Orders of the Day

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

In Section A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

In Section C, I call the estimates of the Ministry of En­ergy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. Once the estimates are concluded, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 11 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 11; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

The Chair: Minister for Emergency Management and Climate Change Strategy.

Hon. B. Ma: Close, Chair.

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

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

Leave granted.

Tributes

BYRON JOHN JOSEPH

Hon. B. Ma: I’d like to introduce the House today to Squamish Nation Elder Chief Byron John Joseph, son of the late Stanley Joseph and Caroline Joseph.

[2:35 p.m.]

Born on April 15, 1953, he grew up in Eslhá7an, which is also known as Mission Indigenous Reserve No. 1 in North Vancouver. A proud Indigenous man, he served on the Squamish Nation council for 36 years and was the longest standing member with the Indian Residential School Survivors Society board at over 25 years.

He married his love, Brenda Gail Joseph. He had many children — Sandra, Kono, Breanna, Bianca and Kaiya; and many more grandchildren and great grandchildren.

I would like the House to know him as I know him: kind, loving, with a great sense of humour. He was generous with his teachings and held about him an unwavering positivity that was often accompanied by hearty laughter. He drew strength from his ancestors and joins us now in spirit as one of those ancestors that future generations will draw on for strength in return.

Byron passed this week on April 2, 2023. I will miss seeing him at powwows and community events. I will miss his smiles and his teachings.

Would the House please join me in offering our condolences to his family and community during this time of mourning.

Debate Continued

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

We’re here for Bill 11, the Election Amendment Act, 2023. The last day we finished up we were on clause 39.

Member for Abbotsford West on clause 39.

On clause 39 (continued).

M. de Jong: Thanks, hon. Chair. As you may recall, we were perilously close to finishing. Kindly, I had an opportunity, over the break, to review some of my notes, which would give us a chance to go back to clause 1 to revisit. We won’t go back to clause 1.

The Chair: I don’t think we will, no.

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

Clauses 39 to 41 inclusive approved.

On clause 42.

M. de Jong: Can the Attorney provide a summary? We can all read the addition, the “Prohibition against collusion.” But maybe in plain language advise the committee of the kind of conduct this new section is intended to prohibit and prevent from happening.

Hon. N. Sharma: This provision is meant to ensure the independence of the third-party advertising from the candidate. So any third-party sponsor.

For example, if the candidate was seen to be doing things like providing photos to the third party, which were advertising or direct communications, or supplying content for the advertising, then that would be seen as breaking this rule under this amendment.

[2:40 p.m.]

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

We’ve got a situation in which we are in a pre-election period or an election period. We have candidates, and we have the parties that they are affiliated with, and they are governed by a certain set of requirements around the raising of moneys, the expenditure of moneys, advertising, some further restrictions in this material about the content and its accuracy. Then we have this other group of third parties that are entitled under the rules of the legislation to present views and ideas and thoughts on issues relevant to that electoral contest. But there are restrictions here, including the sharing of information.

The term “collusion” I think is very purposeful and very deliberate. What it suggests to me is that a third party that may bring a particular perspective to an election contest, may have a preferred candidate or political party whose interests they are interested in advancing. But even a conversation, any communication between that third party and a candidate or political organization hinting at their desire to highlight a particular issue, the timing around that…. It strikes me that under the rubric of collusion, any conversation, any exchange of information, any discussion between that third-party sponsor and a contestant or political party would be in violation of this provision.

Am I overstating that, or is that essentially accurate?

Hon. N. Sharma: This provision is related — as the member, I think, was suggesting — to any type of collusion, including of sharing information, with respect to that election advertising that has been conducted by the third party. So yes, it is a very strong provision related to making sure that there’s no sharing of information, no communi­cation related to that election advertising.

M. de Jong: Let’s take an example of a group that might want to draw attention to certain land use decisions or pending land use decisions that may have some pronounced views on them — it might relate to resource-related activities — and seeks to advance those views through some properly documented and accounted-for third-party advertising. It wants to ensure the accuracy of its information and contacts maybe their local MLA — maybe their local MLA is a minister — or a minister’s office and says: “I just want to confirm that the amount of acreage or hectarage of the area involved here is X number of thousands of hectares.”

That presumably would happen now in violation of this and would be captured by the rules against obtaining information, exchanging information or in any way colluding. Again my question is: is that correct? Have I characterized that correctly?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: As we talked about, I think, at length last time, the CEO would have the conduct of implementing and interpreting the legislation. This particular provision, like many, is a recommendation from the CEO. What it seeks to do is to provide more clarity.

We already know that third-party advertising is meant to be independent, and it provides a prohibition and more clarity of what the actions are, in terms of the definition of how that shows up. So in situations where there’s sharing of information that is related to election advertising that’s conducted by the third-party sponsor, then that would be prohibited. So it could potentially be that scenario, like the member suggests, but it would be up to the Chief Electoral Officer to determine.

M. de Jong: I don’t take issue with the description from the Attorney about who the initial adjudicator is. I think on a provision like this, providing some guidance through our discussion in this committee is important. It may be the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer, but it is ultimately the government’s legislation, and having the government, via the Attorney, explain what this actually means from a practical point of view and what it is intended to capture is important.

I’ll give another example. A third-party sponsor is a defined term under the act and is known to the act, and it’s used in various places in the act. A third-party sponsor is entitled, as long as they are reporting and registering appropriately, for example, to endorse a candidate, to endorse a political party.

[2:50 p.m.]

They may wish to draw attention to a part of the platform of a candidate — it could be an independent candidate; it could be a candidate with a political party — and say: “On this issue that we care about, candidate X and party X have said the following. Now, we have verified with them that it means the following, and we urge people to take that into account and possibly lend their support to that.”

It strikes me that that risks running afoul now of these provisions, that contact between these third-party sponsors and a candidate or a political party becomes very problematic and certainly exposes both parties to the allegation that they have colluded in a way that the act purports to prohibit.

Hon. N. Sharma: In that scenario, it would be unlikely, in my view, that that would classify as collusion. Collusion implies underlying some kind of intent in order to work together or share information with respect to an election advertising conducted by the party.

M. de Jong: Well, I’ll try to refine this a little bit. It seems to me that a third-party sponsor who contacts a political party and says: “We want to run an ad in a particular area of public policy. Your platform says X. What additional information do you have that we can use to highlight your approach to this issue, which may, or may not, lead to an endorsement in our ad?”

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

Hon. N. Sharma: The goal of this provision, again, is about transparency and, I guess, assuring that there’s independence between the two parties.

[2:55 p.m.]

I would say to the member’s hypothetical situation…. I will start by saying, of course, it’s the Chief Electoral Officer’s decision on the discretion that we grant to them under this legislation. But the word “collusion,” I think, is a clear word in this provision that sets a high bar when it comes to working together for an election campaign. In the member’s scenario, where it’s somebody receiving information, I think it would be up to the Chief Electoral Officer to decide, but it doesn’t sound like collusion in that scenario.

M. de Jong: When does the prohibition against collusion kick in? Is it outside of pre-election periods and the election campaign period? Does the prohibition exist then? I’m thinking not, because people have to register as third party.

The registration of a third-party sponsor is relevant to those election periods. But can a party that knows it is going to be a third-party sponsor avoid the application of these provisions by having whatever kinds of discussion — well, in the language of the act — by colluding with a candidate or political party in advance of the pre-election period?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: We’ll start with the general overview of the Election Act. Really, the purpose of it is to regulate elections in B.C. during elections time. The way this provision would work is once you’re a third-party sponsor and you’re registered as one, this is an obligation that is upon you — not to collude with respect to election advertising. That’s the kind of trigger point. The election advertising, obviously, is associated with the election.

M. de Jong: Theoretically, for an organization that knew it was intending to become a third-party sponsor and to register under the provisions of the act for a forthcoming election, one of the ways to avoid the limitations imposed by this new prohibition would be to simply have whatever conversations that it wished to have and to engage in whatever collusion it wished to engage in, prior to registering as a third-party sponsor and conducting any advertising.

Hon. N. Sharma: We’ve been having a very interesting discussion over here on that question. In the scenario that the member raised, you could imagine, eventually, a third-party sponsor that is, under the example, colluding, under this definition, for election advertising conducted during an election, right? I think that was the kind of…. But the conversation to lead to that collusion might have happened in the pre–election period.

[3:05 p.m.]

It may be open to the CEO in that scenario — in a sense, it’s ongoing, because the election advertising is going on during the campaign — to look at evidence of that collusion that may have occurred prior, to inform the decision of whether collusion existed, by that third-party sponsor, for that election advertisement.

M. de Jong: Once again, the best way to analyze how this might work, or where there might be gaps, is through an example. Let’s refine that a bit further.

Some months in advance of the elections — outside of the writ and pre-writ period, as defined by the act — a local downtown business association comes and says, “Okay, you’re a candidate. We want to support you. We’re going to eventually register as a third-party sponsor, and we’re going to take out some advertising that we hope will reflect positively on you and influence people to vote for you,” and then says: “Well, let’s talk about timing, so we can maximize the impact. We’re thinking that we’ll take out some full-page ads in the first, third and fourth week.”

Anyway, that kind of conversation takes place. It takes place six months in advance of the pre-writ period in an election year, when we supposedly know when the election is going to be. I’ve given a fairly low-level example of that kind of conversation. It could be more elaborate than that, in terms of television or online presence for that organization.

My reading of the act is that as long as that agency doesn’t engage in any further discussion following their registration as a third-party sponsor, they have done nothing to violate the provision of this clause. That’s my reading. If I’m right, the impact of the clause might be to say to interested third parties: “Get all your coordination and collusion out of the way well in advance of the pre-writ period.”

Hon. N. Sharma: I just want to say clearly that the intent of the legislation is to capture collusion with respect to election advertising.

It’s not that we’re trying to say, “Just do it before,” like the member suggests. I would trust the CEO to examine the election advertising and the third-party sponsor in the conduct of the election to determine whether scenarios — there are various ones we’ve talked about — reach the level of collusion with respect to that election advertising.

M. de Jong: I’m not going to belabour this much further. I do think there’s an important point here for us to interpret at the time of birth of this.

The act says, “A third party sponsor must not…,” and then everything flows from that, but if you’re not yet a third-party sponsor, then I don’t see how the provisions can apply. The member can say, “Well, the CEO might want to look back,” but the CEO cannot apply provisions that do not exist, if the response from the third-party sponsor to the CEO is: “Well, sure, we had talks, but I wasn’t a third-party sponsor then.”

[3:10 p.m.]

There’s nothing in this act that I see, or in this part of the act, that says…. By the way, I’m not sure that offends me. I just think it’s important that we be upfront about how potential third-party advertisers can avoid the provisions of this clause.

Hon. N. Sharma: I think we’ve established in this discussion that the idea of collusion is something that implies a standard of coordination, working together and sharing your information, like polling data, for example. There’s nothing that’s restricting the CEO in terms of which evidence he may use to determine whether that collusion is going on and, specifically, when it’s related to election advertising by the third-party sponsor that’s ongoing during a campaign. So I think that a simple conversation may not do it in the view of the CEO, but the ongoing collaboration or collusion or sharing of information for that election advertising may do it, and I would leave it to the CEO to do that.

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

I don’t think this is fanciful or speculative on our collective parts here. I think third-party sponsors are eventually going to become alive to this. In a moment, I’m going to ask about political parties and candidates and how they might need to be alive to this. They are going to want to know whether they can have conversations and exchanges with potential candidates and political parties in advance of having registered as a third-party sponsor.

My reading of the act says they can — that they can’t be held to have violated the provisions of the act if, at the time those conversations or exchanges take place, they are not captured by the act.

[3:15 p.m.]

The Attorney says: “Well, the CEO will figure it out.” I’m sure he will, but for the people who will have a direct interest in this, that’ll be pretty thin gruel. They’re going to want to know at some point. At maximum, I guess, we’re — what? — 18 months or 16 months away from an election.

Third parties are going to start getting interested and want to know what they can do and what they can’t do. Hopefully, the question they ask is: what can they do legally? What can they do that now becomes illegal?

Can I ask the Attorney: what triggers an investigation and possible finding and imposition of sanction here? We had this conversation in the context of other provisions. Is it exclusively initiated by the Chief Electoral Officer, or is this also a complaints-driven process, where information is provided to the Chief Electoral Officer that he or she chooses to act upon and commence an investigation?

Hon. N. Sharma: The clear message that we’re sending with this legislation, and I will send again today, is: don’t collude with third-party advertising for election campaigns.

With respect to how it’s going to be monitored, it’s…. The oversight is complaint-driven and monitored by the Chief Electoral Officer, like the previous discussion we had.

M. de Jong: It’s not this section. It might be the next clause, but I will ask it, and then I won’t ask it again.

There are sanctions associated…. If the Chief Electoral Officer finds there has been collusion, in contravention of this provision, the Chief Electoral Officer is empowered to impose sanction.

Do the provisions restrict the imposition of sanction to the third-party sponsor, or can the Chief Electoral Officer impose sanction on both the third-party sponsor and a political candidate or political party or political constituency association?

Hon. N. Sharma: I think we’re on section 43 now. The provision is specifically on third-party sponsors.

M. de Jong: I will ask it in a blanket way, then. Aside from the third-party sponsor, are there any provisions in this package of amendments that would seek to impose sanction on the political party, the political candidate or a registered constituency association for participating in the collusion that is prohibited here?

Hon. N. Sharma: If they were colluding to evade spending limits, then that’s how you would capture some of the organizations brought up by the member.

M. de Jong: The Attorney has offered lots of helpful answers and information. That’s, unfortunately, not one of them.

I get that. I understand that. There are other provisions of the act that relate to spending limits. This is a new provision that prohibits collusion between two entities. I see where there is sanction provided against one of those entities for colluding for any…. It doesn’t have to just be about spending limits. This is a blanket prohibition on collusion.

[3:20 p.m.]

My question is…. We know the Chief Electoral Officer can impose sanction on the third-party sponsor. Does the act or the amendment allow the Chief Electoral Officer to impose sanction on the politician or the political party?

Hon. N. Sharma: In the context of these sections, this is specifically related to the conduct of third-party sponsors and ensuring that if you’re registered as a third-party sponsor, you understand your obligations of independence. The policy reasons for landing where we did…. As the member pointed out, the penalties associated with the lack of independence are for the third-party sponsor.

Now, there are many other, as I mentioned briefly before, ways that the Chief Electoral Officer can ensure that political parties, constituency assistants, all of those things, are spending their money appropriately, are advertising appropriately — all those things associated with their own conduct. This was specifically about ensuring that third-party sponsors understand their role to be independent and face consequences if they act contrary to that.

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

I mean, practically, there are certainly very sophisticated third-party sponsors. I’ll grant you that. But there are a lot of unsophisticated third-party sponsors who want, at election time, to have a message heard, a view expressed. They go to the trouble of registering and do this properly, but they’re not experts at the Election Act.

What the Attorney, the regime, seems to contemplate is that in circumstances where two parties are colluding contrary to the law, only one of those parties can have penalties imposed on them. That, quite frankly, seems a little convenient for the politicians in town, who will be fully…. If anyone should know what’s in the act, it should be…. There are some candidates who are new, and it’s hard enough for them, but surely political parties will need to know what is in the act.

[3:25 p.m.]

It seems what the Attorney is seeking to create here is a circumstance in which a political party and a third-party sponsor are caught colluding contrary to these provisions, and the only party that suffers any sanction is the third-party sponsor. The political party, the politician, walks away scot-free. That doesn’t seem fair.

Hon. N. Sharma: As I said earlier, there are other parts of the act that could attach sanction against the parties that the member mentioned, like overspending, for example, because the collusion reads to that, or not using authorization statements, things like that. The member is correct in the analysis of where this sanction is attached to, but there are other provisions where I’m sure the CEO would take a look at the political party or the other party that may attract sanctions.

M. de Jong: Well, what I can say is this. The exchange has been useful. I did not come into this conversation knowing or thinking that that’s where it would take us.

I think that’s unfair. I think that politicians and political parties should be asked to live by the same set of rules and exposed to the same penalties as others when it comes to rules around elections and election advertising, because by and large, it’ll be political parties and politicians that have the better knowledge of what is in the law, which tends to evolve from time to time.

Anyway, I think it has been a useful exchange to illuminate what I think is a gap. I would say in this…. For me, the gap is serious enough to, on this particular section, register some reservations, and I’ll do that in the traditional way momentarily.

Clause 42 approved on division.

Clauses 43 to 48 inclusive approved.

The Chair: I believe there’s an amendment coming to add a 48.1.

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

[CLAUSE 48.1, by adding the following clause:

48.1 Section 278 (1) is amended by adding the following paragraphs:

(j.2) 231.03 (8);

(j.3) 234.6 (2);

(s.1) 250.071 (2); .]

Amendment approved.

Clause 48.1 approved.

Clauses 49 to 52 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:30 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 11 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

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

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. N. Sharma: At the next sitting.

Mr. Speaker: So ordered.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 21, intituled Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2023.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — CIVIL FORFEITURE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

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

It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 21, the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2023. The Civil Forfeiture Act allows government to seek the forfeiture of property that is proceeds of or tools of unlawful activity. B.C.’s civil forfeiture office undermines the profit motive behind unlawful activity by targeting houses, cars, cash and luxury goods connected to organized crime.

The civil forfeiture office uses forfeiture proceeds to cover its own operating costs and distributes the balance to community grants across this province. Over $70 million in forfeited funds have gone to crime prevention and victim services programs since 2006.

Civil forfeiture depends on information provided by public bodies and organizations like credit agencies. The director of civil forfeiture is entitled to information that is reasonably required to carry out their mandate. The director is currently able to access information from public bodies that are prescribed under the act.

In this legislation, to improve the efficiency, the director’s ability to access information held by other public bodies, as well as certain organizations, would be set out in the act rather than in regulation. Limits on the scope of disclosure will be in place. These changes would align the director’s information collection powers with those of other statutory decision-makers in British Columbia and other forfeiture offices in this country.

Law enforcement often refers property that was used in illegal cannabis grow ops to the civil forfeiture office. Even if there are hundreds of unauthorized plants growing at one location, the civil forfeiture office must bring in expert evidence to establish that the property was used for unlawful activity. This is costly and consumes valuable court time. This bill would allow the court to presume that property was used for unlawful activity if the police discover an illicit number of cannabis plants growing on the premises. Defendants would have the opportunity to show the court that the presumption is unfounded.

[3:35 p.m.]

Organized crime members often drive financed vehicles as a way to insulate themselves against asset forfeiture. They have little equity in the vehicle, so they carry little risk if it is forfeited. Currently, the director must seek forfeiture of financed vehicles in court, even if the defendant has only modest equity. This is a lengthy and costly process, but an alternative forfeiture process is available.

Administrative forfeiture is currently used for property that is worth less than $75,000 and that has no liens on title. If the defendant does not challenge administrative forfeiture, then no court order is required to forfeit the property. This bill would enable the director to use the more cost-effective and efficient process of administrative forfeiture against financed vehicles.

Next, this bill would allow the director’s interest in forfeited property to take priority over claims subsequently made by other public bodies in British Columbia. This is intended to avoid the director having to spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees to pursue forfeiture, only to have another public body come forward and assert priority later on in the process because their legislation gives them a super-priority.

There would be some exceptions to the civil forfeiture office’s priority. For example, liens that exist when the director commences forfeiture would, of course, take priority. Liens for unpaid wages, as well as liens arising from British Columbia’s Income Tax Act and the Public Guardian and Trustee Act, would also continue to take priority — as, obviously, would anything arising under federal powers.

Property seized in criminal investigations is often re­ferred for civil forfeiture by police. Defendants may apply to the court to have property that was seized in a criminal investigation returned to them before civil forfeiture proceedings are officially commenced. In that situation, the director must oppose the return of property that is believed to be connected to unlawful activity. This bill would help alleviate this issue by allowing the director to claim a temporary possessory interest in property believed to be proceeds or tools of crime, for up to 120 days before civil forfeiture proceedings have started.

Complex money-laundering schemes, such as we have seen in this province, can take many years to properly investigate. By the time the property is identified in these schemes, the director sometimes cannot pursue it because of the current ten-year limitation period on civil forfeiture proceedings. This bill would eliminate the limitation period. This approach is consistent with that taken by forfeiture statutes in other provinces.

As we are all aware, money-laundering schemes have become increasingly sophisticated, and unexplained wealth orders are expected to be a key tool in our toolbox to address organized crime. Unexplained wealth orders are an evidence-gathering tool that requires the respondent to provide information about how they acquired the property and how they can afford to maintain it. These court orders are based on the idea that the person who holds the property is in the best position to explain how they got it.

Last June, the Cullen commission recommended that British Columbia adopt unexplained wealth orders as an anti-money-laundering tool. The director would be able to apply to court for an unexplained wealth order against a person if there is reason to suspect that they are involved in an unlawful activity and have acquired property as a result of that involvement. The court oversees and issues the order if the director’s evidence supports the making of one.

Unexplained wealth orders could be served on individ­uals, trusts, corporations or partnerships, depending on who holds the property in question. The breadth of possible respondents and connected persons is broad, because it is critical to create legislation that captures the complex money-laundering techniques used by high-level criminals. It is important to note that unexplained wealth orders would not immediately result in the seizure or forfeiture. The director would still need to satisfy the court, on a balance of probabilities, that all conditions for forfeiture have been met. Only then could the court order forfeiture of the property.

[3:40 p.m.]

Several other jurisdictions, including Manitoba, have adopted unexplained wealth orders. British Columbia’s proposed framework is similar to the model already in use in the U.K. It is anticipated that unexplained wealth orders will be a valuable tool to combat money laundering here in British Columbia.

In closing, this bill is urgently required to respond to recommendation No. 101 in the Cullen commission final report and to enhance this province’s ability to combat money laundering, drug trafficking and organized crime. With that, I look forward to comments from members.

M. Morris: Looking forward to discussion on this bill at the committee stage for sure. It’s got a lot of interesting aspects to it.

The criminals across this country, across the world, take advantage of the existing laws and realize that governments in most places are not nimble enough to adjust to a lot of the imagination that the criminals use to sidestep a lot of the legislation that’s in place, a lot of the laws that are in place, as they go about their business.

We’ve got criminals today…. I watched, back in the days when I was on the road as a police officer, and I know my associates that I have today within the police forces talk about it all the time, how the criminals are using various methods to avoid detection, to acquire their wealth and try and hide that wealth. Some of them flaunt it, quite frankly. It’s not a surprise, because we don’t have adequate measures in place to deal with it.

We look at criminals who use companies that conduct a lot of their business in cash. They will use those as a shell for their criminal activities. I’ve seen them use barbershops. I’ve seen them use contracting companies, where they’ll provide, or they claim they will provide, various contracting services, but they really don’t. That covers, you know, them driving a brand-new $100,000 vehicle and might have a sign on the door, perhaps, but other than that, there’s nothing even closely associated to a legitimate business.

They gamble a lot of their cash through casinos, as we’ve seen through the Cullen commission and other areas and whatnot. There are a number of practices that they use to avoid detection, to maintain their wealth, to attract some of these younger members that get involved in street crime and provide them with fancy cars and trips and other opportunities to enjoy the wealth that they’re going to accumulate by selling these deadly drugs on the street and some of the other things that they do.

They’re getting more aggressive in today’s world. The civil forfeitures procedures that we’ve used in the implementation of the unexplained wealth order, I think, is good news. We’ll see how it rolls out at the end of the day. Because we need tools.

Our criminal justice system doesn’t seem to be providing the level of deterrence…. There’s nothing that has really slowed the process down. We see more criminals out on the street today. We see more people that are selling these dangerous drugs in our communities everywhere — that come in and sell the drugs — and there’s no real consequences. They don’t fear the criminal justice system today like perhaps they did at one particular time, so they’re going to continue on in their proliferation of selling drugs and thievery and cheating and lying and everything that common criminals do in order to acquire their wealth.

The smart criminals, the heads of the organized crime groups that we have operating in British Columbia and across Canada have got lawyers. They’ve got experts that watch what we do. They watch the kinds of laws that are put in place in British Columbia. They look at the procedures that governments are using in order to detect crime, to combat crime in the various communities. And they offer solutions to these groups. These folks will go out and continue to operate, knowing that they’ve got…. You know, they might have to sidestep some new piece of legislation that comes in order to operate effectively, but they do. And we see that every day.

[3:45 p.m.]

I’ve also seen, over the years, where criminals will take advantage of advocacy groups or media or…. You know, the old saying that “the best defence is an offence,” where somebody will get picked up and, the next thing you know, the defendant is out in front of the media, blaming the police for a certain action or blaming government for a certain action. In those kinds of situations, they’re dealing with a police who can’t respond. They can’t speak about an ongoing investigation. They can’t reveal whether any people are involved in that particular case. But by getting it out in front of the public and throwing a whole bunch of various allegations out in front of the public, it puts the whole prosecution of that case in jeopardy as that whole prosecution moves forward. We’ve seen that across the province here.

I’ve noticed…. We talk about civil forfeiture. We talk about money laundering, and I know that the Premier has repeatedly claimed that the failure to prosecute money-laundering cases in British Columbia was due to a lack of political will with the previous government. I just want to comment on that. And, you know, I’ve heard these comments before.

It was the political will that brought in the Civil Forfeiture Act and the legislation back in 2005. It was the political will of government that brought that in, because they saw what was taking place at that time. It was the political will of the previous government that brought in the joint illegal gaming task force that looked at a lot of the illegal gaming situations that were taking place in the province that led to money laundering.

It was the political will that had my office, when I was sitting in the minister’s chair as the Solicitor General, put in $25 million into the guns and gang activity across British Columbia to combat these kinds of things and to provide a dedicated prosecutor to gang activity to try and combat that. It was political will that addressed a number of those different factors while we were still in government and made various changes to how the Combined Forces integrated team operated right across British Columbia. So there was no lack of political will — no lack of trying to combat the various opportunities that criminals observed right across the province here.

It was the joint illegal gaming task force and CFSEU that initiated those investigations — E-Pirate was one of them, in 2015 — that led to a lot of intelligence coming in. A lot of the videos that we saw on TV, talking about bags of money being traded in at the casinos, were the result of those investigations that were taking place at the time. And, of course, we’ve seen now….

The Premier, again, has initiated, when he was Attorney General, some investigations into E-Pirate and the other investigation that was taking place, so whywere there no charges laid? And even reducing the charge approval standard still didn’t meet the threshold requirements that Crown counsel needed in order to go ahead with those charges. So there’s a massive deficiency in the criminal law that needs to be addressed in that respect. And I’m sure that this Bill 21 and the unexplained wealth order is going to go a long way to providing some form of punitive measures, I guess, or penalties for criminals that are involved in this, because they know that there are just no criminal proceedings that we can bring about.

[3:50 p.m.]

The legislation providing these amendments to seek forfeiture of goods I think is a step in the right direction, and I hope it’s going to be implemented fairly quickly once we get through the process here. I’m curious to see what happens in Manitoba. They’ve got similar legislation in place. I’m curious to see whether the amendments they’ve made in the U.K., with the legislation there, are going to provide them the access to move ahead with a lot of the civil forfeiture action that they’ve talked about there as well.

When we look at a lot of the things that these organized crime groups are doing, they’re…. We just saw a recent case in Prince George where a gang member came all the way from Manitoba and was trafficking drugs in the Prince George, Fort St. John, Dawson Creek area and back to Manitoba again.

There are some provisions in this particular legislation that…. We have to focus on British Columbia assets, so I want to explore some possibilities there on what we can do to these gangsters that are coming in from outside of British Columbia from other jurisdictions.

I’m also looking at the young people that are being taken advantage of by organized crime groups out of the Lower Mainland and from other areas within British Columbia where they will come up and entice some of our younger folks in our smaller communities to get involved in peddling street-level drugs into our communities and encouraging theft of property, which leads to collection of debts, assaults, intimidation, blackmail. There are a number of things that transcend from that.

These folks will come up. They will perhaps help them buy a new truck. These trucks nowadays are $100,000, so the $75,000 threshold that’s stated in this particular bill probably fits the types of crime that we have here.

A lot of the individuals that we see…. The police see them every day in our smaller communities where these street-level dealers are driving these $100,000 trucks. They’re driving a $100,000 riverboat. They’re driving these fancy boats on the lakes. They’ve got the party boats. They’ve got the ATVs. They’ve got the snowmobiles. They’ve got all the toys that a lot of these young men crave when they’re young.

It’s drug money that’s buying this. So if they lose those assets, that will have a bigger bite on them than any of the punishments that they seem to be getting in court these days. I think that’s going to have an effect on the level of crime that we have in our communities. But it’ll be interesting to see how long it takes to get there. If we implement this legislation and we can pass this legislation, at the end of the day, it will be interesting to see how long it takes to go through a court process where the property is finally forfeited and taken from those individuals. That’s where the impact is going to come.

The removal of the limitation period the minister spoke about in his opening remarks, I think, is another opportunity that we have, because I know that there are a number of files out there that will come to a more successful conclusion if we’re able to expand that limitation period.

The other issue…. I remember when I was sitting in his chair, and I went and had a look at the warehouse of goods that had been seized under the Civil Forfeitures Act back when I was the Solicitor General. There were dozens of vehicles and other goods. A lot of it pertained to the vehicles. But there was no way to get rid of them because of the requirement to go back to court and follow through on that administrative forfeiture.

So I think that’s a step in the right direction, where the director of the civil seizures process here, once the claim has not been contested, can just turn the vehicle over and sell it again and get rid of them as quickly as possible and recapture some of that money.

[3:55 p.m.]

As the minster said, $70 million has been spent, to date, for victim services for a number of different programs that we have out there, in addition to covering the costs of the civil forfeitures office, to begin with. I think that can be expanded. And I think, particularly with this unexplained wealth order, there’s going to be a lot more work required in there. But I think the benefits, at the end of the day, will probably be significant.

It’s everything that we can do in British Columbia to dissuade people from getting into organized crime and selling drugs and becoming part of that gang crowd out there — you know, in the fancy vehicles. I’ve often said, and I’ve said to a few folks back in the day, that all these brand-new, shiny black Suburbans and SUVs and BMWs these gangsters are buying, or that are being bought for other people, should also come with a toe tag. Because that’s exactly what’s been happening in our province here.

A lot of the homicides that we see…. Just in the city of Prince George this year, we’ve had four homicides so far, and they’re all drug-related, they’re all gang-related. So if we can start having a deterrent on crime and the sale of drugs and the proliferation of all of these things throughout our small communities around the province here, I think we’ll see a reduction in our homicide rates as well.

We’ve got to fine-tune the Criminal Code and a lot of provisions that go with that. We have to fine-tune our catch-and-release system so that that no longer functions.

But I think this will take a big bite out of the wallets of these people that are profiting from the proceeds of crime. And you know, I think we’ll see some significant returns on investment — I guess I’ll put it that way — in a very short order here across British Columbia.

I look forward to popping the hood open on this at the committee stage and getting into all the little details there. But I applaud the minister for bringing this bill forward.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the opportunity to stand and speak today to the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act. These amendments came as a result of the Cullen commission’s investigation and subsequent recommendations to combat money laundering in the province.

Proposed amendments make it easier for authorities to seize property they suspect helps facilitate illegal activity. It also makes it easier for authorities to bust illegal cannabis operations and to seize financed vehicles. Finally, it creates unexplained wealth orders, which can force organizations with large amounts of unaccounted-for wealth to explain themselves to government or face seizure of property. This last point, unexplained wealth orders, would make this the first legislation of its kind in Canada. But unexplained wealth orders only apply to property stored in British Columbia.

The Cullen commission into the money laundering in June 2022 recommended that unexplained wealth orders be implemented in B.C. to “remove the profit incentive for organized crime.” Unexplained wealth orders do not require a clear link to crime, unlike criminal forfeiture, which typically comes after a conviction, and a civil and administrative forfeiture, which do not require criminal charges or a conviction.

It’s important to note that there are some concerns with unexplained wealth orders that have been recorded. B.C. Civil Liberties Association has been very clear that they are staunchly against these changes, saying that “they’re an unnecessary expansion of government power and an unacceptable infringement of Canadians’ rights to the presumption of innocence and due process and privacy.” The director of litigation for the BCCLA said that the legislation would “create a situation where British Columbians were going to have to go to court to prove that they are not criminals, and that’s unconstitutional.”

[4:00 p.m.]

These are serious concerns that are raised by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. And if these amendments are passed, they’re raising the concerns that they will violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental pillar of our judicial system.

It would be interesting to hear from the minister. I know that the Premier has said that he has “no doubt” that this legislation will be challenged in court but that he believes that he “will be successful” and that we “need to address these issues for British Columbians.” A point, the last point there, which I absolutely agree with.

It will be interesting to see the discussion that unfolds here at the committee stage and how the government is balancing, of course, the recognition that there has been an extreme amount of wealth that has been generated from illegal activity: lots of expensive vehicles and houses and other items purchased in that glorification of crime — you know, the fast cars and the big houses. So there is a balance, absolutely, that needs to be struck here, and it will be interesting to hear the discussion.

Also, I want to just raise the issue around the potential use of the funds and where the seized assets may end up. Civil forfeitures in our province go through the B.C. civil forfeiture office, which is entirely self-funded. This means that the proceeds of forfeitures go back to that office, not into government revenue.

This was actually part of the Cullen commission’s recommendations, where the commissioner suggested that the provincial government transition the civil forfeiture office from a self-funded agency to a government-funded agency so that the revenue flows back to government. Otherwise, it exists as a punitive arm but offers no economic benefit to the average British Columbian. It also creates an incentive for the office to go after high-value assets, not necessarily the cases that would impact the greatest amount of organized crime.

If unexplained wealth orders flow through the civil forfeiture office, it appears that proceeds of that wealth won’t end up in government revenue, meaning no new services. Those resources won’t be available for British Columbians. We’ll be interested, of course, at the further stages of these debates, to understand how these unexplained wealth orders will operate within the context of everything that I just said.

Unexplained wealth orders are already in place in the United Kingdom. Since 2018, four unexplained wealth orders have been issued in the U.K., with a value of £143 million. In October 2020, property worth an estimated £10 million was recovered following the use of an unexplained wealth order. Those are not insignificant sums, but I do wonder how those recovered funds compare to the administrative costs of going to trial.

It should be noted that there are already different mechanisms under which the province can seize assets believed to be related to a crime — criminal forfeiture, civil forfeiture and administrative forfeiture — as I’ve said. Virtually all forfeiture cases in British Columbia settle in the province’s favour. The legal costs are often higher than the value of the property being seized, so people don’t fight it. While B.C. has a civil forfeiture regime intended to ensure that proceeds of crime are intercepted, unfortunately, the value of the assets seized through the regime does not amount to the volume of illicit funds generated each year.

It’s true that B.C. needs to do…. That’s going to make No Context BC for sure, guaranteed. I’m spiralling. It’s true that B.C. needs to do more to address money laundering and to ensure that our province is a fair and a just place to live and thrive.

I appreciate the opportunity to read these concerns into the record. I appreciate the minister bringing this forward and giving me an opportunity to make it to No Context BC. I look forward to canvassing these issues as they come up in the next stages of the debate.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

J. Sims: It is a pleasure today to rise and speak on this motion. Whenever I get up and have an opportunity to speak on behalf of the constituents of Surrey-Panorama, I’m always reminded of the responsibility that they have endowed onto me to make sure that their voices are heard.

I can tell you that when our Premier had a different position in government, as an Attorney General, when he tackled the gambling that was going on…. I would say horrific.

[4:05 p.m.]

People right across British Columbia turned on their TV set, and what they saw were bags full of money being taken in and taken out. I don’t think there was any person, no matter what their political stripe, who sits in this House, who was feeling good about that sight.

We also know that went on for far too long. However, the work done by the Premier has been extraordinary. As a matter of fact, when I talk to people in Surrey, and when I used to travel around the province a fair bit as well, that’s the work they remember: the work he did on, I would say, addressing the gambling issue, and also the work that he did on ICBC.

Specifically, let’s get back to the proceeds of crime. If we’re looking at what we saw with the bag loads of money, we also know, as a result of the Cullen commission — and even before that, many of us had seen evidence of that — that B.C. had become known as the money-laundering capital on the west coast. Or centre, whichever way you want to look at it.

It wasn’t a very good title to be holding. People in British Columbia saw that not only was all this money that resulted from crime circulating, but that it also impacted the price of housing right here in British Columbia. We’ve all seen the impact of that.

Today I am so pleased that this government had taken action on the Cullen report on a number of issues. And now we are taking action on this recommendation that sat there and that said that we do have to target and we do have to address organized crime by providing a suite of tools so that authorities, specifically the civil forfeiture office, could seize proceeds of crime.

What are we talking about? We’re talking about fast cars and fancy cars. We’re not talking about the Toyota Corolla that I’ve driven for years and years. We’re talking about glamorous homes, luxury goods. We need these tools because we want to make sure that we’re sending a message — that if you do the crime, you’re going to pay.

Yes, doing criminal prosecutions may take a long time. Yes, doing criminal prosecutions may not end up in sentencing. But if there is a very high, very probable relationship between the wealth and links to crime, or having got that wealth through nefarious means, then this legislation would allow that forfeiture to take place.

It’s not as high a test as if it was a criminal case. That will make it easier. Some people would say, “but you have that right now,” because, as we all read in the papers, there were those properties that were seized from the Hell’s Angels, and that went through the court system. But at the end, that seizure was upheld.

This legislation will make it easier. We need to make it easier for authorities to be able to step in and stop the spread of crime. One of the ways you do that is you make sure that people cannot be benefiting from crime, either directly themselves or through family members or through directors of this or other.

All of that is very, very important. And as I said, these recommendations…. This legislation comes directly out of the Cullen commission report on money laundering in B.C.

[4:10 p.m.]

I’m so delighted that so far I have seen the opposition and the Third Party all in agreement that this legislation is a good thing, and will be a benefit to British Columbians. None of us want to see crime spread. We have seen violent crime as well as property crime on the increase. We know that those who do money laundering have become far more sophisticated, so we have to have a variety of tools to be able to address their nefarious gains or wealth that they gain.

As the Solicitor General pointed out, there are going to be some very…. There are steps in there. There’s a variety of tools that can be used. But really, we have to send a message, and our message has to go right across B.C., across Canada, across North America and around the world, that B.C. has legislation that will not allow free movement of illicit funds that result from crime or any other way.

Let me give you an example. For example, if you have a relatively low income as you’re filing your income taxes, yet you’re living in a $5 million home…. I’m not talking about a home that’s gone up in price due to the rising home prices that we have seen. I’m talking about: you purchased a house for $3 million or $5 million. I think it’s perfectly logical to want to know how that house was bought, and when there are links to crime, probable links, then for steps to be taken.

It’s not as if we politicians are going to be handling this, by the way. This is going to be handled by professionals, by the civil forfeiture office. Also, they still have to go into court to prove that there is a probable link there — not a 100 percent, iron-cast case, but a probable link — in order to be able to proceed. That is very, very important. The B.C. civil forfeiture office, their main task is to undermine the profit motive behind the crimes that we see.

As you know, we have legalized, right across Canada — not we, the federal government did that — cannabis. Yet we know there are still illegal cannabis operations. So if gangs and those who commit crime are making money off that, then this sends a signal that you’re not going to get away with it.

Now, just to be sure, this only applies to properties that you have right here in B.C. Another example that is very clear is if you’ve got very expensive houses being bought by somebody who lives overseas — could be a political person, from many different countries, and they have many reasons for moving the money out — and their income might only be around $35,000 a year. So it begs the question, if they bought a property for $5 million, where did that money come from?

Civil forfeiture is an important tool in combatting organized crime. And we’re talking about organized crime that we know is right here in B.C., from drug trafficking, from money laundering and from other offences.

[4:15 p.m.]

As I said previously, all of these efforts — money laundering, drug trafficking — have become more sophisticated with new technologies that have made life, some would say, easier and faster. I would say more complex. What we are finding is that whether it’s gangs dealing with drug trafficking or other activities, whether it’s the movement of very luxurious cars, they are hiding their money in homes. For example, if you are a trafficker of drugs and you’ve gained money, all of the property may not only be in your own name. It may be in your family members’ names. This would capture everybody.

Now let me assure the public, for the hard-working British Columbians who work hard to be able to pay their rent, or those who have been lucky enough to save up enough money and buy a house, this is not targeting those people. This is not targeting those who buy a home. This is targeting those who end up with very expensive properties, luxurious properties, who cannot prove where their income came from. It is linked to crime of one sort or another.

The creation of unexplained wealth orders, an important evidence-gathering tool, could have a powerful impact on money laundering right here in British Columbia. We know that some of the steps taken previously by the government…. We’re beginning to see a change. But I would say this is the next step that was very much needed.

These amendments will allow the civil forfeiture office to access information and avoid situations where they’re spending hundreds and thousands and thousands of dollars without any material outcomes. We know how frustrating that is because we’ve heard. During the Cullen commission, we heard from people how difficult it was to get a conviction. Mind you, at the same time, we also heard how the very agency that was created to monitor and to make sure these things did not happen was also disbanded during this time. That didn’t make sense either.

There are certain areas that I think have been identified. Let me just go over those again.

One of those was the illegal cannabis market.

Very luxurious vehicles. I don’t know about you, Ma­dam Speaker, but I’m certainly seeing more and more of them on the street. And not everybody who drives a nice car, luxurious car, has…. I think we have to make that very clear. Not everyone has bought that vehicle because of the illicit funds through organized crime or ill means. Many people have worked very, very hard to have their very nice, luxurious cars. Once again, this is not aimed at them. This is aimed at those where there are criminal links and criminal leads, that these vehicles would be then forfeited.

Also, as said previously, this will allow the process to take place a lot quicker than the current process. It can take years and years and years to get a court date, to have it going through the trial base. By that time, you passed the timelines.

As you know, our government is very, very committed to the safer communities action plan and our focus to target organized criminals for the toxic drug supply that leads to repeat offenders and a huge growth in mental health and addiction issues.

[4:20 p.m.]

Once again, I would say there aren’t going to be too many people, except maybe those who do bad things, who are going to be very upset that these amendments, this legislation, is in the House today. Every hard-working British Columbian wants what is fair, and it is not fair for hard-working British Columbians when criminals and those who gain their wealth through ill means can then impact in an incredible way the cost of living right here in British Columbia, can affect the cost of housing and many other things.

Most people will agree with us in this House that, yes, if you do crime, if you do wrong things, if you do illegal activities and you’ve profited from that, you should not get to keep that profit. You should not get to keep those moneys.

Once again, a reminder that this is only…. We’re talking about forfeiture for vehicles, for assets, for houses, only for people who cannot prove where their funds came from. If you’ve got a clear idea — “Well, I worked hard for this; this was an inheritance from my grandfather” — and there is a linkage back there, then you’ve got a perfectly good out, and the linkages to criminal activities won’t be proven.

But I can tell you that as a mother, as a grandmother and now, as you know, a very proud great-grandmother, I want our government to take every step possible to get gangs off the streets, to get the drug traffickers off the streets, and to make sure that we build safe communities for our kids.

The unexplained wealth orders… It doesn’t mean immediately somebody can just sort of say: “Oh, we’ve got this idea. Let’s go and seek people’s assets.” The courts will still be involved, and they will be ruling on a balance of probabilities. How likely is this? Has this person earned this money? Where has this money come from? Their bar for getting this passed will not be as high as the criminal court cases. That’s why this legislation is needed, because the court is still going to look at the evidence that has to be provided to them and then they’re going to say: “What are the probabilities here?” Based on those probabilities, they will proceed.

The information gathered from unexplained wealth orders will only apply to civil forfeiture proceedings, and that information cannot be used in criminal proceedings. Just wanted to make that clear. The whole idea behind this was to presume that property or funds are proceeds of crime, and that assumption will be relied upon during court proceedings. We’re talking about the prior ones.

They do have to meet certain tests. The court must be satisfied, and there is a three-part test. I want to go over that. For the first part, the court must be satisfied there is reason to suspect one of the following: that a person or a company is involved in unlawful activity, that a person or a company is connected to a person or company who is suspected of involvement in unlawful activity or that there are questions raised about assets that a person from a foreign country who is politically exposed has in B.C.

Now, politically exposed persons are high-ranking foreign public officials that may be exposed to opportunities for crime or corruption, and they may be looking for that investment overseas.

[4:25 p.m.]

An example. I gave one earlier, but I can tell you that an example would be if, in your home country, your income is very, very limited yet you’re able to buy very luxurious cars or property over here, then I think some eyebrows would be raised, and there could be a probability link proved.

Test 2 would look at control and value of the assets. The court has to be satisfied that the personal company holds assets in B.C. and that those assets are worth more than $75,000. In the case of a company, any person connected to the company who is engaged in unlawful activity has effective control, not just overt control.

Test 3, the third part of the test, explores whether there is a case against the property. There must be a serious question about how the person or company acquired the property or funds based off lawfully reported income.

There are checks and balances built into the changes that are proposed here. It’s not just somebody getting an idea. “Oh, yes. They’ve got a $5 million house. Must be due to crime.” No. There is a three-part test that they have to meet before the courts will proceed.

We are not here just talking about homes. We’re also talking about other assets. The other assets could be, as I said, fancy cars, but I’m sure there are lots of other assets that would be looked at as well.

The amendment would also allow the civil forfeiture office to take priority over claims subsequently made by other public bodies, which seems to make sense to me. Otherwise, you would have done all that work, and then at the end of it, it is not there.

Let me say that we have seen the impact of money laundering right here in British Columbia in the Lower Mainland, its impact on the price of housing. Also, we have seen lots of properties being owned, sitting empty, that are now occupied thanks to the speculation tax. Once again, those properties are now available.

There are often questions asked about some of the properties that are bought and the links to crime. This legislation will allow the civil forfeiture office to proceed and to go to court, meet the three-part test and then be able to seize those assets. I think every one of us wants to see, I would like to say, an end. We all want to see an end to the drug trafficking that is going on, especially in the current climate of our opioid crisis and with the corrupted drugs.

We want to see the illegal activities in the hands of gangs around cannabis and the impact that is having on our youth. We want to make sure that others are not using British Columbia as a safe haven for their ill-gotten funds.

When I look at this, I am pleased to be able to support this piece of legislation. I’m pleased that our government, led by a Premier who did, I would say, amazing work on this file when he was Premier, and now the Solicitor General is carrying on with that work, because tackling crime and gangs is not a linear effort. Crime has become complex. Money laundering has become complex. For that, we need a variety of tools.

This is not, by itself, a solution to either money laundering, nor is it a solution to ending drug trafficking or the gang activities that go on. But it is one of the tools, and it is a tool that can be used.

[4:30 p.m.]

It can be a tool that can be used to send a very, very strong message across B.C., across Canada, across North America and around the world that British Columbia is not a place you want to come to do crime or to hide your ill-gotten funds, because here in British Columbia we are focused like a laser on addressing money laundering and gang and drug trafficking, simply because we are committed to building safe communities for our kids, our grandkids and for each and every one of us.

I want to say, once again, it’s been a pleasure to be able to stand up and speak on this and to send a message that, absolutely, not only are we closed for money laundering — and we’re keeping a very, very close eye on that — but we’re also now going to go after you if you try to hide your ill gotten funds in housing, in cars or other assets. Whether you live overseas — and if you live overseas, we’re sending you a message, too — you cannot hide your ill gotten funds or proceeds from crime here in British Columbia, because we in British Columbia are focused on cleaning this up, because we know it impacts our communities.

I would ask everybody in this House when it comes time for us to vote to speak in favour of this legislation and to vote in favour of this legislation. Let’s send a united message that every legislator sitting in the chamber in Victoria is committed to cleaning up crime and making sure those who do crime do not benefit, and once they have assets, that we now have the tools that we can go after those assets.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

It is also incumbent on me to be very, very clear with people that we are not talking about the hard-working people of British Columbia — the ones who work incredibly hard. Some of them, one, two, or three jobs, and others, in order to be able to buy their home, buy their car and have a luxury car if they happen to have the income. Those are not the people we’re talking about. This bill is aimed directly at those who launder money and those who benefit from drug trafficking or other gang-related activities. This is aimed at making sure our kids and all of us live in safe communities.

B. Stewart: I think that there’s a lot of support for this bill. We’ve heard that on both sides. Well, from all sides of the House. But I want to rise today to just raise some questions that I’m sure will be discussed in committee.

The legislation under Bill 21 proposes amendments to the Civil Forfeiture Act, which authorizes the B.C. government to seek forfeiture of property that is the proceeds or the tools of unlawful activity. I think that we need to kind of…. This is something that when you start thinking about this, this is more than just, I’d say, the obvious. These are the things that have perhaps come from other jurisdictions and come into the country and, of course, they’re maybe, perhaps, illicitly obtained in other manners.

[4:35 p.m.]

The Civil Forfeiture Act came into 2006 and was always intended to respond and to anticipate changing tactics of organized crime in British Columbia. I think that that’s one of the things that we have to remember most about this. Where civil forfeiture or the unexplained wealth acts are in place, etc., some have worked better than others. I think that what’s most important is that you have to realize that criminals are going to adapt, and that’s one of the things that we have to…. And just because we introduced it doesn’t mean it should stay the same, and it needs to be updated and amended and strategic. And that was our original intention: for the original act introduced by the B.C. Liberal government to be nimble and responsive to the ever-changing methods of crime.

I want to just say that unlike the Premier, who has been dismissive and rallied against this legislation previously, indicating why the government has now delayed much of the efforts to catch up to criminals who are now ahead in their illegal activities…. And while we created this initial act and welcome the changes today, we wonder why it is that the government did not introduce these changes earlier, as there has been a consistent need to continue to stay ahead of crime in the province.

This overdue legislation looks to implement changes to address cost and efficiency issues as well as implement unexplained wealth orders or UWOs. And the UWOs are being introduced as a reverse onus tool that requires those suspected of a crime to provide or prove that the property was acquired legally, otherwise the government can seize it. I do want to touch on reverse onus a little bit later.

First introduced in the UK legal system in 2018, UWOs have been under consideration in B.C. since 2019. I have a document that shows that there were briefings being done on it at that time. But with the ever-evolving changes…. And I think that this goes back to the idea that…. You know, the money laundering that the member for Surrey-Panorama mentioned as if it was something that was created either or ignored by government. It was a great tag line in the media. It was the type of thing that people loved to see videos on TV on the six o’clock or 11 o’clock news.

At the end of the day, as we found out, it is not as simple as just putting resources against that. We know the Cullen commission knows that it’s going on. We certainly knew that it was going on, but the situation is that sometimes the tools, and trying to find fault with what somebody has done, require a different approach, and I think that this legislation is the start of that.

One of the things that…. I want to read an excerpt here. In Ireland, where this legislation was originally introduced in 1996:

“The legislation is administered by a specialized group called the Criminal Assets Bureau, consisting of the police, tax authorities and social service authorities. The Irish regime is the most comprehensive approach to civil-based confiscation and proceedings and are usually successful, with over 300 orders issued in 2018.

“Various articles on the Irish experience suggest that the Criminal Assets Bureau is very successful in following with orders, seizing property and assessing related income tax, VAT and other taxes due to evasion and collecting improperly claimed social assistance.”

The research further goes on to suggest that the Irish regime has had a significant impact on reducing, disrupting, dismantling criminal activities in Ireland, proving a major setback for the Irish criminal fraternity:

“In addition, there is some evidence that criminals have moved their illicit moneys to other jurisdictions such as Holland and Spain. Not that we encourage them to move — however, we don’t want them here in fear of the Irish seizure.

“While the unexplained wealth orders have operated in Australia since 2000, no comprehensive review measuring their effectiveness has taken place. However, the limited evidence available suggests that the ineffectiveness and the use has been mercurial at best.”

I suggest that one of the problems here is there are not enough resources of the types that Ireland put in place right at the start to make certain that not only the police but the other people…. We’ll come back to the issues in terms of the crime that we have today and the illicit drug supply.

[4:40 p.m.]

I mean, I don’t think there’s anybody in British Columbia that doesn’t think this should happen. They want this stuff. They want the drugs off the street. They want the criminals, not only their assets. They’d like to have them locked up as well.

I think what’s important is that the examples in use in Australia, Ireland, New Zealand — and Manitoba, which is more recent — need to be looked at carefully, but the minister, of the Public Safety Ministry, needs to be properly resourced. We want to make certain that he has great success with this.

Based on our own experience with civil forfeiture, we know these kinds of tools can work to suppress unlawful activity. It’s important and rigorous, and due process still applies. We’re going to be asking questions in committee stage of the bill to ensure that these processes and the resources — we hope — will be there to be beneficial to impeding organized crime operations and creating a safer province. We need to get it right. That’s what I’m trying to say.

While we’ve been optimistic regarding the decision to introduce UWOs as a tool, I still think that we need to convince the Premier, who has had a long history of working on things such as the Cullen commission, with no results — shamefully trying to use the justice system for political purposes. I’d say that the courts are part of the toolbox, but the bottom line is that we’ve got to be thoughtful. We have to think, as I’m sure the criminals do, in terms of how they approach these things.

This is not some sort of marketing activity. I think about the bags of money; I think about the dumpster fires. We need to have results. In the case of the issues at ICBC, we’ve got no-fault insurance, which may or may not be the right thing. It’s important that we do get this right, because British Columbians, I think, are fed up with people dying on the streets. They’re fed up with people that are benefiting from their demise.

I think we’ve seen high-profile cases recently. E-Pirate and E-Nationalize both started in 2015; both collapsed. Why is that? We have to ask ourselves what we are wanting to achieve. I think that this will help. A complete removal of the limitation period to conduct civil forfeitures proceedings could reopen the E-Nationalize and E-Pirate cases. Let’s hope so. We know that that isn’t right. We stand behind the government in trying to make certain that they do try to make it right.

Also, this bill introduces a new math formula for cannabis. One of the concerns that we plan to raise is regarding the 20-plant threshold and above. Will that be enough, or is it too high? We definitely don’t want to be encouraging people that are doing things illegally.

The new administrative process for vehicles will need to be explored to see how this will increase forfeiture. Many are not contested and have to go to the court, as there will be an administrative process developed.

Moreover, the introduction of this legislation and the tools that it plans to utilize are another example of the current Premier’s hypocrisy, as he opposed the B.C. Liberal government’s use of civil forfeiture, calling it a slippery slope. I think we need to step away from the marketing tag lines, etc. and move ahead. This is good legislation. However, there should be considerations for overuse, as we’ve seen in the U.K.

I think that this is where we need to better understand the guardrails, in terms of what the guardrails need to be. We don’t want to overreach. I’ll give you an example. One of the people that is in our caucus mentioned about just having a CRA audit. I don’t know how many people in this House have had the benefit or the luxury of going through that process. Again, it’s the same process. You’re really guilty until you can provide all of the details of a deduction or to show exactly how things were arrived at.

The part about that is that we don’t want the people that have the authority to be able to use this tool or this legislation to be in a situation where it’s abused. How are they protected? We do need to consider that, making certain that there isn’t overreach.

[4:45 p.m.]

The people that we live with every day and that are First Nations — are they exempt? Are they part of this? This legislation is for British Columbians. I’m assuming that that doesn’t give any exemptions to ill-gotten wealth, or whatever, that can’t be explained. I do think that we have to answer that question.

I’m looking forward to discussing this legislation further in the committee stage, where we can debate the details of this bill with my colleague from Prince George–​Mackenzie, who’s the critic, to make certain that this bill serves British Columbia well and helps increase safety across the province.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill this afternoon.

It’s tremendously important. It’s a powerful new tool to take away the wealth that is gained from a criminal lifestyle, that leaves many, many victims in communities right around British Columbia and that has been aided and abetted by money laundering operations in this province. This was the target of the Cullen commission and a major area of focus and deep examination of activity that went on for years and years, some of which were happening in publicly regulated casinos.

I want to applaud the Solicitor General and the Premier, of course, as Attorney General, not only for creating the Cullen commission, which made the legislation we’re debating this afternoon possible, by putting a sharp focus on the criminal gains and activity and money flowing in our economy that is illegally generated, but for focusing, through the community action plan, a number of initiatives.

These are not only going to make criminal life less at­tractive because they come with a much more serious risk of having the assets gained from a criminal lifestyle seized and their proceeds distributed to community organizations that are in fact helping victims of crime but are also disrupting activity that often has other associated negative impacts, around community and public safety.

Gang activity, using handguns, dangerous and illicit drugs linked to the toxic opioid overdose crisis in our community — these are all profitable activities that, unfortunately, can attract people at a very young age in our school system to be part of a gang organization very early in their lives and make it very difficult for them to exit.

This is also a powerful policing tool. It will use a different test of justice that is available in our civil justice system, to be much more quick and responsive and also to allow the product of investigations to become implemented and acted upon in a much more timely manner.

I heard the member across the aisle criticize the Premier just now for not acting sooner. I would remind the member the report from the Cullen commission was delivered in June 2022. This legislative opportunity this afternoon, and at subsequent stages of debate, represents a massive effort by law enforcement — by those involved in the prosecution service, all of those involved in the justice system — to take action in a manner that was recommended by a commission that did an exceptional job in looking at criminal activity in our province.

Criminal activity, unfortunately, gained us, in the early 2000s and into the 2010s, a very negative international reputation as a haven for a place to come and wash your money and buy assets from illegal funds that were generated by criminal activity.

[4:50 p.m.]

This bill will allow us to crack down on some of the most heinous criminals in our society here in our prov­ince, people who are involved in all sorts of things. I mentioned drugs and illegal handguns. I think we can all think of the United Nations reports and even the Organization of American States that have brought into focus how countries like ours ought to be taking more action on things like human trafficking which have been proliferating right across the globe, and our shores are not immune to it either. It’s very difficult to disrupt that activity, and very long investigations are sometimes required.

The one way to move more quickly against criminals associated with those kinds of exploitative and deeply troubling criminal activities is to require unexplained wealth orders. This is going to be a major disruption to criminal activity that will be used right alongside interdiction and other enforcement tools to crack down on organized criminal activities in B.C.

We have known, in this province, the presence of motorcycle gangs involved in the drug market and other activities. We have seen other types of gang formations and criminal enterprises in this province for a long time, and we have not had all the tools we need at our disposal to be able to attack those incentives that often create a criminal environment that is taken advantage of in our province.

This will be a hammer blow to many criminals that are engaged in activities that cost people’s lives in our communities — it’s that serious — that exploit people, that create an underground economy of some significance in terms of its overall monetary value. It will disrupt that. It’s an important development, in the province of British Columbia, to be able to have these kinds of tools. I think every member of the House, if I’m hearing the opposition correctly, will vote in favour of having that at our disposal.

It’s something we have not had previously. It’s something that, yes, we have heard other jurisdictions have developed, which is very positive. It will help us move forward in the regime we now have around legal and safe cannabis distribution and sale — when there is still a significant black market operating and making money on the old underground of drug production, sale and distribution — and move it towards a safe and regulated product that is used, with the promotion of public health, responsibly. It complements a number of initiatives that government has undertaken in recent years.

I do not share the concerns I’ve heard a little bit, or I can certainly share them a lot less, around the unexplained wealth orders, through the civil forfeiture process, being abused. That is not my primary concern this afternoon.

I think the tests that have to be met are serious and stringent enough to make sure that there are not any unintended victims who have wealth that needs to be explained through a UWO. I believe that the process will be thorough and fair. I also believe it’s going to be devastating for a lot of criminals operating in the province of British Columbia who have very suspicious assets — luxury items, cars, real estate and significant amounts of cash that can’t be explained — when they hold down a job that generates an income that would be impossible to afford that kind of a lifestyle.

[4:55 p.m.]

Let’s not kid ourselves. That’s, obviously, why a lot of people go down a dangerous path and get involved in criminal activities that involve guns and violence and that involve the sale of deadly products on our streets. It’s because it affords a lifestyle that they could never dream of by being an honest member of society.

While the saying that crime doesn’t pay is, obviously, true…. You can ask anybody who has been sentenced for a very, very long time, who is involved in these kinds of enterprises, if they agree with that. For too many and for too long, it has, in fact, paid when their illegal proceeds of crime were beyond the effective reach of the justice system. The burden was just too high to be able to seize that wealth that was made from criminal activity.

I think B.C. is going to benefit tremendously. In my community here in greater Victoria and in communities right across B.C. where we know there is illicit money, where we know there is the exploitation of human beings by criminal enterprises, where we know there is economic distortion and a connection to deadly substances being produced and blended and sold on the streets and killing people, we will now be able to take away all the money and the profit that is gained from those activities.

It’s a powerful tool, to say the least, and one we would like to have seen a previous government act upon. It took a very careful and strong examination to be able to figure out how to do this. I think this is going to make a very palpable, real difference in our province, to be able to get criminal money out of our economy and out of our communities. I fully support this.

I know people who work in the law enforcement community. I know Crown prosecutors who are constituents of mine and who work in this community. They work very hard to keep our community safe. Often the justice system is frustrating and time-consuming, in terms of getting towards a criminal conviction, and, in many cases, is unable to get to the proceeds of that crime. This will get us directly there.

I think the Public Safety Ministry, the Attorney General and others, who have been involved in creating and adding to the powers and scope of the B.C. civil forfeiture office, have done a tremendous job of targeting the profit motive and the profits from organized crime.

This addition to their legal authority to act against organized criminals is something that is going to be tremendously beneficial to our society. I hope it will be a very powerful deterrent to young people who would otherwise be tempted to go into this lifestyle.

Yes, we obviously need a lot of supports for young peo­ple who are struggling, who are not doing well in our school system and who are associating with people that are involved in criminal activity. We need to help young people exit the gang life. We have a number of programs that I certainly became aware of and helped fund and work with in our school system, as the Minister of Education, and that work continues in communities right across British Columbia.

Yes, we need to help people get out of the criminal life in all manners that we can and in all locations in our community. One of the things that will serve as a significant deterrent is to see those at the top of the pyramid in a criminal enterprise having all of the things that they’ve amassed, which they flash around, which have the bling and the appeal of gang life, stripped away from them in a civil court. That is going to be a very powerful tool indeed.

Of course, a number of experts who have studied this have told government exactly that. That’s why legislation has been drafted and is before the House today.

[5:00 p.m.]

I look at some comments that were made by Brock Martland, who was King’s Counsel, senior counsel, to the Cullen commission. He was, of course, involved in that report and examining witnesses and others who came forward and testified during that report. He says that one of the keystone recommendations of the commissioner’s final report was that we implement what is in this bill, and that is unexplained wealth orders.

It has the support of the policing community. I’m very pleased to see Assistant Commissioner Will Ng, who is a criminal operations officer in the B.C. RCMP, add his unqualified support for how this will help everyday police do their jobs. In his words, he says that by targeting ill-gotten proceeds of organized crime, we are making gang life less attractive. Members here have echoed that sentiment this afternoon. He goes on further to say that this legislation will disrupt and deter organized crime, keeping our neighbourhoods more secure and allowing the police to focus on other public safety issues.

This is a very positive, welcome development. It’s one that needed to generate public understanding and support. The Cullen commission did that. Government has worked every step of the way with law enforcement and those who serve the Crown Prosecution Service to be able to create a tool that really hits the mark on getting unexplained wealth out of our society and to crack down on organized crime.

I think I will conclude there. Thank you for the opportunity to make some brief comments. This is so important to my community in greater Victoria. We have police forces here on the south of Vancouver Island that have done an exemplary job over many years disrupting criminal enterprises that have tried to take root in this community — gang activity. But we know that periodically, criminal organizations like that try and branch out, and, in fact, take root in this community.

Should that happen, going forward, we now have a very powerful tool to make sure that anyone who seeks to engage in criminal activity around the toxic drug supply and drug dealing, money laundering and setting up a criminal organization that operates here in my community will be able to be targeted very effectively and very quickly and have the profits of their criminal enterprises taken away from them.

Deputy Speaker: Minister of Public Safety, seeing no further speakers, to close the debate.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to thank members on both sides of the House for their thoughtful comments on the bill that we’ve tabled, the amendments that will deal with civil forfeiture, and, in particular, around the issue of unexplained wealth orders. I think that it is important. I do have a few comments I want to make in response to some of the issues that have been raised by members, because I want to make it clear that many of those things were taken into account. I will comment briefly.

I do always find it interesting with the opposition that even when they support something, somehow they do want to find a way to kind of, sort of criticize the government. In this case, they want to try and criticize the Premier, who was then Attorney General — that somehow, he didn’t support this, or he was being hypocritical. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It was our Attorney General, now Premier, who drove this issue in terms of the Cullen commission. It was our Premier who drove this and said that this is important, a priority we need to deal with in terms of legislation, and that’s why it’s here. I just want to make sure that’s clear on the record. I understand the opposition has a job to do and how they like to sometimes do it.

I also want to mention…. My colleague from Kelowna West made a very interesting observation, and it is something I want to address. That is the number of jurisdictions that do have unexplained wealth orders. Manitoba is the other Canadian province that has them. They have not implemented it yet, as far as I’m aware. There are, as he points out, in Australia and New Zealand…. Perhaps most importantly, the two particular pieces of….

The two jurisdictions we have paid particular attention to, because they have unexplained wealth orders in place, are both the U.K. and Ireland.

[5:05 p.m.]

It’s important from this perspective. This legislation that’s before us is modelled on the U.K. experience in many ways. We learned from the lessons in the U.K. be­cause they initially brought it in, they had some challenges, and they had to go back and make some changes. We’ve worked to make sure that we’ve learned from the challenges that they faced initially.

At the same time, we are also aware that there is the Irish model as well. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they’re complementary. But they require…. They have different approaches to how you implement an unexplained wealth order. The U.K. is very much the reverse onus, in terms of explaining: where did it come from?

That’s an area in which we have a considerable amount of jurisdiction as a province, so we are able to move forward very quickly in terms of this legislation, based on our jurisdiction as a province. The Irish model, as I said, is not mutually exclusive. It’s complementary. It relies on the tax system, which, of course, is federal jurisdiction. Therefore, in terms of… I also want to make it clear that there will be more to come for those on this. There will be more to come.

We have been engaged with the federal government in terms of…. They’re very interested in the approach that we’re taking here provincially. They want to work with us on this issue. We’ve made sure that there’s no overlap and that no one is working at cross-purposes. Because the Irish model involves the tax system, which is federal, that creates a whole series of complexities in terms of accessing records, freedom of information and privacy, all of those things that would take a longer term if the province wants to go down that road. I fully expect we may well be going down that road, but that’s a different path and requires a lot more work.

In the meantime, this is an area under provincial jurisdiction where we can act and act quickly, which is what we’re doing. I just want to make those comments to let the member know that we are well aware of the differences in the systems and why we have taken the approach that we have done.

The other area, hon. Speaker, I want to talk about just briefly in my closing remarks…. I just want to re-emphasize it, because I know members have mentioned civil liberties. I fully expect…. I understand their position, and I understand their role. But I also want to make it clear that we have worked very hard to ensure that there are safeguards in place, that we are confident that our legislation is constitutional, and that we have seen on court rulings, in terms of civil forfeiture, that it is constitutional.

At the end of the day, people want to know that the sophisticated criminal is not going to get away with things. They are sick and tired of those kinds of individuals who hide behind numbered companies, who hide behind hiding assets, putting it in the name of a spouse or a relative but continuing to exercise effective control, subverting property markets, making things difficult on a stock market, doing all those kinds of activities. People go: do they ever get caught? Sometimes they do. But you know what? This legislation will be a tool that the police have to go and hit them where it hurts most, in their pocketbook, in their fancy car, in their mansion, in their yacht, whatever the ill-gotten gain is.

As I said when I announced this legislation, just be­cause you’re the mob boss’s spouse and weren’t involved in illegal activity doesn’t mean you get to keep the house, the yacht, the bling, the car and all the ill-gotten gain. That’s what this is about.

What’s also important is that it is the court that makes the decision. Whereas civil forfeiture is an administrative procedure, this will be: in order to get an unexplained wealth order, a court will have to say yes. There are the three tests that have to be met. When it comes to forfeiture, it is the court that will say that the case has been made for that to take place. What’s important, as well, is that the overwhelming majority of the time — in fact, nearly all the time — it will be police investigations that lead to the orders being sought and then, ultimately, the forfeiture being obtained.

[5:10 p.m.]

The other key point I also think is important to make is that this is based on assets of more than $75,000, so this isn’t for run of the mill. This is organized criminal activity and organized crime.

It will also have another interesting point that I think is worth noting, and that is that it will deal not just in terms of people who are operating here in British Columbia but those politically exposed individuals who have assets here who think that because they’re in a foreign jurisdiction they can have an asset here that may well find themselves with that being seized.

I appreciate the comments that have been made by mem­bers participating in this debate. I look forward to the committee stage of the debate and being able to provide more information and ask the questions that I know members of this House will have.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 21, Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2023, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Deputy Speaker: We’re going to take a short recess, because I understand there needs to be a bit of a shuffle to get us to the next item of business.

The House recessed from 5:11 p.m. to 5:13 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: We’ll call the House back into order.

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

Hon. R. Singh: In the main House, there will be continued Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

In Section A, the estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture.

Deputy Speaker: We’ll take a short recess to get the appropriate parties into place. Then we’ll get going with the estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

The House recessed at 5:14 p.m.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDIGENOUS
RELATIONS AND RECONCILIATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 5:20 p.m.

The Chair: All right members, I’d like to call this committee back into session. We are here with the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation for the estimates process.

On Vote 34: ministry operations, $57,912,000 (continued).

M. Lee: I appreciated just before that last break that the minister made a couple of comments in response in terms of how UNDRIP continues to be applied across the board. The minister said that it’s a framework, certainly, to elaborate what is set out in the section 35 jurisprudence, and that it’s not to be interpreted or utilized as a section by section review or right. It’s meant to be read as a holistic document. Then the minister went on to refer to the Interpretation Act bill that was passed subsequent to the passage of Bill 41.

Just using that latest example the minister provided, because I would like the minister to elaborate on the holistic utilization of UNDRIP and DRIPA in terms of the articles attached to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, that is to be holistic and not any single right. That’s one comment. I’d like to ask if he could elaborate on that further in terms of the holistic versus individual section by section or article by article or even sub-articles, as I was walking through, to better define and better understand.

This is something we’ll come back to, which is the articles of UNDRIP that relate to economic livelihood for Indigenous peoples. But on the second point that he made on the Interpretation Act, I’d also ask the minister, after he speaks to the holistic utilization or application of UNDRIP, to speak to the Interpretation Act itself as to how that will function or is functioning in the sense of specific sections of legislation of our province being interpreted in a way that does not conflict with or derogate from the declaration itself.

I’m just trying to square the comment about holistic versus specific, because as we know, whichever bill or a piece of legislation we’re dealing with in this House is specific to the nature of that particular bill. So if I could ask the minister to further comment on both of his points.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for Vancouver-Langara for that question.

I’m sure it reminds him of those hours of debate that my predecessor, Scott Fraser, had with the member as Bill 41 was going through the Legislature. I think, at that time, many comments were made by my predecessor about the holistic nature of the Declaration Act and the way in which we believe it should be interpreted.

The specific question, of course, about the Interpretation Amendment Act really turns on something that would be the Attorney General’s responsibility rather than mine. But I’ll do my best to answer the member’s question.

I think it suggests, when it says, in this universal non-derogation clause, that all laws should uphold and not abrogate or derogate from section 35. The thrust of that requirement is that if there are two interpretations, one interpretation that would be inconsistent with the Declaration Act and its sections and the other that would not be, the courts are admonished to accept the interpretation that would uphold and not abrogate or derogate. All acts and regulations to be interpreted as consistent with the UN declaration would probably be along the same lines.

This is, of course, something that the Attorney General debated in this House when the Interpretation Amendment Act was going through. I don’t have the benefit of that Hansard material to ensure that what I’m saying is accurate, but that’s my general sense of what was intended at that time.

M. Lee: Perhaps, if we pursue this further, we might have that opportunity tomorrow. I’m just going to park it there. Neither the minister nor I have the transcript, as the minister suggests, in front of us from that debate. I appreciate the minister’s response, though.

We know that with various First Nations bodies that represent and with whom government consults, even with development…. Yesterday, of course, with the Minister of Energy, I was talking about the First Nations energy and mines organizational council.

Here I have a document…. I have not done a full survey of all First Nation organizations and the way they communicate with their reports, but I have seen a number of them. Certainly, the minister and I were both at the BCAFN meeting at Musqueam a few weeks ago. There continue to be a number of documents tabled at these meetings, from various organizations, on various important areas for nations.

The document I’m referring to here is a dated document. It is dated May 2019. May 2019 was before the adoption of Bill 41, a number of months, five months, before. It just gives me some…. It is an example, I believe. One could probably pull more examples.

The reason why I’m pursuing this particular line of in­quiry is really to understand, as the First Nations Forestry Council did in their draft B.C. First Nations forestry strategy…. Again, as I said in the other chamber, I appreciate that this minister is not the Minister of Forests and that he doesn’t have the in-the-thicket details. I’m just giving another example.

[5:30 p.m.]

In this document that I have in front of me…. The specific articles I’ve been asking about to the minister that set out economic livelihood and rights are utilized and quoted by other organizations, like the B.C. First Nations Council. In fact, they extract and excerpt the specific articles 26, 28 and 29 as an indication to support their view and position that these articles state that Indigenous peoples have the rights to the lands, territories and resources.

They go on, of course, to say that they have the right to redress, or fair and equitable compensation. This summary that we talked about earlier, about the rights, the conservation and protection of their lands and territories…. They dropped the words that I was focused on, which are “the productive capacity” of their lands. I think it’s important, but for some reason, in the introduction, they dropped those words, but they did repeat the article.

My suggestion to the minister is that…. Here we have an example for one of the bodies that represents First Nations in certain areas, certain industrial sectors — here, in this case, a renewable resource for our province, of course — that gives reference to specific articles to support their positions in terms of what needs to change.

Keeping in mind the minister’s general responses to me about the need to look at UNDRIP holistically — that there is, really, an interpretive tool, as former minister Scott Fraser indicated to my friend the member for Abbotsford West and myself in a series of days of debate — what is the government’s response…? We continue to see specific articles referred to in letters to government, in the media, in their position papers, their policy papers, what they’re proposing to government. What has been the clarity that government has brought to First Nations or to First Nations councils like the First Nations Forestry Council?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The member himself acknowledged the document he referred to predates the enactment of Bill 41 as the Declaration Act, so I’m not quite sure how to square that circle. But I can say that the organization, the First Nations Energy and Mining Council, of course, as everyone would expect, is focused particularly on those economic areas of significance to them in their mandate. That does not equate, necessarily, with the interpretive device, how we would best utilize the Declaration Act, how it should be read holistically. It’s being used by them as a focal point for their interest.

The interpretive tools we would use are all grounded in the Constitution of Canada, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 being the foundation document, as I’ve said over…. We are elaborating on those rights in those statutes that we enact in consultation and cooperation with First Nations, as is required by section 3 of the Declaration Act.

We are also, I think it’s important to state, focused on relationships with Indigenous peoples, just as they were involved in the creation story of this document. They were, at the outset, the partners with whom we consulted and cooperated and co-drafted, essentially, this new statute, this framework document for so much of what we are doing.

It is that framework for creating relationships I would like to focus on. Those relationships are elaborated on in a number of modern treaties that we’re involved in, comprehensive reconciliation agreements, the Lake Babine foundation agreement, the Tahltan agreement, which involves a consent-based agreement for a project in the northwest where the First Nation is at the centre of the consent to an environmental assessment process for a very large mining project.

It is that which is the focus of this document. I have described it as a foundation document. I’ve described it as a framework. But it’s a framework to get us to real change in the lives of Indigenous peoples on the ground. It’s not to be read like a last will and testament. It’s not to be read like a particular statute, with each of the articles to be parsed. It’s to be read as a framework to get to a better place in consultation and collaboration with Indigenous peoples as we establish new relationships on the ground, all of which is designed….

The member has focused on economics, but there are social commitments, as well, that we’re making. We have responsibilities in that regard. We have responsibilities in cultural and language preservation and in so many areas. This is the framework document that allows us, we think, to create better relationships to move forward in partnership with Indigenous peoples.

M. Lee: I didn’t have the opportunity to say this at the beginning, because I had to step out when the House Leader of the Third Party was able to start the estimates process. I do appreciate the minister’s introductory comments at the time that he did take to speak, and I appreciate the presence of some of the members of the team in the gallery, or around the minister, including in the area of finance, in the fiscal framework, as well as Indigenous languages.

Certainly, we’ve had much discussion about Indigenous language revitalization, the importance of that. The minister led with that today in part of his introductory comments. If we have time, we can get to that part.

The minister is right. I have focused, to start this estimate process, on the economic side of UNDRIP and the right to economic livelihood, partly because that’s been an item of concern I can see, in areas around our province, with various First Nations I’ve spoken with, or members of our opposition caucus have spoken with, about projects that are taking place in their regions and their territories. I appreciate the minister’s response, fulsome as it is, because it describes the government’s approach and utilization of UNDRIP.

[5:40 p.m.]

I can say that the minister and I have had much discussion, over the course of the last number of months, to talk about the importance of clarity and understanding by British Columbians as to the nature of change that’s going on in our province and our relationship with Indigenous peoples and First Nations, including around economic projects.

We certainly have seen instances where there are First Nations that have expressed concerns about the government’s direction on old growth. I’ve seen correspondence and other submissions made, including in the Pacific Northwest, by nations there, that are quite concerned with the government’s view and definition on old growth and making the point that, as they look at the forest and the lands they manage for generations, the definition around what constitutes old growth is challenging in terms of timber supply for their forestry operations, which is done in partnership with many other communities — again, Indigenous workers and non-Indigenous workers and companies. So there is a challenge.

The minister knows, I think, that I was up in the Merritt area with our member for Fraser-Nicola as well as our shadow minister for forestry, the member for Peace River South, a few weeks ago. A lot of discussion there in terms of: how do we bring together the various parties and the interests so we can continue to support the forestry operations, including by Indigenous contractors and others?

Again, as we look at the specific economic rights as they are phrased in UNDRIP…. We are referring to them, recognizing they’re a holistic document, that they’re minimum standards, that they’re there to provide interpretive guidance, that they’re there to further the relationship with First Nations. The holistic nature of UNDRIP is that it covers the whole spectrum of rights, including the important ones around human and social, educational, health, discrimination to name a few.

There are economic rights, as well, in terms of how First Nations can utilize the rights to their lands. So we have a conflict where government says to a First Nation, “Well, we are putting in place a deferral on old growth. You can no longer log certain types of trees on your lands,” and the nation says in response: “Well, that’s all very well and good. We respect your concern. We share your concern for generations to come, but we’ve been managing our forests and our lands in the way we have. We have a plan. We have partnerships with Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples, including in our neighbouring communities, and this is how we want to proceed.”

My reading of this interpreted tool of UNDRIP is that there is grounding for that. There is grounding for the way that the productive capacity of the lands ought to be managed by Indigenous peoples — that they have a say in that.

Can the minister comment? Having had this discussion now about UNDRIP and how it’s to be utilized, and recognizing the specific example I just gave, what does government say to nations who are in that position, whether on Vancouver Island or in the Interior or in the northwest, for example, in forestry? What is that relationship that we’re trying to make sure that we can continue with and strengthen when we’re effectively saying to a nation: “You can’t do that form of economic activity on your lands”?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: At the outset, I’d like to agree with my colleague across the way, the member for Vancouver-Langara. It’s entirely correct to say that my reference to cultural, educational, health and other matters was not to suggest there aren’t very important economic components to the Declaration Act, and it’s entirely legitimate that the member would talk about those economic aspects of it. I didn’t mean to suggest that’s not entirely fair ball.

He talks about something within the purview of the Ministry of Forests. I’m very hesitant to get too far down that road. He was taking me there in the last couple of hours, and I’ll be equally cautious this time. But I can say, when the member talks about deferrals, we have worked with First Nations, some of whom have sought deferrals, some of whom have not.

I think to suggest that there’s unanimity amongst Indigenous nations on any topic is, frankly, not accurate. We live in a world where people, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, have different views on public policy issues across the province, which is entirely as it should be, so they will likewise have different views on this topic. The way we’re attempting to elaborate that is to work closely with them under the auspices of the old-growth strategic review.

In our commitment under the action plan, our long-term goal is to co-develop a holistic framework that comprehensively supports the operation of Indigenous governments and provides new revenue-sharing arrangements and other fiscal mechanisms. We talked a little bit about that with the member for Saanich North and the Islands a few moments ago.

I think this new fiscal framework, which I hope we’ll have the opportunity to explore, is a significant change in how British Columbia does business. Rather than the transactional approach that we’ve had in the past, I think we’re moving to a recognition that Indigenous governments, like all governments, have a need for secure sources — stable, certain sources — of funding if they’re going to provide the goods and services for their communities. It’s a difficult thing to do in a world of fiscal federalism and federal, provincial, local and now Indigenous governments. It’s a challenge, but we’re taking that challenge head-on — taking it on because it has to be done.

I remind the member, because he has used forestry as an example, that this government chose to, as an interim step, double, essentially, the revenue that First Nations get from the forest activities in their areas. I will remind him that some nations were anxious to proceed in logging; others to defer. That is, again, entirely to be expected.

So there’s not a one-size-fits-all approach on this. It’s a very nuanced approach that I know the member would expect on such a topic as this.

M. Lee: I appreciate that, and in terms of just highlighting topics, as the minister anticipated, I certainly will take the invitation to discuss the new fiscal framework, the status, the further work that’s being done. In relation to that — not now, but just giving notice — we will also want to come on to talk about the status of progress made against DRIPA action items 4.42, which is economic metrics to measure and “evaluate progress as reconciliation is advanced,” and 4.49, in terms of “fiscal capacity to deliver services.”

[5:50 p.m.]

Certainly, capacity is a very large discussion, as the minister and I have had over time, and we will certainly come back to that.

In terms of the distinctions-based approach that the minister just alluded to is a fundamental premise of the plan itself and is spelled out. I think it just underlines, in the minister’s response, that we all recognize that the 204 nations and others, Indigenous communities in our province, are distinct from one another and that they need to be heard and dealt with in a nation-to-nation relationship.

When we’re talking again about…. I won’t go back over the forestry landscape management tables, but that was the discussion around 50 nations being invited for these eight new regional tables, and where do the other nations fit in that aren’t at those tables? The minister has given an answer in response to assure those other nations, particularly nations that have different views as to forestry management policy of this government and old-growth strategy.

Certainly, we’ve heard within the opposition caucus from several of those nations. I’ve met with several of those nations directly. So we know that there’s definitely a difference in view, in the way that I expressed before. So I’ve heard the minister on that point. I would expect that the minister, based on his previous response, recognizes that those nations with different views ought to be treated with respect. And I’m sure the minister agrees with that.

Let me just say, though, that I know at the front end of last year’s Estimates we spent some time, with the House Leader of the Third Party, talking about the role of the minister. There was some good discussion around that, and we were defining the role of the secretariat and all of that. The reason why it’s important to have these discussions, I believe, is because this minister plays an important leadership role alongside the Premier of our province when we’re talking about First Nations in our province.

Despite the fact there are specific forestry policy items I’m referring to, if we’re talking about relationships with First Nations, I know the minister knows that that’s the way I’m having this conversation. We’re talking about a document that fundamentally changes how we see our relationship with nations within the section 35 jurisprudence. But we also have government policy coming over top of that, right?

We need to have some sense, and make some sense of it all, in terms of how we all proceed. So let me just go with that background, and the minister may want to make further comment.

I’m just going to go to another area. I did have the opportunity to join the member for Kootenay East yesterday in discussions with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. I did pick up my discussion, as I did with the previous minister last year, when DRIPA action plan came out, in terms of clean energy and how government continues to work with nations on the renewal of what are now 16 electricity purchase agreements, out of 18. Two have been renewed. They all expire in 2026 — these particular 18, 16 that still need to be renewed.

There is a concern in terms of how B.C. Hydro treats these projects. My understanding is — which the new minister questioned, meaning she did not have the same understanding but to be confirmed by the ministry — that 80 percent of those IPPs, independent power projects, are Indigenous-involved, First Nations–owned in six or seven of them. Or there is some involvement, either through equity or employment or impact benefits or otherwise.

These projects, in terms of independent power, represent about 13 percent of the power capacity in our province. So the point is First Nations have an important role to play on these independent power projects. But many of these projects are in jeopardy because of the way that negotiations are occurring, as I understand, in terms of importing a change in pricing. There’s more detail that I can give than that, but I’ll leave it at that.

[5:55 p.m.]

The concern I’ve expressed in two sets of estimates with the Minister of Energy has been around looking at the importance of DRIPA action plan item 4.43, recommendations on strategic policies and initiatives for clean and sustainable energy, which is referred to in terms of the area of clean energy.

We know that this government has a new clean energy task force with BC Hydro. It has a new energy framework that it’s worked on, and there are opportunities there and a path forward for First Nations. That’s basically what the minister said.

But the minister did also make a distinction, which I’d like to ask the minister about.

In terms of the governance of B.C. Hydro, she said, effectively, that B.C. Hydro, of course, treats these agreements as commercial contracts, that affordability and the ratepayers concerns are front of mind — that is actually similar to the response that I got from the previous minister — and that government has the role to meet the reconciliation obligations, including what’s under UNDRIP.

I just ask, in terms of how government acts, when we’re talking about an important Crown corporation of the province, do the obligations under UNDRIP not apply as well to that Crown corporation?

Hon. M. Rankin: The member, if I wrote his words down accurately, said there was “concern about how B.C. Hydro treats these projects,” referring to independent power projects. That is why I’m afraid I’m not the minister that should be answering that question. The member read back to me commentary from the minister who is responsible for that Crown corporation.

As to the question: does UNDRIP apply to Crown corporations? The Declaration Act and UNDRIP apply to the laws of British Columbia, one of which, of course, is the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority Act and the Utilities Commission Act, so to that extent that would be the case.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response. I know…. In my former occupation, having been legal counsel for B.C. Hydro, I have a good understanding in terms of their work with First Nations around the province over decades. I’m generally aware. I am curious as to the response from the minister — not this minister, but the Minister of Energy — in the sense that….

The way to ask the question here is this. When we’re talking about UNDRIP and the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation…. Again, the minister is focused on relationship, but also there’s a role, I presume. I just want to confirm this. As UNDRIP was adopted over 3½ years ago, there is an effort being made within government and across Crown corporation leadership to ensure that senior leadership in the public sector would fully appreciate and understand this interpretive tool and the minimum standards and the holistic document, as it is to be seen, in terms of the approach.

When a Crown corporation like B.C. Hydro is renegotiating contracts on material projects on First Nations lands and territories, for those communities that are dependent upon those independent power projects…. These are 20-year contracts that are now being renewed, or could be renewed at market rates.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

When we’re talking about economic reconciliation with First Nations, there are other considerations besides just the ratepayer.I don’t hear any of that coming back from the minster responsible for B.C. Hydro. Again, I know the minister here will say that he may refrain from getting into the details of that, the negotiation of contracts.

[6:00 p.m.]

I’m only asking to confirm, though, that when we’re talking about the ongoing implementation of UNDRIP, meeting the DRIPA action plan, which includes the co-development of strategic priorities and initiatives and also, I would say, includes identifying supporting First Nations–led clean energy opportunities relating to CleanBC, the comprehensive review of B.C. Hydro and the B.C. Utilities Commission inquiry on the regulation of Indigenous utilities.

These are specific action items, of course, that are set out in this five-year action plan. I appreciate the government is only one year into their action plan, but we have these 20-year commitments for First Nations-led clean energy opportunities that are being put in jeopardy based on the manner in which these renewals are being approached between now and 2026. I spoke about this with the former Minister of Energy a year ago. Two have been renewed out of 18, so we’ve got 16 to go.

I know, in talking to First Nations, there is significant concern as to the status of their projects. I just want to ensure that internally there is an understanding with B.C. Hydro management, let’s say, about the way that UNDRIP should be utilized and the commitments that government has made here under the action plan.

Hon. M. Rankin: Welcome to the chair, Madam Chair. Nice to see you.

The question was involving B.C. Hydro’s work over the decades with First Nations. I’m pleased the member raised that and has expressed familiarity with the good work that they do. They, of course, have a reconciliation plan. I can’t, off the top of my head, recall the precise title of it, but they’re much involved in reconciliation.

I can remember years ago working on the ILM, the project to bring power from the north through the valley down to the Lower Mainland, and all of the consultation work with so many nations that was involved way back then. I know the member will be aware of that important work Hydro did. They’re a Crown corporation that is really working hard to achieve economic reconciliation with the Indigenous peoples whose lands they traverse. I know the member would agree with me on that. There’s no question that economic reconciliation is an important consideration for them.

I can assure the member, if he reads action plan item 4.43, some of the questions he’s referring to I think are answered there. Let me tell you what it says. It commits the government, again in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, to do the following: “Co-develop recommendations on strategic policies and initiatives for clean and sustainable energy. This includes identifying and supporting First Nations-led clean energy opportunities related to CleanBC, the comprehensive review of B.C. Hydro and the B.C. Utilities Commission inquiry on the regulation of Indigenous utilities.” It identifies the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation as the responsible ministry in our system.

We are in year one, not even a year out, of our five-year action plan commitment. I am confident that that work will be done.

M. Lee: I wanted to turn to another specific example as to why this is so important, this work that the minister just referred to in 4.43. With many of the communications we’ve received from First Nations, I’m careful always, certainly, not to speak on their behalf in terms of the nation-to-nation relationship that nations have directly with the government or province. In this case, I am just merely sharing what’s already been shared on the record in the Ministry of Energy estimates by my colleague, the member for Skeena, so I will just cite it here.

[6:05 p.m.]

There was a discussion specifically with the Minister of Energy, but I do want to draw it to the attention of the minister here just because it’s consistent with the concerns and the questions I’m asking here. This is a document that was shared with us from Chief Don Roberts of Kitsumkalum First Nation. It’s a document that includes attached to it something the member for Skeena had described, which is the impact-and-benefit agreement relating to the NTL project. This is back in February of 2012. This is obviously under the former government, two governments ago. Or three. Three terms.

I would say that the reference to the agreement relates to expectation by that nation, Kitsumkalum, that there would be bilateral negotiations towards an electricity purchase agreement for a 15-megawatt project. The reason why I will just say that this is an important area is because there are other nations like Kitsumkalum that are waiting on government to continue to proceed.

We know that with those projects, many of which — I was external counsel to Hydro at the time, back in that 2008-2009 period — were some of the independent power projects that were coming online in the tail end of that time under former Premier Gordon Campbell.

In terms of the standing offer program and other opportunities for First Nations like Kitsumkalum to come forward, that opportunity still has not presented itself. So I expect that in combination with the minister here, citing that action item 4.43, the Minister of Energy’s response is that there will be that pathway forward. That’s certainly what the Minister of Energy relayed in response to several of my questions. I believe that for nations like Kitsumkalum, there’s an expectation that Hydro will re-engage, let’s say, from what is now an 11-year commitment. I just note that.

If I just turn to one other point here relating to fisheries. We know that the federal government has positions on fish farms that they’ve made very clear. There are First Nations, though, including Wei Wai Kum and Wei Wai Kai, nations near Campbell River, that wanted to have their salmon farm licences renewed on their territories. This is something that was rejected by the federal Minister of Fisheries. These nations have now filed a claim for judicial review of the minister’s decision.

In the context of jurisdictions, federally and provincially, the same question arises from these nations as to what they gain, so to speak, under UNDRIP. That’s the way they’re phrasing their concerns as to their ability to pursue economic development opportunities on their territories as an example of economic reconciliation. Certainly, we saw the Premier with ministers at his side referring to the Cedar LNG project as being an example of economic reconciliation.

When we’re talking about other forms of projects…. We’ve talked about forestry, We’ve talked about clean en­ergy, independent power projects. Now we’re talking about fisheries in terms of fish farms.

[6:10 p.m.]

In fact, for nations in Campbell River that are renewing their salmon farm licences on their territories, how does the government continue in terms of working with these nations to ensure that they have the sort of access to economic benefits and opportunities on their territories? And here is another example. If I can get the minister to comment on that.

Hon. M. Rankin: The member has talked about forestry examples. He has talked about clean energy initiatives, and now he’s put on the table some questions about fisheries, which I hasten to add would not be normally my province. I would leave that to the ministry responsible. But I will say, because the member properly acknowledged that the issue of fish farms has been primarily Minister Joyce Murray, the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and the policy that they’re advancing, that has not gone over well with all the communities involved.

He has put on the table two nations who wish to continue with fish farms, Wei Wai Kai, Wei Wai Kum. But, of course, there were many others. Homalco comes to mind and others that are adamantly opposed to fish farms and support the government of Canada’s decision. Again, it’s the government of Canada’s decision, which is why this is so fraught.

The member has also reminded us that this is before the courts on judicial review, which is yet another reason for me to be cautious in saying very much about this issue. But I will say that we are very much involved with the nations he references.

I was up in Campbell River a few months ago with Chief Roberts, Wei Wai Kai, to provide a significant amount of forestland as part of an interim treaty agreement. They’re a treaty nation. They’re seeking treaty. Several thousand hectares of forestland were advanced as a, first, if you will, down payment on what we hope to be a much richer and deeper relationship under modern treaty.

The economic benefits that we hope to achieve with First Nations take many forms, and different nations will have different aspirations, just as some oppose and some support fish farms. But we’re going to continue to do the hard work to provide economic reconciliation measures that work for the nations affected.

M. Lee: I appreciate the minister’s willingness to engage in an appropriate manner on the examples I provided. I would just say that.

I will turn to another example, which has been raised in this House. I raised it in question period. This relates, of course…. Again, I do keep in mind the discussion we’ve had to date, which is the reason why I had it in the holistic interpretive tool, the minimum standards point.

[6:15 p.m.]

I can appreciate where the minister might respond in answer to my question, but I do think it’s important to ask the question, given that I did ask the question once in this chamber. I wanted to give the opportunity for the minister to elaborate.

That is the concern that has been raised relating to the Cowichan regional hospital and the application of the community benefit agreement. Again, I appreciate that this is not the minister’s specific responsibility, but I asked the question in the sense of referring to a specific article: article 17. Article 17(3) says that “Indigenous individuals have the right not to be subjected to any discriminatory conditions of labour and, inter alia, employment or salary.”

It’s the discriminatory conditions of labour. I know the minister has said UNDRIP is not there to parse through. But I would suggest that in the lead-in to the DRIPA action plan, as the minister referred to and when we talk about minimum standards, clearly, minimum standards, when we’re talking about what has been looked at to be a rights-based document, including to address challenges within our justice system, child welfare systems, education, pov­erty, unemployment and homelessness, that labour conditions and discriminatory labour conditions ought to be a minimum standard.

That discrimination against Indigenous individuals based on conditions of labour should be, I would have thought, something to inform government as to how it conducts itself and how agreements of government are set out for, in this case, a major public infrastructure project — the Cowichan regional hospital replacement.

I can recap for the minister the concern. I know the minister has heard this through the press. I know that the special representative for the Premier has been directly engaged in his office. I appreciate that there are larger discussions with Chief and council for the Cowichan Tribes and with the Khowutzun Development Corp.

But we know, as I have introduced him in this chamber, John Coleman, someone who has a significant track record building and working on infrastructure projects, including schools in the Cowichan area, and was effectively blocked from working on this project.

He had 30 workers. He had the opportunity to do the initial work, which was site prep. There was an expectation that exemptions under the CBA would continue to apply to him and his workers, but then it changed. It changed at the end of October into November. Since then, he’s been fighting this battle to get the opportunity to work on a project on his lands and his territories.

I know the minister has heard that concern throughout. I just want to focus with the minister on the specific provision. I would say that when we’re talking about the Interpretation Act and we’re talking about the application of the Interpretation Act, one could pursue that further. If I have time this evening, I may do that.

For discussion purposes here, if we look at the overall legislative framework of this province, and we’re talking about labour contracts put in place…. The Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Finance — whichever ministry of this government has accountability for this contract ought to be acting in accordance and in a consistent manner with UNDRIP. That is what section 3 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act says, in effect.

[6:20 p.m.]

I would like to understand from the minister as to how it is that this article, which speaks to the fact that there should not be discriminatory conditions of labour for Indigenous peoples in our province — how it is that we have a community benefits arrangement that is doing exactly that. It’s discriminating against the right of those Indigenous peoples and contractors to work on that project.

I will say one last thing. The Premier, in response, did say: “Well, the members here, the member for Skeena, the member for Vancouver-Langara…. I think you’re missing the point. You don’t completely appreciate the benefit of community benefits agreements. They have increased the level of Indigenous employment on site, including on this project.”

We’re talking about site prep. We’re talking about, now, what is a $1.4 billion project. There is work to be done. The fact that there are some Indigenous workers on site does not mean that the work of government is done, under a CBA. We have direct, specific examples of a discriminatory labour condition.

I’d ask for the minister to comment on how it is that this government is allowing a discriminatory labour condition type of contract to exist on that project.

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for the question, obviously one that I’m somewhat familiar with, notwithstanding it being in the purview of the Ministry of Labour.

The member refers to article 17 of the declaration. I’ll simply read it: “Indigenous individuals have the right not to be subjected to any discriminatory conditions of labour and, inter alia, employment or salary.”

To me, reading that in its entirety, it seems to be directed at how Indigenous people should not and cannot be subject to such discrimination as differential employment or salary. To take that and to somehow equate it with what happened at the Cowichan Hospital is something I’m having a great deal of difficulty wrapping my head around.

The purpose, and the member alluded to this, of a community benefits agreement is to provide employment locally to people and to ensure that people who are not traditionally engaged in those occupations, women and Indigenous people, are given a fair shake and have the opportunity to work in various enterprises for which they normally have not been, historically at least, so engaged. So the community benefits agreement’s objective is to level the playing field.

Indeed, I talked to Chief Lydia Hwitsum, who I know well. She has been, I think, lately, extremely gratified by how things have evolved at the hospital.

The member talks about things that have all been ad­dressed since the questions in the fall, which he alludes to. I understand there were concerns about a lack of involvement in the project by members of the Cowichan Tribes initially. I do know — and the member, I think, would agree — that an agreement has been reached with the Khowutzun Development Corp. recently. It was allowed to provide trucking services on this project. We think that Indigenous participation in economic projects is an important step in reconciliation.

On February 8, 2023, the Minister of Health announced that the Cowichan Tribes members were eligible to work on the project without union requirements.

[6:25 p.m.]

On February 28, he announced that KDC — that is, the Khowutzun Development Corp., which was an economic development corporation of the Cowichan Tribes — was approved to provide trucking services on the project.

Those are the facts. I’ll leave it to the member to explain how that squares with article 17 of UNDRIP. I do note the objective of the community benefits agreements has been to do exactly the opposite — to provide work for people who otherwise would have not, in the past, been attracted to those works and to provide those opportunities.

It has been successful across British Columbia. Indeed, I had a Chief in my office today who is very much engaged in another hospital project elsewhere in the province and trying to ensure that that proceeds in a good way. I think he’s very pleased with how that’s developing.

I fail to see the connection. Perhaps the member wishes to explain it to us further. The issue to which he refers has been resolved satisfactorily.

M. Lee: I do appreciate that the minister has taken us back to end-of-February announcements of some sort, including by the Minister of Health. My recollection is that those statements were made in this House as well.

There is reference, I would say…. In the weeks that followed that announcement, there needed to be continued work and understanding — our understanding, as members of the official opposition — as to the status of that work. I believe we had some understanding relating to a trucking contract, which, I think, my recollection, in terms of order of magnitude, is in about the $3 million range on a $1.4 billion project. This is the level of economic reconciliation this government proposed to the Cowichan Tribes.

Now, I appreciate the minister has conveyed the view of the Chief of the Cowichan Tribes. She plays, certainly, a very important role, as she has played in the First Nations justice strategy and the water stewardship announcements. She has a very leading role in this province, including for her peoples. There are other individuals, of course, with that nation that have other roles, like Jon Coleman, as I mentioned.

The minister mentioned a meeting with other nations relating to another hospital project. Certainly, we’ve heard from other nations, as well, in the official opposition. The member for Surrey–White Rock, as the shadow minister for Transportation and Infrastructure, the member for Shuswap, certainly, as the shadow minister for Labour, obviously, the member for Skeena and myself have heard from other nations about their concerns about their ability to work on public infrastructure projects under a community benefits agreement arrangement.

The minister did invite me to explain a little further the concern, and I do have a specific example. And, again, I would say to the minister, there are so many examples, of course, with nations and government. I’ve only cited a few in the time I’ve had here today. We’ve talked about forestry. We’ve talked about clean energy IPP projects. We’ve talked a bit about fisheries. Now we’re talking about construction and labour.

These are four sets of examples. I don’t have enough time to go through all the examples, but I do appreciate the minister’s willingness to at least understand my concerns and questions and address it to the extent that he is able to as the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Again, if the minister’s focus is, and I do recognize it is, relationship with First Nations, as is my focus, I think it’s important we have the clarity and understanding as we continue to proceed with many different arrangements and projects around this province, including ones that First Nations want to participate in on their territories.

I appreciate, again, the minister may not have studied this in as much detail as I have over the last six years. Certainly, in my previous critic roles in Justice and Transportation, I’ve had the opportunity to work with our colleagues to do this.

[6:30 p.m.]

On these public infrastructure projects, there certainly is a community benefits agreement, hence the term. It’s an agreement. The agreement that applies to this project, the Cowichan district regional hospital replacement project, includes the details around the terms for the project. I will say that the CBA general terms include an article relating to Indigenous peoples — not contractors, but peoples.

Again, when I read that against article 17, we’re talking about Indigenous peoples. Now, I will say that the word in article 17…. This is the drafting of the UN declaration of rights of Indigenous peoples at that level, over many years, by many countries. There are some drafting inconsistencies, but let’s just say, for discussion purposes, that when they say Indigenous individuals, they mean Indigenous peoples, because that’s what they say in the next article, 18.

This section 9.5…. I appreciate the minister does not have a copy of this agreement in front of him. I’m sure he doesn’t. But just for discussion purposes, it relates to how the parties agree that there should be a partnership with Indigenous communities and Indigenous organizations, and that for existing projects, of which the Cowichan hospital is one, Indigenous contractors or Indigenous persons working on the project can get a permit, effectively, to work on the project.

When it does so…. The effect of that is the specific union requirements. That is to ensure that the workers, Indigenous or non-Indigenous, who work on the project, belong, within 30 days, to those 19 building trade unions identified by this government in order to work on the project — that that wouldn’t apply, in effect.

I will just draw to the attention of the minister that when there was an addendum placed on this project, in the terms, as it was amended about a year ago, there was a specific action taken to remove the application of that section to this project. Within the oversight on this project, that is, in my view, a discriminatory labour condition. There was a specific step that, within the structure of government through AIRCC and BCIB, removed specifically the application of that provision to this project. This is something that John Coleman tried to communicate publicly in a statement a number of weeks ago.

In my view, this is an exact example of why there’s been a violation of the minimum standard set out as an interpretive tool in a holistic manner under UNDRIP. If we’re saying to Indigenous peoples that they don’t have that benefit, they’re effectively being constrained in their abilities to work on this project, because now they have to go join those 19 building trade unions recognized by this government solely.

That restricts the ability and the opportunity for John Coleman, as an Indigenous contractor, and his employees, who’ve been working in construction for years, together, in their abilities to work on a project like this. That’s the concern, as an example, as to how article 17 has not been adhered to in the context of this Cowichan regional hospital.

I know that I’m talking about a lot of detail here, and the minister may just stay within his comfort zone, let’s say, in terms of his response. I appreciate that.

[6:35 p.m.]

I also wanted this opportunity to go through the detail with the minister beyond what was done in question period. There has been public expression of this concern by John Coleman himself. We have certainly tried to amplify that publicly, as members of the official opposition.

Here in estimates process, given the nature of discussion we’re having about economic livelihood under UNDRIP, I wanted to draw this to the attention of the minister and ask for the minister’s further comment about this concern.

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the member going on in this estimates process about an issue that is an important public policy issue. Unfortunately, it’s not one that my ministry is the right ministry to address it to, because it’s something that the Minister of Health is fully engaged in.

I know the member says that it may not be within my comfort zone, to use his expression, to reply. I think the member would agree I’ve done my best to talk about his questions in the purview of forestry, clean energy, federal fisheries policy and now construction. I’m doing my best to get right out of my comfort zone, and I’ll continue to do that.

But if my answers aren’t as nuanced and complete as you would expect, I hope the member will provide me some latitude, because they have virtually nothing to do with my ministry and its estimates process, which is what we are here to do. I do appreciate the latitude that is allowed for these debates and getting into specific issues such as this.

I’ve been in the House when the party opposite has gone on against and railed against community benefits agreements. I’ve heard them use pejorative terms to describe them. I tend to take a very, very different…. I’m very proud of the fact our government is trying to provide the benefits of construction to local communities. I’m very proud of the fact that non-traditional workers in construction and Indigenous people have yielded considerable benefit from those agreements.

The member may, as an ideological reason, oppose them, oppose unions — I don’t know quite what. But I can assure the member we are doing our best to provide economic opportunities in the construction business, in this example and in so many other areas across the province. Just by way of example, in the last four years, we have provided economic development funds, funds that have never been provided by the former government — the government of the party that he is part of. Never done in the past.

[6:40 p.m.]

Gitanyow, $7 million. Tahltan, $16 million. Carrier Sek­ani, $70 million. Lake Babine Nation, $30 million. And just last year $1.2 million, in cooperation with the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, to create a centre of excellence in economic development.

Now, I take the member to a higher plane because we are…. The examples he has used today have been about economic development.

As I say, some things we can do, and are doing, on the ground, in British Columbia, within our constitutional powers. The fish farm example is one where…. I’m at pains to understand how I can effectively answer that question, given the decision at issue was one made by another government.

M. Lee: I heard the minister. We will resist the urge to have debate on any…. I think he used the words “pejorative terms.”

Certainly, just to clarify, the concern, as I hope the minister would recognize, is that these community benefits agreements only favour the 19 building trade unions, certain unions that are aligned with this government. Workers that belong to other unions, representing 85 percent of the workforce, don’t belong to these unions.

We’re talking about fairness, not the discriminatory nature of the CBA regime. Certainly, as much as government would like to portray it that way, it’s not for any lack of respect for unions themselves and the workers of this province.

When the Teamsters, for example, are given the specific responsibility and the site management for this project and there’s a blockage of the ability of an Indigenous contractor and workers to work on the project, that’s a concern. That’s what we’re expressing.

I know the minister will want to talk about the other economic initiatives of government. So perhaps, as we get through the balance of today, I could just ask the minister to now comment on the status of the economic metrics that are being utilized to evaluate the progress as reconciliation has advanced. This is action item 4.42.

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for the question. It is one within our purview — that is to say, the action plan.

The member asked for comments on the status of action plan item 4.42. Perhaps I should read what the member is alluding to.

[6:45 p.m.]

It is, again, co-developed with our Indigenous partners. This is an action, like the others, that we have undertaken in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples. I want to start, always, with that. This isn’t the government saying, “This is what the government will do,” as so often is the case. Every one of these 89 actions was the product of intense engagement with Indigenous peoples. I’m very proud of that, and it needs to be reiterated.

This one says we will: “Co-develop economic metrics to help evaluate progress as reconciliation is advanced. The baseline data will begin to address the persistent gap in Indigenous-specific economic metrics and, through this co-designed effort, build a comprehensive set of data to measure Indigenous economic well-being and track progress over time.” That is a responsibility both of my ministry and the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation.

I think it’s fair to say, first of all, that nationally — I believe the member will agree with me — the data that exists for Indigenous-specific metrics is very, very limited. It’s a national problem, and we need to address it nationally, ideally. It’s going to take time to get the data we need to do the job. That is why this is a specific, stand-alone item. It’s one that we have a lot of work to do on.

I think it’s important also to acknowledge we are in less than year 1 of a five-year commitment. This work is going on right now. Our assistant deputy minister, who has joined us, has this very much on her plate as a serious part of her mandate, and we’re going to get the job done. But I am not here to sugar-coat the difficulty. This is a serious national problem — my federal colleagues acknowledge as well — that must be addressed head-on, and we’re doing that.

M. Lee: Recognizing we are completing year 1 of a five-year plan, and I appreciate the level of work that’s involved here and what’s not there nationally as well, three questions.

One would be: what does that work look like in terms of how it proceeds with the federal government resources? Two is: are there indications as to the kinds of categories of economic metrics that are being considered? Three is: how does this focus on economic metrics relate to other metrics within this action plan in terms of the interconnectivity with some of the social, health and justice metrics as well?

Hon. M. Rankin: I thank the member for his question. In the actual action plan, we say the following.

“The province will work with Indigenous peoples to identify suitable tools, indicators and measures for monitoring, assessing and reporting progress on implementation of the Declaration Act. Progress under the action plan will be reviewed on an annual basis and publicly reported in an annual report that will be prepared in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples and submitted to the B.C. Legislature by June 30 each year. The action plan will be comprehensively updated within five years.”

[6:50 p.m.]

I read that into the record because I think it’s significant to note that we are in the process of doing that now and must have this done by June 30 — that is, the annual report — but we continue to work on tools, indicators and measures for monitoring, assessing and reporting progress.

The reason for that is very simple. We don’t want to fight about what we…. We want to fight about things that reasonable people might differ on, but we want to be talking the same language so we’re not differing about what the metric is, what the measurement device is. There’s a lot of hard social science that goes into that. When we disagree, we will be disagreeing on a level playing field, rather than fighting about what we disagree with in terms of even the vocabulary. That is why this, I think, was signaled as a significant commitment.

What about the progress, the member asks, in terms of implementation? Well, our ministry is working closely with other ministries to track the progress on action implementation so we can put it in the next annual report. The ministries are also, of course, engaged fully with Indigenous partners to develop appropriate progress measures for the actions that those other ministries are leading. We think the progress measures for year 1 actions will be included in the upcoming annual report, which is due to come out shortly.

We’ll also be exploring with Indigenous partners the approaches to measure progress and impact of the action plan as a whole, which could inform the renewal of the action plan after the five-year mark. Early conversations have begun on this with the First Nations Leadership Council, Métis Nation B.C. and the Alliance of Modern Treaty Nations. That’s going to continue after we release the 2022-2023 annual reports.

I think it’s really important to emphasize that Indigenous partners are fully engaged in developing these metrics right now, and I think we’re getting to a better place. I don’t underestimate, and I think the member would agree, the importance of this work and the difficulty of this work, but we’re doing it. We’re doing it in partnership with our other ministries and, of course, with Indigenous peoples.

I move that the committee rise and report progress of the estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:52 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

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

Hon. B. Bailey moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:53 p.m.