualify for a house, never mind a lot, in Vancouver. It is all related, because this goes back to the actions we are taking to make sure that fraudsters don’t get away with it.

As you know, we did have a two-pronged approach to the money laundering, and there’s a lot more work still to be done. I’m not saying that all the work that our government has to do is done. But you know what? We’re a government that listens to the people. So when we put forward the 30-point approach to housing, we would monitor it as we went along, and we would make changes as necessary. I’m proud of the fact that we do that. If we all waited for perfection, very little would happen in life. In this case, you have to take bold steps, and if there is a problem later on that you didn’t foresee, then you set the course right.

At the same time, I’m sure my colleagues across the way do agree with us that those who do fraud need to be caught. They need to be punished, and they need to pay their fines. If they do not pay their fines, then they need to have other consequences attached to that as well.

I’ve heard people saying: “But where is this money going to go to — the money that is collected from the fraudsters?” Well, first of all, it’s going to go into paying back the victims. That should be the prime fact. That’s where it should be going, because those victims, often…. Many of them are, sometimes, seniors who have been talked into a variety of ways and, you know, end up trusting people they shouldn’t trust, which is a real shame — when people take advantage of those who are the most vulnerable in our society.

The BCSC was consulted. They did put forward recommendations, and these recommendations are actually a reflection of what they suggested. They also realized that they had very little in the way of enforcement to collect the fines they knew they had to collect and that there were loopholes, which needed to be addressed, that exist in our legislation currently. With the modernization of this legislation, of course, that will be addressed.

Now, modernizing legislation is never a bad thing. Especially when it comes to the financial area, things are changing so rapidly and so quickly that it is always good to be in line, with the regulatory framework, with other provincial regulators. Under this new legislation, we have the ability to create a more modern derivatives regulatory regime. That is long, long overdue. To establish a whistle-blower program — once again, long overdue.

[5:20 p.m.]

To automatically impose non-financial sanctions issued by another Canadian securities regulator and bring B.C.’s regime for civil liability in line with other Canadian jurisdictions. We have been lagging behind. As I said, while other jurisdictions review their legislation in an annual way, we have not touched this — our previous government — since 2011.

We are doing things differently. Our government is committed to reviewing the Securities Act annually, just as other jurisdictions do. We’re going to make sure that we keep bringing forward amendments that will make our securities legislation strong and will also give the BCSC the tools needed to protect British Columbians.

Madam Speaker, at this stage, as you know, this minister…. As well as doing some amazing work on MSP premiums — getting rid of those — and addressing the housing market, she has also been busy working, doing the regular work. This is part of the regular work of modernizing legislation that we have.

There are some, I know, who will say: “Well, why not wait?” I’ve been hearing a lot of that today. Waiting forever till the others all agree with us and are on the same page would not serve British Columbians well. But it does serve British Columbians well when we have strong regulations, have strong enforcement and are at that national table also pushing for a national regime.

You know what? I think we do need to be moving towards international best practices, and that certainly is enabled through this legislation. The amendments on the derivatives will actually give us now the powers to regulate market conduct — not a bad thing after everything we heard after the big crash quite a few years ago. It will also give us the power to regulate trade repositories, as well as establish benchmarks.

Now, these amendments actually align, when it comes to the derivatives, with other Canadian jurisdictions and best international practices. That is a good thing, because what it’s doing is bringing us in line with others. We are very, very proud of the work we are doing in this area, and we’re going to continue to do so.

When I look at this piece of legislation, it doesn’t stand on its own and should not stand on its own, even though it is legislation that amends these. It is part and parcel of a suite of changes that our government has made to address money laundering, white-collar crime and fraud.

We hear that from British Columbians all the time. They always feel that when it’s the little guy, the enforcement is very swift, very sharp, and it’s there. But there is a perception out there, whether real or unreal, that those who engage in white-collar crime, especially those who deal in the area of securities or money laundering, are getting away with so much. There’s a real anger in people when they think about that. They want to know from us: why don’t we have enforcement, why don’t we give the BCSC the tools they need so they can do their job?

As I was saying previously, that is exactly what has happened. We have given the tools that are needed. When I look at this legislation, this will give the BCSC the strongest power across Canada, and surely, that’s something for us to be proud of. That shouldn’t be naysayed.

Look, when this legislation gets to the committee stage, I’m sure the opposition will have amendments to make it even better and to make it even stronger. For me, that’s what legislation debate is all about. But let’s not say: “Wait for everyone else. We can’t go out and act on our own.” If everyone waited for everyone else, there would be inaction. Nobody would put any regulations or enforcements in place.

[5:25 p.m.]

I would like to summarize what this particular piece of legislation does. I know it’s not the most scintillating debate for those who are out there, but I want them to know that this is a very important piece of legislation that we take very, very seriously. What this legislation does is it gives the following powers to the BCSC. Many of these powers do not exist in other jurisdictions in Canada. We wish they did, but they don’t yet. But we know, when they see our example and they see the impact, that that national regulatory body is going to be chomping at the bit to adopt these.

The first one, as I mentioned earlier, was the ability to freeze and seize assets that fraudsters try to shield by giving them to friends and family at below market value. Recently, in the last two years, we’ve had a number of those stories in the media, where somebody has transferred or the property is listed in somebody’s name who actually doesn’t make any income. Their income is so low that they weren’t even paying any taxes, yet they were the owners of a multi-million-dollar asset. This will now allow that to be frozen while the investigations go on.

It also gives the BCSC the opportunity, when there is no other funding available, to seize registered retirement plans so that our seniors and other vulnerable people who’ve had these fraudsters take their life savings away can have those life savings replaced wherever possible. This will also give an ability to order administrative monetary penalties without a hearing. It expands the BCSC’s access to funds to improve collection activity, which is needed because you’ve got to get people the resources. It prohibits against conduct such as obstruction of justice, breach of trust and conspiracy to commit fraud.

I think every one of those is a good thing and, as I said earlier, would pass the kindergarten nod test if this was explained to them in kindergarten language.

It also directs ICBC not to issue licences to fraudsters if they do not pay their fines. You know what? There have to be penalties for people who refuse. It also increases the maximum fine and jail term amounts and introduces minimum sentences for persons who are convicted of a significant offence multiple times. You can’t have multiple offenders and not escalate the punishment, and I’m so pleased to see that there.

It also gives BCSC priority over other claims from creditors. I’ve heard this so many times, that even when a fraudster is caught and their assets are seized, there are so many other creditors, so many other people who claim rights to those moneys. Often the person who’s been the victim of fraud is the one who doesn’t get anything.

It also allows for amendments to the Limitation Act, which means the financial sanctions will not expire. I think that is a good thing, and that’s a strong message we’re sending to fraudsters: B.C. is not the place for you if you want to do fraud. As a result, BCSC will be able to seize assets in the future if fraudsters acquire them.

As I started out to say, I am so proud of the multi-pronged approach taken by the Finance Minister as she looks at modernizing regulation, alleviating pressure off hard-working British Columbians and, at the same time, keeping a triple-A rating — that’s pretty good — and a balanced book and a bit of surplus to spare there as well.

This legislation…. For me, I always say: “Okay, would it pass the nod test by a kindergarten class?” I say that it would. I’m strongly in favour of this.

S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity to join my colleagues and make some comments. I’m not sure about the kindergarten nod test. This is incredibly complex legislation.

[5:30 p.m.]

One of the things that I would certainly encourage the members opposite to do is to actually take a look at the transcripts of some of the members on the opposition side. This isn’t necessarily a partisan issue. The member opposite, the most recent one that spoke, has spent the last 30 minutes talking about how their government is opposed to fraud in British Columbia. Well, I have a news flash to the minister. So is every single member of this Legislature.

In fact, we’ve heard…. The Finance Minister must be blushing over there, with the last 30 minutes of compliments we’ve heard. There is certainly some solid work that’s been done here. But let’s face it. Our job in this Legislature is to ask really hard questions about complicated issues, and this is a very complex bill.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I want to, as other members have, certainly give an important shout-out to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. He has spent his life understanding these kinds of issues. He brings significant added value to a discussion like this. When he brings issues of concern to the Legislature or to us, my co-critic and me, we pay attention. We also heard from the member for Vancouver-Langara — again, eloquent in his discussion of this bill — bringing forward some of the concerns that people may have about the complicated legislation that’s in front of us.

It should not be simplified from a perspective that suggests that the government thinks fraudsters are not great, and the opposition: “Well, we’re not so sure about that.” It has nothing to do with that. I would urge the member to actually go and take a look at the service plan of the British Columbia Securities Commission. Her remarks made it sound like nothing has ever happened in British Columbia when it comes to, actually, a very significant independent body, who have a work plan that’s laid out. In fact, a number of the items captured in this legislation are noted in the service plan of the organization, talking about how there is a mandate to do that work.

We should remember that the B.C. Securities Commission didn’t erupt yesterday. There is a process in place which deals with fraud in British Columbia. The question is: does this act enhance the B.C. Securities Commission’s opportunity to collect on fines, for example, that they levy, which have been significant fines in their history, but have had the inability to collect? Certainly, I know that the member for West Vancouver–Capilano pondered that whole process.

From our perspective, I would venture to say — though I wouldn’t dare, necessarily, to speak on behalf of all of my colleagues…. Looking at the issue of strengthening enforcement and preventing fraud, I hardly think that’s a partisan issue. The question is this. Is the legislation fair, is it balanced, and what are the potential unintended consequences?

The thing that we need to address right off the top are the previous member’s comments about this side of the House suggesting that we wait for a national securities regulator. That is not what we said. It’s not the question we’re asking. In fact, I would quote her as saying…. The member said that “we can all multi-task.” That is exactly the question we are asking. Is this government multi-tasking? Is the work on a national securities regulator continuing or not?

We’ve certainly been left with the impression that people who have led that file may well have been taken off of that work to deal with this piece of legislation. No one is diminishing the complexity or the importance of this legislation. But for the member opposite’s benefit, this isn’t about waiting for someone else to come up with a national securities regulator. This is about continuing the work that British Columbia was leading. Why on earth would that matter to us? Well, it matters because, as the courts have pointed out, as virtually everyone in the world has pointed out, we, in Canada, are one of the few nations in the world that does not take a coordinated approach through a national securities regulator. So the question is actually an important one.

[5:35 p.m.]

The discussion we’re having here is about whether or not British Columbia, while dealing with this — and I quote the minister’s comments — “landmark” legislation, has walked away from that important work that was being done at the national table. Let’s do a little refresher here for a moment. In November, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decision. Basically, it upheld arguments that this previous government made. It was an important step.

From our perspective, we agree with the court. In fact, in its decision, the court actually said: “Canada is one of the only industrialized countries in the world that does not have a national securities regulator. This is largely attributable to the constitutional division of provincial and federal powers as set out in Part VI of the Constitution Act.” The court even recognized that we’re one of the few jurisdictions in the world that doesn’t have a national approach.

It matters. When we look at why it matters, there are a number of issues, as we begin to deal with securities fraud and with all of the issues that can arise. We know that we have a fragmented structure in Canada. What it means is that it requires decisions to be coordinated across 13 jurisdictions.

Now, I don’t know how the members opposite think that’s going to work very efficiently. In fact, what it prevents is the Canadian securities regulators from reacting quickly and decisively when capital market events take place. That’s not a kindergarten nod test. That is an incredibly significant issue when it comes to dealing with 13 securities regulators across the country.

As we look at why that matters, we didn’t say: “Wait.” We didn’t say: “Don’t do anything.” That is not accurate. In fact, what we are saying is: “Where are we at in those discussions?” And it matters. Does this legislation align? Does it work in tandem with work that’s being done nationally? Or are we, in essence, continuing to support the concept of 13 individual jurisdictions, now with British Columbia leading the way with its, in quotations, “landmark” legislation?

When you think about resources, for example, that’s another important part of a national securities regulator. Are we allocating resources effectively? When you think of the current structure that we have, how on earth can securities regulation be efficient and effective when you have 13 jurisdictions dealing with these issues?

Our point is simply this. I can assure the members opposite that, as we go through committee stage, there will be significant questions about the sections and about this particular bill and what it means for British Columbia. But our overarching concern is: where does this fit in the bigger file that British Columbia has worked so hard to lead over the last number of years?

We want to recognize the work that officials in British Columbia did. They did an exceptional job — again, very complicated policy process and very much competing interests all across the country. The previous member speaks about being proud of the bill. Well, British Columbia should be proud of the fact that it led this work along with other partners across the country.

Our question is, simply: does this work to enhance or to be compatible with…? How does it align with the work that is being done nationally?

When we speak to the specifics of this piece of legislation, we do want to…. I should also mention the member for Abbotsford West, who, again, brought expertise and thoughtful commentary to the floor of the chamber. That’s exactly what should take place here. I know that my co-critic will also be making comments on our behalf in just a few moments.

I do want to thank the minister for, as she regularly does, providing us with…. I have to admit, it was a short briefing, and we hadn’t seen the bill at that time. Then, when we saw the massive size of the bill…. I know that my friend across the aisle is flipping through the literally dozens and dozens of pages in this bill. It is a massive piece of legislation. We will work our way through it in committee stage.

[5:40 p.m.]

I don’t think anyone would also disagree with the assumption that legislation that hasn’t been looked at since 2011 is probably up for review. I think that’s a reasonable and pragmatic approach. As we look at the world around us, the world has changed. We need to make sure that, as legislators, we take a look at legislation, and changes are part of that process.

Again, when we look at those revisions, those clarifications, those modifications, some of them, many of them, are likely warranted. That’s an important point of agreement in this discussion. But we also need to look at: is there the appropriate balance? As with any legislation, the questions and the debate revolve around balance, around fairness and around the degree of revision.

We heard today from my colleague from Vancouver-Langara that there is a feeling that people who have a significant interest in this complicated legislation have not been properly consulted. That’s a concern. These are people who are experts, who make their livelihood working through this sector.

Again, from our perspective, we need to ask those questions. Does this legislation pass the test of making sure that people who actually work in this field every single day have had the opportunity to provide input? That has been a concern for us.

The minister has obviously heard us outlining some of the concerns that we have — again, the member for Vancouver-Langara — some very specific questions about sections in the bill that have potentially unintended consequences. But when we look at the overarching goals of the bill…. Again, the minister and staff provided the co-critic and myself with a very short briefing.

Technically, there are two things happening in this bill when you look at the overarching goals of the bill. One is the catch-up provisions where there is a need to make sure that the legislation we have in place in British Columbia keeps pace with what’s happening in other jurisdictions. So we’ll talk a little bit about what those catch-up provisions are.

Then we have…. Where most of the commentary has existed is where British Columbia is going to lead the country, particularly in the areas of strengthening enforcement and fine collection. It was the minister who used the word “landmark.” In fact, they are pretty sweeping changes.

Again, I go back to the point that it isn’t a partisan issue to think that fraud’s not a good thing, and that we want to protect people and make sure that we’re doing everything we can to prevent fraud. Those things are shared by every member in the Legislature, I’m sure.

But let’s look at some of those sweeping changes. This legislation will allow for the seizure of retirement savings; freezing and seizing property, even if that is below market value; preventing the renewal of drivers’ licences and plates until fines are paid. When we stand in the House, that sounds like a really popular series of measures. Our job is to ask the question: are there unintended consequences?

When you think about the increase of fines, there are going to be increases of the maximum fines that include jail terms and minimum sentences for repeat offenders. These new powers provide tools to the security regulator.

I can assure you that we’ve heard commentary from members of the B.C. Securities Commission who are complimentary of those changes. You can imagine they would be, because they have, over the last number of years, issued fines that they have been unable to collect.

So when you’re looking at what you need to do to be able to collect those fines, there does need to be a look at what is required to make that possible. All of us want to see victims protected. We want to make sure that fraudsters are not welcome in British Columbia. But we also want to ask the questions, the hard questions, about: are there unintended consequences? As I’ve said, we can all agree that we need to protect victims and improve collection.

I know that Brenda Leong was quoted earlier regarding the bill. Certainly she has made some very complimentary comments. Brenda is the chair and CEO of the B.C. Securities Commission.

[5:45 p.m.]

Her comments included this: that the changes were “sweeping and, in some cases, novel.” The commission had taken “a broad view to the proposals it put to the provincial government,” she said. One would expect her to be complimentary, particularly if they presented the proposals and some of them to the government. But she also said this. She said it was too early to say how much the changes would increase fine collection.

I think that’s something we need to stop and think about for a moment while we all tout — or certainly members of the government side want to tout — the fact that we’re suddenly going to see a massive increase in the collection of fines.

Even the chair and CEO of the B.C. Securities Commission, at least according to this article, pointed out that she said it was too early to say how much the changes would increase fine collection.

She goes on to say that the most important change is the ability to preserve assets transferred under value. “The amendments empower our investigators to ask specific questions of the alleged wrongdoer, their family members or other third parties if we have a reasonable basis to believe they may have information related to property that could be used to satisfy a financial sanction.”

While there is optimism that these changes will make a difference, there isn’t a quantum. There isn’t a sense of the magnitude of change that this will bring when it comes to collecting fines, one of the things that has been purported to be a significant goal of the new legislation.

When we continue to look at some of the other things that are…. The expanded investigative powers include new obligations related to records, whistleblower protection — we’ve certainly heard the members opposite speak to that element — and the ability to order administrative monetary penalties without a hearing.

We want to make sure that…. As we’re looking at the issue of property rights and personal rights, our job is to make sure that there is balance there. That’s why the questions have been asked or, at least, that pathway for discussing this legislation has been presented.

Those are the more landmark provisions that are in the legislation, the items that would move British Columbia to the forefront. Again, our concern is the context of the greater work that’s being done on a national securities regulation process. We want to make sure that British Columbia isn’t, either intentionally or unintentionally, setting us aside once again and basically walking away from that important work that would see a more collaborative approach at the national level.

The catch-up provisions that have been included in the bill as well are, certainly, the over-the-counter derivatives regulatory regime. Again, if the members opposite were to take a look at the service plan of the B.C. Securities Commission, it’s actually noted in there that that is part of the response of the Securities Commission to work that has been done and noted previously. In fact, it’s included in their service plan. So we shouldn’t be surprised to actually see it in this bill.

As the members opposite point out, there is an overarching attempt to modernize and strengthen the legislative framework. Again, that isn’t necessarily in and of itself a negative thing, but we do need to look at it in context.

I again share the disappointment that we have with the introduction of this legislation. We are concerned that it looks like the NDP government is no longer pursuing the case of creating a national securities regulator. From our perspective, there is a patchwork set of rules across multiple provinces. If we really want to protect British Columbians and Canadians, we actually have to take that a step further. We need to continue to pursue making these changes from a national perspective.

All of us know that crime doesn’t stop at the province’s border. When you look at the complexity of 13 jurisdictions trying to deal with issues in an effective and efficient way, that’s simply not going to happen. So we’re going to continue to call on the government to lead Canada and to continue that important work to establish a national securities regulator.

[5:50 p.m.]

As I mentioned earlier, we are supportive of modernizing the province’s approach to the legislative framework, but we also have to be cognizant of the fact that this bill will be breaking new ground with many of its provisions, particularly those with respect to the B.C. Securities Commission’s powers concerning civil forfeiture — a way of taking back assets. So we will have some questions about that. They are sweeping enforcement and forfeiture powers, and there are a number of questions that we’ll be asking.

I also wanted to reflect on something that we continue to hear across the province. That is the issue of competitiveness. When we look at…. Whether it’s the small business sector, whether it’s the securities industry, whatever it is, we need to ensure that British Columbia is competitive. When you think about regulation, that can be a significant contributing factor to a loss of competitiveness, and if there’s one thing we want for British Columbians, we want them to be competitive.

When you think about it from a securities perspective, we want to be sure that B.C. companies and businesses are still able to raise capital. So, are there things in this bill that…? Certainly, from a regulatory perspective, you know, I always….

Whenever I get up…. I know the minister knows this. Whenever we get up to talk about legislation, we talk about what was then and what is now. When this government was in opposition, we were taken to task every single time there was a bill that added regulation and that we did it behind closed doors. I can tell you, there isn’t a bill that’s come to this Legislature under the new government that doesn’t have a significant regulatory component. This is one of them.

From our perspective, we want regulations to be smart. They need to be. This process…. We’ve had this discussion — my co-critic and, obviously, our colleague from Surrey–White Rock. This is about managing risk; it’s not about eliminating it. It’s about managing it and making sure that there is still a healthy market in place. Those are the kinds of things that we need to make sure we’re asking questions about.

When you look at the service plan for the B.C. Securities Commission, they actually talk about the tech sector and how important it is to be aware of issues that can impact the tech sector in British Columbia. They’ve identified this as a significant priority. So we are concerned about the tech sector in the province, looking at whether or not…. How do these changes, how does the modernization impact the tech sector in the province?

From that perspective, you know…. I won’t take a lot more time, because I know my colleagues have other things they want to add, but we should be clear. Again, we are one of the only jurisdictions in the world that does not have a national regulator, and we have the potential to actually lead and continue to work on that file. We’re not waiting. We’re not putting it on hold. We’re not concentrating only on one effort. It needs to be done in tandem so that it makes sense, and those discussions about how a national regulator moves forward are incredibly important.

So one of the things we’re going to look for, obviously…. I think the minister has gotten the message loud and clear. We’re going to be looking for an update, specifically, as to where that initiative is at. We are going to look at how these changes would either support or align with that work. And, again, the issue of the regulation of securities, minimizing fraud, protecting victims, making sure we have tough and effective enforcement tools. I don’t think anyone on this side of the House would disagree with those things. What we need to do is ensure that they’re balanced, that they’re thoughtful and that they allow for a continuing, thriving market in British Columbia.

We will look forward to much more discussion at the committee stage. We thank the minister for her comments and for, again, the opportunity to have had a short briefing from her staff. With that, I will take my seat and allow other members to make their comments.

N. Simons: I just want to thank the member for Prince George–Valemount for those comments. I hadn’t heard anybody say that we were abandoning all other efforts to ensure we cut down on fraud, but that might have been the implication that the member heard.

[5:55 p.m.]

I will agree that what we want from this legislation is a reasonable and pragmatic approach. I think that’s fair, and I think that the opposition is fulfilling their responsibility by asking these important questions. I find it interesting that there’s a concern over the rights of people who are accused of fraud. I’m not saying that they’re suggesting that they shouldn’t be pursued. But it is not necessarily the argument we’ve often heard in the past when legislation such as civil forfeiture, for example, came forward.

I think this legislation actually is quite balanced. I think we do need to ask about unintended consequences. I think that’s fair, and that’s part of what the opposition should do. I don’t think there should be an implication that because we decided we needed to go ahead, we’d waited long enough for this particular legislation, that means we’re not going to always look at other ways of doing things better. But it’s well within the responsibilities of the opposition to remind us of that important fact. So I thank the member for her comments.

One thing that we heard a lot about is the fragmentation that exists. I know Canada has that constitutional blueprint that does sometimes result in a difference between provinces. Sometimes that’s seen as fragmentation, and sometimes it’s seen as the unique nature of our provinces and the differences that we actually have.

In this particular case, I think our government decided that we couldn’t wait any longer. I’m presuming this to some degree, that because this legislation hadn’t been reviewed in a significant amount of time, we need to do something as part of our overall policy, our overall plan — our message, in fact, that we don’t tolerate fraud. We don’t tolerate white-collar crime, as we don’t tolerate other criminal activity.

Having tools…. While it may not be the same tool as in neighbouring provinces or other provinces across the country, they are no longer weak. What we’ve seen, perhaps, is that the regulatory framework and the enforcement framework hasn’t been sufficient to fully address what we, as members of the Legislature and as British Columbians, have seen as the issue in the past.

The member is absolutely right. It’s a complicated bill. It’s a bit like eating crackers in the desert. If you’re hungry, that’s a good thing, but it’s not exactly satisfying. But at the same time….

I’m sorry. I have to apologize to the minister now. It’s excellent legislation, and I’m proud to support it. They’re already telling me to rush along. Well, I had about half an hour more. I have half an hour more.

Interjections.

N. Simons: See, that’s what I like to hear. My fan club is in the House, ladies and gentlemen.

But I just want to say that I’m pleased to support this legislation. I’m pleased that we’re putting tools in place so that the Securities Commission can do what it needs to do.

Interjection.

N. Simons: Despite the entreaties from members from the opposition, I will conclude my remarks there.

S. Cadieux: I’m pleased to take my place in the discussion on Bill 33. I’ve listened pretty intently to the comments from members on both sides of the House, to my colleagues — and not surprisingly, I share many of their thoughts — but also to my colleagues on the other side of the House. I heard the member for Surrey-Panorama repeatedly suggesting that members on this side of the House were suggesting we wait and not do anything.

I just want to correct the record, because that is not, in fact, what anybody has said. What we are questioning is why we are moving ahead with such significant legislation rather than continuing on with the national effort that we had the pen on.

[6:00 p.m.]

So not at all that we shouldn’t be doing some of these things — in fact, we’ll get into a lot more detail about the consequences and the potential effect of the various new pieces that are being added. But it was about whether or not this has taken away from the effort we had the pen on and were driving as British Columbians.

I hope very much that the minister will be able to alleviate those concerns in third reading, but it’s our job to raise the concerns that moving ahead with such significant changes to legislation, which sets us even further apart from the colleagues we are trying to bring along on a path, is somewhat concerning.

As well, the member for Surrey-Panorama referenced a number of things around crime at casinos and phone-fraud schemes. I just want to make it clear to anyone who is listening to the debate that those things, while all problematic in their own regard and certainly nothing anyone condones, are not in any way affected by what this legislation seeks to do. So to bring that into the conversation, I think, provides some confusion as to what we’re addressing here. I think the member for Surrey-Panorama would be happy to hear, certainly, that I have absolutely no issue with getting tough on crooks.

The proposed legislation that we’re looking at is going to expand the powers of the BCSC, the Securities Commission, to allow for significant increases in fine collection and enforcement capabilities. We would hope, as well, that these will assist in catching and convicting people who commit fraud. I believe, for the most part, we are happy to see increased powers given in the legislation. We’ll be looking for some detail as to what those various pieces seek to do and what effect they might actually have.

I’m certainly supportive of measures to implement a scheme to regulate derivatives and update B.C. standards in this regard. I understand it’s an area where provinces have preceded British Columbia, and while I expect, again, we’ll have some questions on the technical details, I don’t see major concerns with this move. Certainly we all know that mortgage-backed derivatives underpinned the financial crisis in 2008, and effective regulation of this very complex type of security is important. It’s something we need to do right. I understand we’re going to mirror…. The rest of the regulation mirrors, largely, what is already available for other securities and instruments.

I am concerned, though, as I mentioned at the start of my remarks, that government could be backing away from their commitment to a national securities regulator, as has been so ably noted by my colleagues. It was canvassed very extensively last spring, and we were given some assurances at that time that this wasn’t the case. However, moving forward today with what, by government’s own admission, is significant and extraordinary legislation, I’m left wondering if that commitment remains or if something else has changed. Have other provinces backed away, or is there a bigger issue with the provinces collaborating?

The reality is that the minister signals in this work that we are talking about here in this act, the Securities Act…. It’s largely around combating fraud and money laundering. That is important. But the next bill we’ll debate, Bill 37, also deals with consumer protection around other aspects of the financial industry. These issues can’t be overlooked, and they are intertwined.

The international community believes that Canada’s multiprovince approach to securities is an added risk in the event of a market meltdown. The international community, including the business community, has long called for a national securities system in Canada.

[6:05 p.m.]

Why? Because it would provide better consumer protection for investors, improved regulatory and criminal enforcement, new tools to better support the sustainability and stability of the Canadian financial system as a whole, faster policy response to emerging market trends. Certainly in this time, we all have heard of Bitcoin and blockchain and all sorts of other things that I’m sure most of us have no idea what it entails.

The reality is that our international relationship with other regulators and with the international markets cannot be understated. We are not a province unto ourselves. We are not a market unto ourselves. We, importantly, must work collaboratively. It would seem counterintuitive to a national effort that, to my understanding, we held the pen on — for good reason, because we were ahead on so much — that we would now spend so much time and effort on new and significant amendments rather than on that national effort.

I don’t want to be unclear. I do support doing what we can do to fight crime and protect consumers. I don’t condone fraud or money laundering in any way. I’m certain, again, that the minister will alleviate my concerns in committee.

But as we in government and the Securities Commission all seem to agree — that success in rooting out crime, the crime this bill seeks to fight…. We all agree that the more cooperation and expertise that can be assembled and mobilized across borders, the better.

Again, I find it curious that we are again building B.C.-specific law and not focusing our wholehearted efforts on implementing, if necessary, these measures on a national scale to ensure the ability to both catch criminals and provide protections for British Columbians and all Canadians, especially, I think, when we note that the Securities Commission has a rather disappointing record of success in enforcement.

Just two years ago the minister directed the commission to ramp up enforcement. Yet two years later, we’ve seen no real change. The reports suggest that there is more than half a billion dollars that has gone uncollected in penalties. Yet despite adding staff, despite adding new fees, I will add, to the fees paid by all of those law-abiding businesses that are dutifully filing their papers and forms…. We are adding complexity, and we are adding cost to those. With all of that, we see nothing in improved returns, no anticipated improved returns. I will certainly have some questions for the minister on that.

The other issue, of course, with having more securities regulators in this system of patchwork is that it makes it risky in times when urgency is required. The more organizations there are to communicate and coordinate…. When there are systemic issues, you have hours maybe. Then markets will go into panic. Given that they are all worldwide and electronic and operating around the clock, this is really important.

The fact that now people are going to have to understand new rules that exist only in British Columbia, and British Columbia is still not in lockstep with the other regulators in Canada…. Time will be a factor, will continue to be a factor. It’s one of the things that a national system would improve upon.

If you look back at the situation with Northern Rock and Washington Mutual a few years ago, they went down within two weeks because of the deposit run on banks. Panic breeds panic. When it starts, it doesn’t stop. In the same way, a run on securities in our market can hit not just individual companies but the entire market. The need to act quickly and strongly in times of crisis is not optional but essential.

[6:10 p.m.]

The more we add regulation, the more we add cost. With, again, continuing on this path of having our own rules and our own regulator, without that complete cooperation, companies are having to invest time and money in each and every province to list their security. So how does that make business more competitive? How does that help B.C. business raise capital?

Regulations have to be smart. The idea is not to eliminate all risk but to manage it, and to manage it and allow a healthy market to exist. Adding significant new regulation and adding to the fees paid by these companies — the majority of which, as I stated before, are law-abiding — isn’t improving the system in terms of developing strategies that allow fintech and other tech sectors to flourish.

If we’re looking at the burgeoning tech and fintech sectors here in British Columbia, most of them end up selling out to the U.S. or going outside of B.C. to go public. So what are the government and the securities regulator looking at in terms of making it easier for those small and mid-sized tech firms to grow in B.C. and access capital here? That is a concern that exists. It’s a concern that, in my mind, certainly appears to be absent in this legislation.

Much of what seems to be in the deficit here is in the technical changes. We’ll get into a lot of this in committee. As my colleague from Vancouver-Langara laid out, some of these sweeping changes could have an effect on the securities market broadly. They could have companies rethinking their decision to headquarter here, to operate here. That could have the effect, essentially, if these regulations are too complex and too overreaching, of putting a wall around B.C. I’m hopeful that the minister has considered all those unintended consequences and will be able to, again, alleviate our concerns as we discuss this in greater detail.

Certainly, when I looked at the mandate letter for the commission this year, and then I looked at this legislation, I was concerned that while the mandate letter suggests that the goals and objectives for the commission are to protect B.C. investors through enforcement and fine collection, modern regulatory framework, supporting public and private venture companies by fostering capital-raising and modernizing the regulatory framework, making best efforts to simplify and harmonize securities rules with other provinces and developing regulatory strategies that allow innovative financial and technology businesses to flourish while providing strong investor protection….

I pause, because while I see in this legislation and in the technical amendments before us many pieces targeted at enforcement and fine collection, and I see many pieces around modernization — or at least the words around modernization — I see nothing about harmonizing and simplifying, and I see nothing about fostering the ability to raise capital.

Those are questions that I have. If that’s the mandate of the Securities Commission, then what are we doing with this legislation? Or what are we doing with this legislation, by unintended consequence, that will actually prevent that from happening?

Certainly, again, no one on this side of the House is going to suggest that we don’t want to be tough on fraudsters or provide Securities Commission with whatever tools are reasonably necessary to get the job done. But we have to also look at whether or not we are reasonably going to be able to expect that that’s going to be successful.

[6:15 p.m.]

I think the member for Vancouver-Langara laid that out nicely, and we will have additional discussion on that in committee.

It’s completely not related, but a good example. I believe all members of this House were pretty much in favour of bike helmet laws, because it seems like the right thing to do to protect people. Yet you can sit on a corner in Vancouver and watch people go by on bikes all day long. At least half of them won’t be wearing a helmet. There is little to no enforcement. When you look at countries like Holland, for example — the Netherlands — they have no helmet laws. Nobody wears a helmet. Yet people seem to think riding bikes is good and safe. They certainly do it in the largest numbers I’ve seen. I think we want to include it as…. I’m using it as an example. It’s not that I’m not in favour of the helmet law. I think we did what we thought was best to help protect consumers. But it, in effect, has very little effect because it’s not enforceable, or at least is not enforced.

With this, if we’re putting in place enforcement opportunities, let’s make sure we’re going to actually be able to use them, because otherwise, they sit there and mean nothing. I don’t think that that is a good use of the law.

When we look at how much fraud is out there — and we know there is; we see examples — absolutely, we want to recover as much as possible for those who’ve been defrauded. That’s how the money should be used, and for the most part, I believe, if recoveries are made, that is how they’re used. But how much are we ever recovering? Will this really allow the Securities Commission to recover more fines? I would have thought that we would see some reference to how much more effective this is going to be, and that is something that we haven’t seen and haven’t heard in any of the discussion today. We’ll certainly be following up on that issue.

We’ll be asking questions, as well, about the proposed whistle-blower programs and funding avenues within the legislation to enable this. Certainly, I agree that we want to be able to have people come forward if they have information that can protect someone else — absolutely. But how is this going to work, how is it going to operate, and where does that fund come from? What does that mean? What streams of revenue are going to support that? Will it be funded from recoveries? Is there a new fee that is going to be placed on all of those actors in the sector ahead of time as a pre-emptive piece? I think all of these things are questions that are important when we look at making, as the minister states, pretty extraordinary changes to enforcement regulation powers in the act.

We are, I believe, supportive of much of what is the intent of these changes, much of what is here to modernize and allow for securities to work in an ever-increasingly rapidly changing marketplace, and overall with the intent to protect consumers. But we will have some questions. It is a highly technical bill, difficult to address at second reading with any great depth. Certainly, I look forward to committee stage with the minister to look through the bill, section by section, to ensure that we understand the implications of the changes we’re being asked to make.

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

Hon. C. James: Thank you to all of the members who’ve taken part in the debate over the last couple of days. No offence to other members who have spoken, but I do want to give a special shout-out to the member for West Vancouver–​Capilano. Hear, hear.

[6:20 p.m.]

He was the designated speaker for the opposition. I think if you can be in your 80s and be a designated speaker for the opposition, we all deserve a round of applause — for the member. If members didn’t have the pleasure of being here in person to listen to it, you can actually go on Hansard. I would highly recommend that people do that and actually take a look at the debate.

We covered everything. We covered history, Murray Pezim. We had a great discussion about a personal survey and an interview process that the member from West Van did himself, completed himself, in talking with people. We had a good discussion about provincial versus national security commissions, and not a consensus in the survey that the member was doing. Of course, as you always get with the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, we also got lots of ideas and lots of suggestions about how we can improve what we’re doing. I want to offer a special thank-you to the member for the discussion.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We’ve also heard, as people who have been watching this will have known, a fair bit of discussion around the national securities regulator. That discussion came from the member for Vancouver-Langara as well as the member for Abbotsford West. I know we’ll get into that discussion. There were questions around the timeline, what that looks like and the discussion that’s occurring right now. I know we’ll have more time in committee stage to do just that.

I think it is important to remind folks that we had this discussion, as well, in the spring. There were some very important issues raised in the spring about the process and what was going on — about the timeline, about the work that still needed to occur and about changes in government that had occurred in Ontario, which also was taking the lead, and how that changed some of the timelines. There was a court case in play. Not all the provinces belong to that process. So it’s not as easy as saying that everybody is part of the process, and therefore, we can find a uniform agreement. I know we’ll have much more discussion on that process over the next while.

I do think it’s important to state…. There have been questions raised about why we’re moving ahead with our securities pieces while that process is going on. I do think it is important to say that waiting while the discussion happens around the national cooperative capital markets…. It shouldn’t be about the lowest common denominator. It shouldn’t be about going to the bottom of the regulations that are in place and saying: “Okay, now we’ll start working together.”

We, in fact, should be a leader in British Columbia. We have a very strong securities commission. We are known, as a province, for that good work. In fact, we do believe in high standards. We don’t believe in waiting. We believe that, in fact, if we set the standard, B.C. can continue to be a leader and have the other provinces join us and say that they also want to put in place very strict regulations. They want to put in place important changes that need to occur. That’s, in fact, exactly why we’re having this conversation. We aren’t going to wait. We believe it’s important.

I also heard the member for Vancouver-Langara talk a lot about the narrative and why we were stuck on our narrative. Well, in fact, the narrative is a discussion around how we make sure we support consumers and, yes, how we make sure we have a good, strong, robust system in place in British Columbia to encourage people to invest and to encourage that to happen.

The member mentioned trust. I just want to take a minute on this piece before I wrap up. I would agree with him that this is about trust. This is about making sure that people in British Columbia have trust in our financial institutions, in our government institutions and in our democratic institutions. That’s a critical part of democracy and a critical part of a good, strong society.

We have had some challenges in British Columbia. We’ve been called the Wild West. We’ve been called the place where it’s easy to come. There is even a mention of the Vancouver model as part of money laundering. We do have a reputation that we have to work on in this in province. We do have to make sure that we’re seen from a positive perspective and that the rules are being followed.

Yes, that means higher fines. That means putting in place the tools that need to be here. In fact, these are new tools. I think they are important to be able to, as I said, bring that trust back and support the vast majority of investors who are doing good work out there, helping people to be able to manage their money.

[6:25 p.m.]

It’s only a few bad apples, but if we don’t deal with those bad apples, people’s perception is that everybody in the system is a problem. I think it’s critical to make sure that we put these tools in place and that we deal with those few people that are the problem, because that will support the vast majority of people who are doing exactly what they should — following the rules, paying attention and moving ahead.

Are these sweeping changes? Yes, they are. I know we’ll have some good discussion and good debate on that when we get to committee stage.

I just want to close off by mentioning the Securities Commission itself. The member from Surrey mentioned the issues of the Securities Commission and the fines and not collecting the fines. In fact, that’s precisely the reason we’re looking at these changes. It’s because the Securities Commission has come forward to say: “We do want to make sure that we’re capturing those fines.” That’s very hard to do when people transfer property to someone else, move it out of the country or move it to another name so they can avoid having to pay their fines. So that’s, in fact, part of the entire package that we need to move.

I look forward to the committee discussion. I look forward to the debate. With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 33, Securities 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. C. James moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.